I guess I'm fortunate enough to work in an environment in which the managers manage and they pay myself and the other engineers here to be the subject matter experts on things, and undertake financial decisions as a team.
The discussions I've had with EMC engineers have generally ended up as "stump the engineer" type questions - there are a few things I'd like to be able to do but no one can tell me that it can be done. For instance - when running multiple Exchange[1] servers, create a roving LUN that mounts to the server, then backup Exchange to disk, then disconnect, lather, rinse, repeat. You get rocking fast direct to disk backups, then connect the rover directly to the backup box and rip to tape. Roger ------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] Could just as easily be any database > -----Original Message----- > From: Shea, Linchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 5:45 PM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > I agree with you Roger. But the management may think otherwise. > > Linchi > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 12:15 PM > > To: NT 2000 Discussions > > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > > > > IMO, the *right* answer is to not buy a SAN for generalized > > storage. At the > > current price-per-mb rates of SAN solutions vs. Direct Attached > > Storage(DAS), I can waste a LOT of locally attached storage > > before I break > > even moving to a SAN. > > > > Don't get me wrong - SAN's have their place. I just don't think most > > companies need them. And don't even get me started on NAS > > boxes, either. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Chris Levis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:27 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%% > > > > > > > ------ > > 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]
