From: Saxon, Lamar (Lamar.Saxon@AMERICREDIT.COM)
Date: Mon Jun 24 2002 - 14:14:09 EDT
Not meaning to burst a bubble, but:
1. You cannot easily migrate existing SSA into an ESS. Not a very clean
method nor are all drives supported.. You cannot simply put the drawers
into an ESS, you would add them to an expansion chassis and wire it into the
ESS. This is speaking from experience. You cannot use them to fill the
base frame. Your storage sales person would have told you the same.
2. You would use a Vicom Slic Router to connect the SSA to the SAN. SAN
gateways/routers convert SCSI, not SSA.
We currently have an ESS and a FastT 700 ( Intel only on the 700 ). Our
DBAs love the performance of our ESS especially with the 16GB read cache &
4GB write cache. We are moving more applications to it as time permits.
Just wanted to dispel the myths.
Thanks !
Lamar
-----Original Message-----
From: Pugliese, Edward [mailto:s11018@SLK.COM]
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 11:50 AM
To: aix-l@Princeton.EDU
Subject: Re: SAN question
My understanding from IBM is that if you buy an ESS, you can fold in
existing D40 drawers once you fill the base cabinet and start using an
expansion cabinet. That way you protect some of the cost of existing SSA
storage.
I have not done this yet so take it with a grain of salt.
You could also connect SSA to SAN with SAN Data Gateway (again I have not
done this).
-----Original Message-----
From: Green, Simon [mailto:SGreen@KRAFTEUROPE.COM]
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 12:25 PM
To: aix-l@Princeton.EDU
Subject: Re: SAN question
At our largest site we're in transition at the moment, with some SAN, (ESS,
mostly; some HDS, I think) and some SSA. The target, though is a single
SAN, with ESS and tape libraries attached to it, available to all systems,
(including Windows, although I think that'll just be the tape libraries).
Not every server will actually be attached to the SAN: some - like SAP
Application instances - don't need external storage.
Other sites aren't large enough to justify the cost of SAN, or have too
large an existing investment in SSA. (Starting from scratch, we'd get a
Shark, but the cost of replacing a few TB of SSA is prohibitive.)
It seems sensible if you're going to have a SAN that you have one big one
rather than several small ones and don't use non-SAN hardware. You avoid
duplication of hardware, which can reduce costs. Also, I think that
administration is simpler when everything is in one place. Things like SSA
are easier to administer in principle, but can become quite complicated IME.
Simon Green
Philip Morris ITSC Europe
AIX-L Archive at http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=aix-l&r=1&w=2
AIX FAQ at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/aix-faq/
N.B. Unsolicited email from vendors will seldom be appreciated.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vincent D'Antonio [mailto:Vincent.D'Antonio@BISYS.COM]
> Sent: 24 June 2002 16:21
> To: aix-l@Princeton.EDU
> Subject: SAN question
>
>
> good day AIX'ers,
> been having a discussion on a SAN here, looking to get HDS 9980 in. I
> would like to put all systems to the SAN. We run sybase as
> our DB. the
> question I have is:
>
> does anyone have a SAN where all your systems (pro, dev,
> test....) are in a
> central SAN or are you split up one SAN for pro and one for everything
> else? If you broke pro out did you use a SAN or something
> cheaper (SSA)
> and easier for administration?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Wed Apr 09 2008 - 22:16:00 EDT