Go Premium for a chance to win a PS4. Enter to Win


SAN technologies: traditional vs virtual

Posted on 2008-10-23
Medium Priority
Last Modified: 2013-11-14
We are preparing to bring a SAN into our environment.  We are currently debating traditional vs. virtual technology.  We have narrowed the field to the Hitachi AMS1000 (possibly the 2300 now that it has been released) vs the HP EVA 8100.

I would like to hear from folks who have used both systems.  Why did you chose to purchase that technology and why you have either chosen to stay with it or dump it (or wish you could)?

One of the main areas we are struggling with is understanding the effect of disparate systems sharing a large disk group on the EVA.  Is there really a noticable performance penalty because of this or is it a wash against the benefits of using all of your spindles?

From an administrative standpoint, we are all sold on the ease of management offered by the EVA.

Thanks for your help!
Question by:weatherman67

Expert Comment

ID: 22791053
EVA -> management simplicity, auto leveling vith any disk added to disk group, etc...
Perhaps with Hitachi you can have better perf results, but it eat skiller person who will tune that array to ever changing enviroment...
LVL 30

Accepted Solution

Duncan Meyers earned 2000 total points
ID: 22791514
>One of the main areas we are struggling with is understanding the effect of disparate systems sharing a large disk group on the EVA.  Is there really a noticable performance penalty because of this or is it a wash against the benefits of using all of your spindles?

Depends on what you want to do. As a rule, disparate loads on the same physical discs is a recipe for pain. Having said that, a virtualised data centre presents a highly random load, so as long as you have enough physical discs to absorb the load, you should be OK. The trick is to size the array for the performance you need, not the disc space. If you get the performance right, the space usually takes care of itself. Both arrays work well, although I have to express my preference for HDS kit over HP

As far as management goes, all SANs are pretty simple to drive once you're used to the management console. The difficulty or ease of management is purely sales FUD. If you have multiple SANs, a product like Symantec's Storage Foundation and CommandCentral starts to make sense. Speaking of which, Symantec Storage Foundation path management software is free for servers with two processors or less and three attached LUNs or less. It may be worth your while evaluating Storage Foundation as an alternative to HP's or HDS' path management software.

Finally - don't be swayed by a free offer of HP Data Protector backup software - it sucks!

Author Comment

ID: 22796328
MeyersD, would you please give some detail on why you prefer the HDS kit over HP?  I am very interested in your opinion on this and the reasons behind it.  Thanks.
NFR key for Veeam Backup for Microsoft Office 365

Veeam is happy to provide a free NFR license (for 1 year, up to 10 users). This license allows for the non‑production use of Veeam Backup for Microsoft Office 365 in your home lab without any feature limitations.

LVL 56

Expert Comment

ID: 22804360
There's nothing to stop you from defining lots of disk groups on the EVA and dedicating one for each job/server if you want to so the EVA can be used in non-virtual mode as well.

I would be interested in why meyersd prefers one over the other as well, maybe it's down to what kit you know? Certainly that's why I would go for the EVA.
LVL 30

Expert Comment

by:Duncan Meyers
ID: 22809030
Cache partitioning - HDS kit allows you to allocate write cache to LUNs so, unlike other arrays, you can stop slower drives (SATA/ATA) hogging write cache and affecting overall performance of the array.

As to the rest - it's all spinning brown, innit? One array is much like another. Each vendor has a unique benefit - three that really spring to mind are NetApp's on-array de-duplication, EMC's Quality of Service manager and HDS's cache partitioning.

Author Comment

ID: 22809412
Meyersd, do you really use the cache partitioning extensively?  The reason I ask is because I have spoken to a few HDS users who say they just go with the default cache config.  You are the first person, aside from Hitachi sales, who say they use it.  I agree with you that it sounds compelling.  I'm just wondering about how practical it is in day to day use.  Thanks for the answer by the way.  I do find it quite helpful.
LVL 30

Expert Comment

by:Duncan Meyers
ID: 22819441
On a well-configured array with plenty of Fibre Channel discs, it is of little value as data will be written out to disk quickly. Things will change as your environment grows - if you specify plenty of disc now, you'll allocate it to all sorts of apps, and you may find yourself putting some load on SATA disc as it's going to be low utilisation. The SATA discs will consume more write cache as they are between a half and two thirds slower than FC drives, and that will affect overall performance. The ability to limit the amount of write cache that SATA LUNs consume is something I wish all manufacturers would provide.

As a real world example, I'm working on some performance analysis files from an EMC CLARiiON array where the customer (a large organisation) has used SATA disc for production VMware. The highly random nature of VMware VMFS means that the CLARiiON can't do it's funky write optimisations, so write cache is filling up. Once write cache fills, the array stops accepting host I/O for a few milliseconds ntil its made some space, but those few milliseconds affects all attached servers, not just teh hosts causing write cache to fill. They fell into the trap of using any available space no matter whether it was suitable or not. The fix is simple: they need more Fibre Channel disc. If the EMC array had cache partitioning, they could stop the rogue hosts affecting performance of important servers. As it is, I've advised them to turn off write cache on the SATA discs in the short term (which will hurt the VMware virtual machines on the SATA discs), and to buy more discs.

By the way - beware of extravagant performance claims for SATA discs and SATA arrays. SATA discs will run a production load, no sweat, but you need so many of them to absorb the number of writes generated, you may as well have purchased the more expensive SAS or FC discs in the first place.

Featured Post

Vote for the Most Valuable Expert

It’s time to recognize experts that go above and beyond with helpful solutions and engagement on site. Choose from the top experts in the Hall of Fame or on the right rail of your favorite topic page. Look for the blue “Nominate” button on their profile to vote.

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

Many businesses neglect disaster recovery and treat it as an after-thought. I can tell you first hand that data will be lost, hard drives die, servers will be hacked, and careless (or malicious) employees can ruin your data.
Compliance and data security require steps be taken to prevent unauthorized users from copying data.  Here's one method to prevent data theft via USB drives (and writable optical media).
This video teaches viewers how to encrypt an external drive that requires a password to read and edit the drive. All tasks are done in Disk Utility. Plug in the external drive you wish to encrypt: Make sure all previous data on the drive has been …
This Micro Tutorial will teach you how to reformat your flash drive. Sometimes your flash drive may have issues carrying files so this will completely restore it to manufacturing settings. Make sure to backup all files before reformatting. This w…
Suggested Courses

927 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question