Hello,

does anyone of you ever used a HP EVA (4000 series) or EMC² Clariion
(CX300) storage?

Accordingly to our requirements a partner recommended us this two
systems (both with FC-disks/FC-Switches).

I am interested in:

- How satisified are you with your EVA (4000) or Clariion (CX300) or both?
- What about the performance?
- Which one would you recommend?
- What about the managment-interface?

Regards,
Chris

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Chris" <chris@etelnet.at> skrev i meddelandet news:dr54mg$na2$1@etel.at...
> Hello,
>
> does anyone of you ever used a HP EVA (4000 series) or EMC² Clariion
> (CX300) storage?
>
> Accordingly to our requirements a partner recommended us this two systems
> (both with FC-disks/FC-Switches).
>
> I am interested in:
>
> - How satisified are you with your EVA (4000) or Clariion (CX300) or both?
> - What about the performance?
> - Which one would you recommend?
> - What about the managment-interface?
>
> Regards,
> Chris

I have used both, and I'm formally trained on both. That said, I have more
experience with the EVA thant the Clariion. Although they might appear
similar, they're miles apart. To me, the EVA is _outstanding_ the better
choice, with it's virtualization across all disks in the array. The Clariion
is a far more traditional array with raid groups, and I find the management
much better on the EVA, because there's so little to manage. Proponents for
the Clariion say the EVA management lack instrumentation, and I guess that's
true if you like to spend your working day trying to tweak it manually. The
EVA is largely automised, the controller does most things for you.
Performance wise, I would say either would be enough for their target
markets (SMB). I think the Clariion has somewhat better stats, but those
become less relevant in a real-world workload. The EVA is transaction
oriented, and if you're in a bandwidth constrained environment, it might not
be the best choice.
The management interface for the Clariion is a windows applicaiton, whilst
the EVA uses a mangement server with a web interface. In that regard, I
would favour the Clariion since it doesn't need a management server. Or
rather, the management server (which is Windows based) is built into the
controller.

/c

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Charles Morrall schrieb:
> "Chris" <chris@etelnet.at> skrev i meddelandet news:dr54mg$na2$1@etel.at..
.
> 
>
>
> I have used both, and I'm formally trained on both. That said, I have more
> experience with the EVA thant the Clariion. Although they might appear
> similar, they're miles apart. To me, the EVA is _outstanding_ the better
> choice, with it's virtualization across all disks in the array. The Clarii
on
> is a far more traditional array with raid groups, and I find the managemen
t
> much better on the EVA, because there's so little to manage. Proponents fo
r
> the Clariion say the EVA management lack instrumentation, and I guess that
's
> true if you like to spend your working day trying to tweak it manually. Th
e
> EVA is largely automised, the controller does most things for you.
> Performance wise, I would say either would be enough for their target
> markets (SMB). I think the Clariion has somewhat better stats, but those
> become less relevant in a real-world workload. The EVA is transaction
> oriented, and if you're in a bandwidth constrained environment, it might n
ot
> be the best choice.
> The management interface for the Clariion is a windows applicaiton, whilst
> the EVA uses a mangement server with a web interface. In that regard, I
> would favour the Clariion since it doesn't need a management server. Or
> rather, the management server (which is Windows based) is built into the
> controller.

Thanks. You said, the EVA is outstanding for you but you would not
recommend it in an bandwidth constrained enviroment?

What is a bandwidth constrained enviroment for you?

My situation:
=============
Currently i am running many servers with different applications like
cyrus mailserver, postgres and mysql databases, ... ! Each server has
it´s own  storage (DAS). I want to change this enviroment and  use a SAN
to give each server the needed space, have a better backup-restore
policy, virtualization software (e.g. booting directly from SAN), ...!

Regards,
Chris

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

>> become less relevant in a real-world workload. The EVA is transaction 
>
> Thanks. You said, the EVA is outstanding for you but you would not
> recommend it in an bandwidth constrained enviroment?
>
> What is a bandwidth constrained enviroment for you?
>
> My situation:
> =============
> Currently i am running many servers with different applications like cyrus
> mailserver, postgres and mysql databases, ... ! Each server has it´s own
> storage (DAS). I want to change this enviroment and  use a SAN to give
> each server the needed space, have a better backup-restore policy,
> virtualization software (e.g. booting directly from SAN), ...!
>
> Regards,
> Chris

Short answer, most applications in open systems are transaction oriented,
I/O per second is what you want. Data Warehouse is more bandwidth, but the
EVA is still a good fit. If you're doing streaming video and the like,
that's definetely more bandwidth oriented and although an EVA would work, it
might not be ideal.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

> The management interface for the Clariion is a windows application...

On FC700 and older, the management interface was a windows application.
On CX models there is an integrated Web UI, and an optional CLI
available for managment and/or scripting (most scripting involves
changing cache levels on the fly).

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

The management we have on our CX500 is Naviphere 6, both flavours
install, java/web and CLI (command line interface) the gui is good for
most things like creating/deleting LUNs and a reassuring to see is all
is well, however in times of trouble all diagnostic are done through
command line. As this was our first SAN management was quite straight
forward and well documented on the web.
As for the rest of the kit we have had little trouble except for some
initial set up problems and a failed disk.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]