|
Home > Archive > Data Storage > August 2006 > CX300 versus cx700
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]
| Author |
CX300 versus cx700
|
|
| IR Control 2006-08-15, 7:13 pm |
| Hi,
Just wondering whether anybody can tell the differences betwwen the EMC
CX300 and CX700
apart form the max. capacity which is obvoius deffrence from the
description.
I'd like to know whethere:
- the CX300 is just a scaled down version of the CX700 or the firmware is
different and so on.
- what is the minimum number of disks supported in the CX700
- how big is risk/impact having the CX300 in test envinronment and the CX700
in production
Any practical examples welcome
Thanks
D.
| |
|
| On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:45:12 GMT, "IR Control" wrote:
>Just wondering whether anybody can tell the differences betwwen the EMC
>CX300 and CX700
Yes, I can. :o)
>I'd like to know whethere:
>- the CX300 is just a scaled down version of the CX700 or the firmware is
>different and so on.
Almost, but not quite. The CX300 is less powerful (CPU and less RAM)
and therefore does not support some of the software features supported
by the CX700 - MirrorView, for example. The 300 also has less ability
to push data around internally.
>- what is the minimum number of disks supported in the CX700
I'm pretty sure the minimum number is 5 but ICBW.
>- how big is risk/impact having the CX300 in test envinronment and the CX700
>in production
Depends what you want to test. If you're using MirrorView in
production and want to test its operation in your Dev & Test
enviroment, you're not going to want a CX300. Do you want to run
performance tests?
If you just want the disk layout to be similar and use the same
toolset and commands, then a CX300 would probably be ok.
Hope this helps,
HVB
| |
|
| The CX300 and CX700 both run the FLARE OS. The first five disks of every
Clariion from the CX300 to the new CX3-80 use the first five disk for cache
de-stage and this is the minimum number of disks for all of the arrays. The
CX300/700 will use 6GB on each of the first five disks for its own use so
whatever size disks you choose, you will lose about 30GB from the five disk.
As already noted, the CX300 cannot run all of the array based software that
the CX700 can due to 2 less CPU's and slower CPUs. The CX300 cannot handle
the mirrorview as a source but can be used as a target with an RPQ, that is
and internal EMC blessing.
There is no reason at all why you couldn't use the CX300 as a test/dev box.
whatever runs well on the CX300 will only run faster on the CX700.
Manageability and the interface is the same for the entire Clariion family.
I have many customers doing as you have suggested and other that leverage
the CX700 for both environments, that is, one array for test/dev and
Production. Using Snapview allows for easy refreshing of the test/dev data
directly from production in a matter is seconds or minutes.
Regards,
Rick Mailloux
"IR Control" <ir_control@email.com> wrote in message
news:IKnEg.86$2w1.8@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> Hi,
> Just wondering whether anybody can tell the differences betwwen the EMC
> CX300 and CX700
> apart form the max. capacity which is obvoius deffrence from the
> description.
> I'd like to know whethere:
> - the CX300 is just a scaled down version of the CX700 or the firmware is
> different and so on.
> - what is the minimum number of disks supported in the CX700
> - how big is risk/impact having the CX300 in test envinronment and the
> CX700
> in production
>
> Any practical examples welcome
> Thanks
> D.
>
>
>
>
| |
| Mark Perew 2006-08-28, 1:14 am |
| Rich -
Would I be correct in assuming that all you said is also true for the CX500?
Thanks.
In comp.arch.storage Rick <r.malo@verizon.net> wrote:
> The CX300 and CX700 both run the FLARE OS. The first five disks of every
> Clariion from the CX300 to the new CX3-80 use the first five disk for cache
> de-stage and this is the minimum number of disks for all of the arrays. The
> CX300/700 will use 6GB on each of the first five disks for its own use so
> whatever size disks you choose, you will lose about 30GB from the five disk.
>
> As already noted, the CX300 cannot run all of the array based software that
> the CX700 can due to 2 less CPU's and slower CPUs. The CX300 cannot handle
> the mirrorview as a source but can be used as a target with an RPQ, that is
> and internal EMC blessing.
>
> There is no reason at all why you couldn't use the CX300 as a test/dev box.
> whatever runs well on the CX300 will only run faster on the CX700.
> Manageability and the interface is the same for the entire Clariion family.
>
> I have many customers doing as you have suggested and other that leverage
> the CX700 for both environments, that is, one array for test/dev and
> Production. Using Snapview allows for easy refreshing of the test/dev data
> directly from production in a matter is seconds or minutes.
--
Mark Perew <perew@squeep.com>
To the world you may be just one person,
but to one person you may be the world. (Source Unknown)
|
|
|
|
|