Hallo Thanks for your feedbacks. I got a 300 GB replacement disk from Cisco. I changed the disks in the Server, but the new (300GB) shoes as failed in CMIC. I am waiting for a replacement from the support.
Regards Reto Lelio Fulgenzi <[email protected]> schrieb am Mi. 15. Nov. 2017 um 17:15: > Thanks for laying it out Ryan. > > > > > > *From:* Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:57 AM > *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Charles Goldsmith <[email protected]>; cisco-voip list < > [email protected]> > > > *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] UCS C210 Replace 146 GB Disk in RAID5 with > 300 GB Disk > > > > The 4 arrays on BE7K also have an impact on IOPS for the volume, though > the servers are primarily built that way for array rebuild times as has > been noted previously in this thread. > > > > On that server especially while one volume may be fine from a space > perspective note that the amount of IOPS for DAS is derived from the number > of disk spindles in the array. > > This means it is entirely possible to cause IO starvation problems on a > BE7K by putting all the VMs on a single storage volume. > > Spreading your VMs across the arrays will provide you protection against > multiple disk failures (because they are RAID 5) AND spread the IOPS load > across them. > > > > With respect to rebuilding a TRC’s RAID5 into RAID6 or RAID10 that server > is no longer classified as a TRC and thus Cisco cannot guarantee the same > level of performance we would otherwise. > > You may be perfectly comfortable with making such a change and willing to > take on the risk, but guaranteeing the server meets the IOPS requirements > of the apps running on it is your responsibility, not ours. > > > > If things go sideways you can expect TAC to ask you to rebuild it to a > RAID5 (or at least one volume) the way it shipped as part of the > troubleshooting process. > > > > -Ryan > > > > On Nov 14, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yeah, I hear ya. I mean, it’s not like there are not advantages, but, > still, the managing of which array to put things in. ugh. > > > > > > *From:* Charles Goldsmith [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 14, 2017 10:48 AM > *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Ryan Huff <[email protected]>; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] UCS C210 Replace 146 GB Disk in RAID5 with > 300 GB Disk > > > > Lelio, if you are using those be7k's for UC apps, your limiting factor is > always the CPU cores, you won't run out of drive space. Also, the be7K-h > is a workhorse of a server, fastest one I've ever built a cluster on. 4 > independent arrays means you can easily do maintenance on one app without > affecting the performance of another, assuming you separate your apps > between arrays and stagger them out. I did 4 simultaneous installs on one, > each app on it's own partition and they were all done in under 2 hours. > > > > Sadly, the pricepoint on the H isn't there for most customers. the M is > nice, but only has 2 of the arrays, but I'll take an H for an install any > day! > > > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The idea of RAID drives and managing the different volumes always had me > on the fence on how to do things. In a perfect world, I’d stick with one > big RAID 6 array with a spare on the shelf. > > > > The BE7K servers I ordered were delivered with 4 RAID 5 arrays. > Personally, while I can appreciate separating the arrays, I don’t like > losing that extra space and managing which volume to put images on is a > pain. > > > > I’ll admit, I looked at RAID 10 (when I was first reading the TRC specs) > and was confused to heck. I did finally understand things after referring > to a colleague, but it was a lot of drawing out. > > > > I will say this, RAID isn’t gonna protect you if you don’t have platform > monitoring on. You need to know the second a drive fails so you can proceed > accordingly. > > > > Also, if the ever do construction in your computer room, do yourself a > favour, go to the hardware store, buy a 9.99 loose fibre furnace filter and > stick it in front of your air intakes. > > > > > > > > *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf > Of *Charles Goldsmith > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:48 AM > *To:* Ryan Huff <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] UCS C210 Replace 146 GB Disk in RAID5 with > 300 GB Disk > > > > I've seen one URE fail in a raid 5 resilvering process, years ago on a DG > system. Had to rebuild and restore from backup, fun times. > > > > I agree Ryan, on a TRC system and RMA a drive, you stick with it. > > > > From my reading on TRC, you can rebuild as a RAID 10 and get faster > speeds, but you lose some space in the process. > > > > On my personal systems, I'm using RAID 10 everywhere. > > > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Ryan Huff <[email protected]> wrote: > > As I’ve read and understood; it isn’t due to actual functionality though. > It is as you say, due mostly to longer rebuild times (indexing a physically > larger geometry than the rest of the array members, for a smaller logical > geometry) and the risk (rare IMO) to the rest of the array (as a rebuild > will stress the array and could cause other, near-death disks to fail > thereby causing the array to fail). It also wastes the extra horsepower of > the disk since the existing RAID can’t capitalize on the resources of the > larger disk. > > > > So in a case of, would you go out and buy a new disk that way .... I’d say > no; but if that is the result of a covered RMA, I’d say go for it. > > > > I’m no diskologist though ... just based on my own experiences of what has > worked for me for the last couple of decades ... and I’ve never lost a > server ... outside of that one time when my pants pocket snagged the > release on the 2nd disk in a R5 on my way out the door ... bad memories. > > -Ryan > > > On Nov 14, 2017, at 9:03 AM, Charles Goldsmith <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Keep in mind, RAID 5 is ok for smaller disks, but larger disks it's no > longer recommended, but sadly, the best article about it is from Dell: > http://en.community.dell.com/techcenter/b/techcenter/archive/2012/08/14/new-equallogic-raid-tech-report-considerations-and-best-practices-released > > > > With bigger disks, it's even said that RAID 6 is no longer good enough, > due to large rebuild times in case of a failure. > http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/why-raid-6-stops-working-in-2019/805 > > > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Ryan Huff <[email protected]> wrote: > > Reto, > > Seek/rpm speeds and media type (flash, sata ... etc) are usually what > matter the most for RAID disks. If your only difference is total storage > capacity, the bigger disk will usually work just fine, your just gonna > waste the additional 154GB of space (because the RAID will only provision > 146GB of that 300GB disk). > > > > Just remember on a RAID 5, don’t pull/lose more that 1 disk at a time .... > painful lesson long ago I share over beer every now and then. > > > > -Ryan > > > On Nov 14, 2017, at 8:23 AM, Reto Gassmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hallo > > > > We have a UCS C210 Server with 10x146 GB Disks. One of the Disks failed > and I got a 300 GB replacement Disk from Cisco. > > > > Is that a problem if I replace the defect 146 Disk in the RAID 5 with a > 300 GB Disk? > > > > Thanks for help > > Regards Reto > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-voip mailing list > [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-voip mailing list > [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-voip mailing list > [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-voip mailing list > [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip >
_______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
