Search Results

Search found 5 results on 1 pages for '3par'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• Why do you use a 3PAR SAN? [closed]

  - by Starfish

  If you use a 3PAR SAN, I’d like to hear what you think about it, particularly compared to the HP EVA. What do you see as its advantages over other SANs like the EVA? What’s so special about the ASIC? We had HP quote us an EVA P6500 and 3PAR V400 with equivalent storage and the 3PAR was nearly twice the cost. My site has two EVA SANs with a combined capacity of ~80 TB. We want to replace the older and larger of the two. We’ve been looking at the EVA and the 3PAR to see which would be a better fit for us. I’m struggling to understand how the 3PAR differs from the EVA from a practical technical standpoint. When I read the sales literature and speak with the HP sales engineers, they spend a lot of time talking about how the 3PAR is better because of its ASIC. It’s ASIC this and ASIC that, but when I press them on how a 3PAR with thin provisioning is better than an EVA with thin provisioning, I can’t get a straight answer. Meanwhile, one of my colleagues, who has more say regarding which SAN we get, is enamored by the 3PAR, and he can’t explain clearly to me why he wants it over the EVA. Our needs are pretty simple. We have 10 servers running VMware and ~100 VMs. We use VMware’s thin provisioning currently, but we would like to start using thin provisioning on the new SAN. We don’t have a need for SSDs or migration between storage tiers. We plan on having FC or SAS drives for our most used data and SATA/FATA drives for the lesser used data which is how we have the EVAs configured. We also do not need any SAN-level snapshotting or replication.

  Read the article

• Understanding RedHats recommended tuned profiles

  - by espenfjo

  We are going to roll out tuned (and numad) on ~1000 servers, the majority of them being VMware servers either on NetApp or 3Par storage. According to RedHats documentation we should choose the virtual-guestprofile. What it is doing can be seen here: tuned.conf We are changing the IO scheduler to NOOP as both VMware and the NetApp/3Par should do sufficient scheduling for us. However, after investigating a bit I am not sure why they are increasing vm.dirty_ratio and kernel.sched_min_granularity_ns. As far as I have understood increasing increasing vm.dirty_ratio to 40% will mean that for a server with 20GB ram, 8GB can be dirty at any given time unless vm.dirty_writeback_centisecsis hit first. And while flushing these 8GB all IO for the application will be blocked until the dirty pages are freed. Increasing the dirty_ratio would probably mean higher write performance at peaks as we now have a larger cache, but then again when the cache fills IO will be blocked for a considerably longer time (Several seconds). The other is why they are increasing the sched_min_granularity_ns. If I understand it correctly increasing this value will decrease the number of time slices per epoch(sched_latency_ns) meaning that running tasks will get more time to finish their work. I can understand this being a very good thing for applications with very few threads, but for eg. apache or other processes with a lot of threads would this not be counter-productive?

  Read the article

• Cannot extend existing data disk over 2TB on windows 2008 with dynamic and gpt part

  - by DJYod

  As my D: disk is almost full (2TB) I extended the FC lun to 2.5TB. The new 500Go are seen by windows as "Unalloacted" as expected. I tried to extend the volume but windows says "The is not enough space available on the disk(s) to complete this operation" I read on the web that the disk should be configured as GPT and as a dynamic and it's already a dynamic gpt disk... How can I extend my disk without any data loss? My operating system is Windows 2008 R2 x64 SP1 and the SAN a 3PAR I hope someone can help me :) Thank you very much

