3PAR Users Group

A Storage Administrator Community




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 247 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: SSMC Customer Feedback
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:52 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 8:34 am
Posts: 172
Got a nice Message today: :roll:

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SSMC Customer Feedback
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:14 am 

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 12:01 pm
Posts: 298
LOL, no more 16TiB limit, however chuncklets are now 16TiB each. :?

Is that 3.3.1?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SSMC Customer Feedback
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:31 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 8:34 am
Posts: 172
3.3.1 MU1 & SSMC 3.3.0
Only if Compression is enabled.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SSMC Customer Feedback
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:40 am 

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 6:08 am
Posts: 29
Hi guys,

Do we know which of the suggestions here HPE have accepted as things to work on?

A couple of pages back there was a mention of wildcards in searches. Is this going to be added?

Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SSMC Customer Feedback
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:49 am 

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 1:51 am
Posts: 242
The new "Add host to all systems in the federation" - feature does strange things here, when adding one new WWN and clicking "Add+", ALL known WWNs (off ALL already defined hosts) are put in the list for the current host. We did not dare to cklick "OK", but canceled.

But to be honest, we don't have federation here, we were hoping it would add the host to both 3PARs that are in a sync remote copy-relation. Now this feature would really speed up things...

_________________
When all else fails, read the instructions.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SSMC Customer Feedback
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:23 am 

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 12:01 pm
Posts: 298
apol wrote:
The new "Add host to all systems in the federation" - feature does strange things here, when adding one new WWN and clicking "Add+", ALL known WWNs (off ALL already defined hosts) are put in the list for the current host. We did not dare to cklick "OK", but canceled.

But to be honest, we don't have federation here, we were hoping it would add the host to both 3PARs that are in a sync remote copy-relation. Now this feature would really speed up things...

Yes certainly would be a bonus and a very common action, even not resetting all the values when changing array in the Add+ would be helpful.

Or an export host definitions, import option for bulk creation on a new array. ;)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SSMC Customer Feedback
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:11 am 

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 2:11 pm
Posts: 722
Location: Europe
apol wrote:
But to be honest, we don't have federation here, we were hoping it would add the host to both 3PARs that are in a sync remote copy-relation. Now this feature would really speed up things...


I somewhat agree. It could be an option, but I have a lot lf scenarios where I don't want that. Many systems/volumes are not replicated even if the system is in a RC relationship. Another scenario is when using CLX/Cluster Extension... Another interessting scenario is when you have a 1-to-many RC setup (ie one 3PAR replicates different volumes to different 3PARs).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SSMC Customer Feedback
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:29 am 

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 1:51 am
Posts: 242
Do you really have more systems in federation-configuration than systems in good old remote copy setups? We're not talking volumes here, but plain host definitions.

_________________
When all else fails, read the instructions.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SSMC Customer Feedback
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:33 am 

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 2:11 pm
Posts: 722
Location: Europe
apol wrote:
Do you really have more systems in federation-configuration than systems in good old remote copy setups? We're not talking volumes here, but plain host definitions.


No, but in a federation the intension is that a volume can move across 3PARs, ie it is natural to have the hosts zones and defined on multiple/all arrays in the federation.

The only reason for adding one host to multiple arrays in a RC-setup is Peer Persistence.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SSMC Customer Feedback
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:06 am 

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 1:51 am
Posts: 242
Quote:
The only reason for adding one host to multiple arrays in a RC-setup is Peer Persistence.


Not here :)

All hosts are zoned to both arrays, PP or plain old RC. That way, a storage failure does not force you to change hosts as well. Oh, and there's this vmware stretched cluster stuff as well.

I guessthere are a zillion ways one could implement rc "the right way", ask four it infrastructure people and you get five opinions, but "The only reason for adding one host to multiple arrays in a RC-setup is Peer Persistence" is a little bit too academic imho.

And even if that was a 100% correct: Are there more federation environments than peer persistence setups?

_________________
When all else fails, read the instructions.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 247 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group | DVGFX2 by: Matt