|
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:16 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: SAN was RE: system p announcement (Crump, Mike)
That must be why the AM Generals of the world have 1,000+
AS/400's also, right?
Rob Berendt
--
Group Dekko Services, LLC
Dept 01.073
PO Box 2000
Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com
"Ingvaldson, Scott" <scott.ingvaldson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
11/08/2007 10:09 AM
Please respond to
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To
"Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Fax to
Subject
RE: SAN was RE: system p announcement (Crump, Mike)
Redundancy.
(Ducking and Running)
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Lewis [mailto:chuck.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 8:07 AM
To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'
Subject: RE: SAN was RE: system p announcement (Crump, Mike)
200+ Windows servers ? What all are they used for ?
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Michael_Smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 8:43 AM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: SAN was RE: system p announcement (Crump, Mike)
from: "Crump, Mike" <Mike.Crump@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>?subject: SAN was RE: system p announcement
">Time. I manage multiple terabytes of data (db2, Domino,
etc.) and by
my
calculations I use .03 of an FTE to manage anything that isrelated to
storage (space, backups, performance, etc.) My belief is that a SANwithout reducing
will require much more care and feeding than .03. I'm not knocking
benefits by any stretch. I just can't afford to do so
efforts in another area. Yes that is .03, not .3. And that's not
because I'm some wiz (especially since my wife tells me I'm not) I
think that is typical in most System i installations."
True, it is another piece of equipemnt so there will be some
administration. We have a z9 attached to an old shark (F20), an 810
with about 1 TB of internal and an EMC Clarion SAN with hundreds of
Windows and a smattering of Novell.
IBM came in an set up the Shark with a bunch of MOD 3 3390's and we
haven't touched it in over four years. The 810 has had a little work
done to it with some ASPs but for the most part, it just sits there.
The EMC SAN (18 TB) on the other hand is some work, but that certainly
no to imply we have someone dedicated to storage. Just seems that the
explosion on Windows severs is more the issue than the SAN technology.
If I had hundreds of IXS cards, I'd still have to spend some time
getting the storage spaces created and attached, grow the volumes
because no one ever deletes anything on a PC server.
">SAN ownership - SAN's are typically owned by non-System i
admin types.
This means that problem determination may span multiple bodies. Asexist in
well as ongoing support etc. It adds complexity that didn't
the internal storage world. Not a problem of SAN's but a reality of
our world I think."
I agree and who's SAN you have and the tools they have to help you
determine problems is a very important feature that is sometimes
overlooked. Every one worries about scalability because they
can 'hide'
from troubleshooting if the box can handle a bunch of IOPS.
I believe most businesses don't come near the high IOPS.
Next they look
at how much disk they can cram into it, looking at the interface to
create LUNs and assign them to host...
all the while forgetting that if they have to troubleshoot something
they might be out of luck.
Our first SAN (HP) would only set you look at current stats..
Hit enter.
That's how the SAN
is performing. Hit enter. That's how it performing now...
No trending
whatsoever.
">Visibility - I don't believe the current tools allow a System i
administrator good visibility into the performancecharacteristics of a
SAN. You have those today with internal disks. If there isa question
of performance issues you again have to span differenttechnologies and
potentially different people."
See above. There are some vendors that have decent tools.
We're in the
process of looking at a new DS6800, EMC DMX or a Hitachi
unit. They all
have some things to help with troubleshooting and we're just
getting to
the point of looking at those tools.
">Cost to transition - hard for me to explain but as we make
some system
changes I sometimes have to carry over older drives in order to keepnone-the-less."
costs flat. Every time I've looked at a potential SAN solution it
tends to put me in a cost increase situation. It's a blip and over
time you should be able to decrease costs but it's a hurdle
Cost. We all know the System i disk prices. After the upfront cost of
the cabinet and controllers (we still have to buy expansion cabinets,
raid controllers and such for the System i), the cost of the disk is
substantially cheaper. Plus, if you have more than an System i in the
shop you have the flexability to slide that resource around.
There are
some restrictions on most SANs sliding a disk unit from Mainframe to
OpenSystems and System i but it can be done if needed.
">My stick in the mud pricing attitude - SAN storage is
almost a must in
other environments and I think other systems gain much more from aI should
functionality and cost standpoint. Therefore I always think
have to pay less for any SAN storage that is attached to a System i."
I'd say fairly accurate, but for heavy System i shops. When you start
to get a bunch of Window servers (we have about 200 to 225 Windows
server), then that arguement (IMO) isn't that strong.
Replication. I know there are software vendors out there
that have cool
products, but from a DR prospective a SAN has alot to offer. You
replicate at the controller level and set sync point for all you
platforms. If you declare, you bring up your hosts at the remote site
(and those would be "Capacity Backup models" - read cheaper to have at
remote site because their not allow to be powered up except
for testing
and DR) and all applications across multiple platforms are at a
consistency point or sync point. To me, that really big.
Michael
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
(MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
(MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
