|
Be prepared for a very long RAID build on that size drive... especially
since there will be data on the drives.
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:38 PM, John Jones<chianime@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> DrFranken, so is what you're describing the following:
> 1. GO SAVE/21
> 2. End RAID5 *At this point the system has no protection from disk
> failures*
> 3. Disk-by-disk, logically remove each 70GB disk via SST, replace it with a
> 280GB, and add the 280GB to the ASP
> 4. Do a load source migration type of trick to move the load source
> 5. Re-establish RAID5 to gain protection from disk failure
> 6. Probably do some form of STRASPBAL when done
>
> Re: Item 5: IDK about 525s but on our Power5+ 570 we IPL one V6R1 LPAR from
> 280GB SCSI disks (4329s on a 2780).
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 1:54 PM, DrFranken<midrange@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Yes. (this is totally crazy)> case.
> >
> > You will need to take the system down during part of this at least.
> >
> > 1) You cannot use a 140 or 280GB Drive to replace a 70GB drive in a RAID
> > set. Even if you could (as some vendors allow) it would be treated as a
> > 70GB drive.
> >
> > 2) You cannot replace the Load Source disk unit without an IPL in any
> >> set.
> > 3) Replacing drives in the manner of which you speak can mostly be done
> > live but YOU ARE EXPOSED during 100% of the swapping. A disk failure
> > between the beginning of 'STOP RAID' to the completion of 'START RAID'
> > at the end means *RELOAD. As a consequence a SAVE 21 (maybe 2?) before
> > you start is mandatory and if the system is running production you still
> > could lose that. It can work but not without at least one IPL PER DISK
> > PULL. (More than one disk could be pulled at a time.)
> >
> > 4) NOte that if you are on V7R1 the disks can be completely removed
> > without an IPL (except the Load Source.)
> >
> > 5) I do not believe you can IPL from a 280GB Disk unit on a 525. There
> > was a restriction there and I*think* it's still there for SCSI drives.
> > So 140 GB units are best choice.
> >
> > - Larry 'DrFranken' Bolhuis
> >
> > On 7/15/2011 2:03 PM, Johnny Lee Lenhart wrote:
> > > Hi there:
> > >
> > > We have a 9406-525 with 8 4327 (70 GB) disk drives in a single RAID
> slots> > > The drives are in the system enclosure and there are no additional
> > > available. We are at 85% DASD utilization.
> > >
> > > We have an idea for increasing our DASD capacity without taking our
> > > system down. Our thought is that we could fail one of the 4327 drives,
> > > replace it with a 4328 (140 GB) or 4329 (280 GB) and let the RAID
> > > controller rebuild it, and that we could do this one-by-one until we
> > > have replaced all of the drives, thus doubling or tripling our current
> > > DASD.
> > >
> > > Is this totally crazy? One person I've talked with suggested that you
> > > can't have mixed sized disks in one RAID array, but our network admin
> > > thinks we did have this in an 810 we used to run. Someone else thought
> > > that we might have issues increasing our DASD capacity without
> > > increasing disk arms, but our current performance metrics don't seem to
> > > support that concern. At any rate, we are willing to take that risk.
> > > Our main interest right now is answering the question about whether or
> > > not this disk-at-a-time replacement into the same RAID array is
> > > possible. We really can't afford to have our system down for the time
> > > it would take to do the backup/change disks/restore method.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Johnny Lee Lenhart
> > > Sr. Technical Specialist
> > > Brattleboro Memorial
> > > Hospital
> > > Brattleboro, Vermont USA
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.