  Read the article

• The Oracle Enterprise Linux Software and Hardware Ecosystem

  - by sergio.leunissen

  It's been nearly four years since we launched the Unbreakable Linux support program and with it the free Oracle Enterprise Linux software. Since then, we've built up an extensive ecosystem of hardware and software partners. Oracle works directly with these vendors to ensure joint customers can run Oracle Enterprise Linux. As Oracle Enterprise Linux is fully--both source and binary--compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), there is minimal work involved for software and hardware vendors to test their products with it. We develop our software on Oracle Enterprise Linux and perform full certification testing on Oracle Enterprise Linux as well. Due to the compatibility between Oracle Enterprise Linux and RHEL, Oracle also certifies its software for use on RHEL, without any additional testing. Oracle Enterprise Linux tracks RHEL by publishing freely downloadable installation media on edelivery.oracle.com/linux and updates, bug fixes and security errata on Unbreakable Linux Network (ULN). At the same time, Oracle's Linux kernel team is shaping the future of enterprise Linux distributions by developing technologies and features that matter to customers who deploy Linux in the data center, including file systems, memory management, high performance computing, data integrity and virtualization. All this work is contributed to the Linux and Xen communities. The list below is a sample of the partners who have certified their products with Oracle Enterprise Linux. If you're interested in certifying your software or hardware with Oracle Enterprise Linux, please contact us via [email protected] Chip Manufacturers Intel, Intel Enabled Server Acceleration Alliance AMD Server vendors Cisco Unified Computing System Dawning Dell Egenera Fujitsu HP Huawei IBM NEC Sun/Oracle Storage Systems, Volume Management and File Systems 3Par Compellent EMC VPLEX FalconStor Fusion-io Hitachi Data Systems HP Storage Array Systems Lustre Network Appliance OCFS2 PillarData Symantec Veritas Storage Foundation Networking: Switches, Host Bus Adapters (HBAs), Converged Network Adapters (CNAs), InfiniBand Brocade Emulex Mellanox QLogic Voltaire SOA and Middleware ActiveState ActivePerl, ActivePython Tibco Zend Backup, Recovery & Replication Arkeia Network Backup Suite BakBone NetVault CommVault Simpana 8 EMC Networker, Replication Manager FalconStor Continuous Data Protector HP Data Protector NetApp Snapmanager Quest LiteSpeed Engine Steeleye Data Replication, Disaster Recovery Symantec NetBackup, Veritas Volume Replicator, Symantec Backup Exec Zmanda Amanda Enterprise Data Center Automation BMC CA Unicenter HP Server Automation (formerly Opsware), System Management Homepage Oracle Enterprise Manager Ops Center Quest Vizioncore vFoglight Pro TeamQuest Manager Clustering & High Availability FUJITSU x10sure NEC Express Cluster X Steeleye Lifekeeper Symantec Cluster Server Univa UniCluster Virtualization Platforms and Cloud Providers Amazon EC2 Citrix XenServer Rackspace Cloud VirtualBox VMWare ESX Security Management ArcSight: Enterprise Security Manager, Logger CA Access Control Centrify Suite Ecora Auditor FoxT Manager Likewise: Unix Account Management Lumension Endpoint Management and Security Suite QualysGuard Suite Quest Privilege Manager McAfee Application Control, Change ControlIntegrity Monitor, Integrity Control, PCI Pro Solidcore S3 Symantec Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) Tripwire Trusted Computer Solutions

  Read the article

• 150 TB and growing, but how to grow?

  - by seandavi

  My group currently has two largish storage servers, both NAS running debian linux. The first is an all-in-one 24-disk (SATA) server that is several years old. We have two hardware RAIDS set up on it with LVM over those. The second server is 64 disks divided over 4 enclosures, each a hardware RAID 6, connected via external SAS. We use XFS with LVM over that to create 100TB useable storage. All of this works pretty well, but we are outgrowing these systems. Having build two such servers and still growing, we want to build something that allows us more flexibility in terms of future growth, backup options, that behaves better under disk failure (checking the larger filesystem can take a day or more), and can stand up in a heavily concurrent environment (think small computer cluster). We do not have system administration support, so we administer all of this ourselves (we are a genomics lab). So, what we seek is a relatively low-cost, acceptable performance storage solution that will allow future growth and flexible configuration (think ZFS with different pools having different operating characteristics). We are probably outside the realm of a single NAS. We have been thinking about a combination of ZFS (on openindiana, for example) or btrfs per server with glusterfs running on top of that if we do it ourselves. What we are weighing that against is simply biting the bullet and investing in Isilon or 3Par storage solutions. Any suggestions or experiences are appreciated.

  Read the article

1