Take it. Learn it. Put it on your resume.
-----Original Message----- From: Chris Levis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:42 AM To: NT 2000 Discussions Subject: RE: Basic SAN question Well we will have a small number of connected servers, but huge amounts of data (small number of large files). So we'll be creating a minimum number of high-capacity LUNs for a couple file servers. I originally tried the DAS or lots-of-scsi-in-a-Dell argument on the boss, but he's really got a boner for a SAN =) > -----Original Message----- > From: Wes Owen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 12:27 PM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > I am not familiar with a Compaq solution (we use EMC), but > they may have an optimizer or some way of identifying hot > spots on disks and moving the data around to eliminate or > minimize contention. > > We took the approach of dividing up the partitions on the > disks to small sizes to allow us more spindles on each LUN. > This helps to improve performance and allows for more > granular use of the disks. > > Example if you go with 50 GB partitions the smallest portion > you can increase by is 50 Gb we use 9 GB so that we can set > up on 9 GB partitions. > > Just another opinion. Take it as you will. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Levis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 10:27 AM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > Thanks for the warning. > > I do plan on minimizing the number of LUNs, but my boss asked > the question and I wanted to be sure to have the /right/ > answer instead of the /right-now/ answer. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 7:51 AM > > To: NT 2000 Discussions > > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > > > > Chris, > > > > Most vendors will allow you to slice and dice a SAN array > into as many > > LUNs of whatever size you want. Its absolutely the wrong > thing to do, > > but it certainly can be done. > > > > Any time a phisical platter is partitioned, you're going to take a > > performance hit - simply put, the heads can't be in two places at > > once, so if two systems are trying to access data which is > physically > > on the same platter, but logically on different LUNs, there is head > > contention, and one of the two must wait for the other to finish > > "using" the heads, and then pay the additional price of a head seek > > across the platter to its assigned set of cylinders. > > > > In the case of your single 500GB RAID5 set in your SAN being split > > into 300/100/50/50, you have in reality created 4 > partitions on each > > spindle, with 60%/20%/10%/10% split on each spindle. With a large > > number of platters, and larger stripe sizes, its theoretically > > possible to reduce the chances of contention within the SAN, but > > realistically speaking, chances are there is going to be some > > contention, and therefore some performance hits associated with > > managing your disks this way. > > > > Its one of the lies^H^H^H^H omissions commonly done in the sales > > pitches of the big storage vendors. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Chris Levis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 2:07 PM > > > To: NT 2000 Discussions > > > Subject: Basic SAN question > > > > > > > > > If you have a RAID-5 array of (let's say) 500GB, can you > create LUNs > > > of an arbitrary size to be presented to the servers? > E.g, a 300GB, > > > a 100GB, and > > > two 50GB? Or is there a convention that all LUNs have to be > > > a uniform > > > size? > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________________ > > > Chris Levis > > > Applied Geographics, Inc. > > > > > > ------ > > > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > > > > > > ------ > > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > > > ------ > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are > confidential and are intended solely for the use of the > individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are > NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for > delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised > that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, > dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this > e-mail is strictly prohibited. > > > ------ > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > ------ You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% ------ You are subscribed as [email protected] Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
