|
Home > Archive > Data Storage > November 2004 > HA on EVA
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| Can someone explain to me,
Why need to have 8 trays on EVA to archive redundancy.
And what's the redundancy we talking abotu here ?
thanks
wanni
| |
| net-user.org 2004-11-06, 7:45 am |
| Wanni wrote:
> Can someone explain to me,
>
> Why need to have 8 trays on EVA to archive redundancy.
>
> And what's the redundancy we talking abotu here ?
>
> thanks
> wanni
Hi - could you be a little more specific with the questions.
1 - what type of "HA" are you talking about
2 - Are you talking at a controller disk level, or total availability
3 - are you also including business continuence?
Please clarify
| |
|
| On 4 Nov 2004 19:15:06 -0800, wanni_chua@hotmail.com (Wanni) wrote:
>Can someone explain to me,
>
>Why need to have 8 trays on EVA to archive redundancy.
>
>And what's the redundancy we talking abotu here ?
>
There are many levels of redundancy. In an EVA, f you have only have, say,
two shelves/trays and attempt to do VRAID-5, then you really don't have
redundancy because there is no way to eliminate the bus/tray from taking
out multiple spindles in a VRAID-5 set. VRAID-1 between the two would be
the only way to achieve redundancy.
Having 8 gives the best performance and redundancy. If availability is
important, then it's HP's recommendation to not implement fewer than this.
As you move between 2 and 8, there are different areas where redundancy
isn't achieved.
I believe there are storage & best practices white papers on the HP site
that document the configuration issues.
--- jls
The preceding message was personal opinion only.
I do not speak in any authorized capacity for anyone,
and certainly not my employer.
(get rid of the xxxz in my address to e-mail)
|
|
|
|
|