Comments on: What I Want From A Storage Virtualization Engine http://lonesysadmin.net/2006/07/23/what-i-want-from-a-storage-virtualization-engine/ im in ur data centrz patchin ur serverz Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:20:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: tricher au poker en ligne http://lonesysadmin.net/2006/07/23/what-i-want-from-a-storage-virtualization-engine/comment-page-1/#comment-74218 tricher au poker en ligne Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:49:01 +0000 http://lonesysadmin.net/2006/07/23/what-i-want-from-a-storage-virtualization-engine/#comment-74218 <strong>tricher au poker en ligne...</strong> Ainsi casinos web video poker online 24 ringtones show tv poker regeln straight baccarat online spiele... tricher au poker en ligne…

Ainsi casinos web video poker online 24 ringtones show tv poker regeln straight baccarat online spiele…

]]> By: Messaging….. Technology…… Life….. » Virtualization Wish List http://lonesysadmin.net/2006/07/23/what-i-want-from-a-storage-virtualization-engine/comment-page-1/#comment-5449 Messaging….. Technology…… Life….. » Virtualization Wish List Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:31:19 +0000 http://lonesysadmin.net/2006/07/23/what-i-want-from-a-storage-virtualization-engine/#comment-5449 [...] The Lone Sysadmin is not alone in his Storage Virtualization wish list. I agree with some of the things he says and Brian from Steriod.com points out items 1 and 2 are a mix between virtualization and site resiliency. EMC does SRDF/CE for site resiliency, HP, and HDS have their solutions as well. [...] [...] The Lone Sysadmin is not alone in his Storage Virtualization wish list. I agree with some of the things he says and Brian from Steriod.com points out items 1 and 2 are a mix between virtualization and site resiliency. EMC does SRDF/CE for site resiliency, HP, and HDS have their solutions as well. [...]

]]> By: Rick http://lonesysadmin.net/2006/07/23/what-i-want-from-a-storage-virtualization-engine/comment-page-1/#comment-4429 Rick Wed, 26 Jul 2006 05:18:35 +0000 http://lonesysadmin.net/2006/07/23/what-i-want-from-a-storage-virtualization-engine/#comment-4429 Great wishlist. They're pretty consistent with what we've been told by our customers and prospects. I'm pleased to say that most of these (not sure about the RAID-1 request) are part of the design goals for future versions of our storage virtualization. As noted, however, these are not trivial. And, lots of options on how to implement them. We've found that while there's a lot of interest in automation the overwhelming majority of our customers don't want our storage systems to implement changes on their own. Part of the issue is trusting our systems to make good decisions, but much of it is that a human consider other business factors. What most customers want is for our systems to make intelligent recommendations and then let a human make a go/no-go decision. Rick, Product Marketing, Hitachi Data Systems Note that the comments above are personal interpretation and do not necessarily reflect corporate position. Great wishlist. They’re pretty consistent with what we’ve been told by our customers and prospects. I’m pleased to say that most of these (not sure about the RAID-1 request) are part of the design goals for future versions of our storage virtualization. As noted, however, these are not trivial. And, lots of options on how to implement them.

We’ve found that while there’s a lot of interest in automation the overwhelming majority of our customers don’t want our storage systems to implement changes on their own. Part of the issue is trusting our systems to make good decisions, but much of it is that a human consider other business factors. What most customers want is for our systems to make intelligent recommendations and then let a human make a go/no-go decision.

Rick, Product Marketing, Hitachi Data Systems

Note that the comments above are personal interpretation and do not necessarily reflect corporate position.

]]> By: The Lone Sysadmin » Musings on What I Want From Storage Virtualization http://lonesysadmin.net/2006/07/23/what-i-want-from-a-storage-virtualization-engine/comment-page-1/#comment-4371 The Lone Sysadmin » Musings on What I Want From Storage Virtualization Mon, 24 Jul 2006 03:28:23 +0000 http://lonesysadmin.net/2006/07/23/what-i-want-from-a-storage-virtualization-engine/#comment-4371 [...] Brian over at stereoroid.com commented on my last post about what I want from a storage virtualization engine. Brian, I hope you don’t mind but I’d like to answer outside of the comments section. Your comments were not counterpoint, they were more in the realm of adding clarity, something which my other post may have lacked. [...] [...] Brian over at stereoroid.com commented on my last post about what I want from a storage virtualization engine. Brian, I hope you don’t mind but I’d like to answer outside of the comments section. Your comments were not counterpoint, they were more in the realm of adding clarity, something which my other post may have lacked. [...]

]]> By: brian t http://lonesysadmin.net/2006/07/23/what-i-want-from-a-storage-virtualization-engine/comment-page-1/#comment-4352 brian t Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:43:26 +0000 http://lonesysadmin.net/2006/07/23/what-i-want-from-a-storage-virtualization-engine/#comment-4352 I've been wondering about the possibility of transparent failover for a while now, but it's not as simple as it seems. The array system I'm most familiar with is one you don't mention, the HP Enterprise Virtual Array (EVA). All the critical components are duplicated e.g. it has 2 storage controllers with transparent failover, dual back-end loops, and dual SANs (switches, HBAs etc.) is the norm. No SPOF unless you set up RAID-0 volumes. You have data replication to another array if you want. However, you're talking about failover between complete arrays, a.k.a. "site failover", since real disaster recovery means having arrays on different physical sites. That's a bit more serious: if there is a real disaster, you've lost the servers AND the arrays at one site, so you hope to fail all that over at once. Trying to make that fully transparent is a tall order. The kind of thing you're talking about is what HP call "Cluster Extensions" (CLX), which can automate "site failover" of arrays and server clusters at the same time. Needs a lot of planning and testing, but the result is transparent failover at the "share" level (where clients attach to clusters). I’ve been wondering about the possibility of transparent failover for a while now, but it’s not as simple as it seems. The array system I’m most familiar with is one you don’t mention, the HP Enterprise Virtual Array (EVA). All the critical components are duplicated e.g. it has 2 storage controllers with transparent failover, dual back-end loops, and dual SANs (switches, HBAs etc.) is the norm. No SPOF unless you set up RAID-0 volumes. You have data replication to another array if you want.

However, you’re talking about failover between complete arrays, a.k.a. “site failover”, since real disaster recovery means having arrays on different physical sites. That’s a bit more serious: if there is a real disaster, you’ve lost the servers AND the arrays at one site, so you hope to fail all that over at once. Trying to make that fully transparent is a tall order.

The kind of thing you’re talking about is what HP call “Cluster Extensions” (CLX), which can automate “site failover” of arrays and server clusters at the same time. Needs a lot of planning and testing, but the result is transparent failover at the “share” level (where clients attach to clusters).

]]>