Re: Volume shadowing between FC Storage at different sites, and the allocation class
From: Alex Daniels (AlexNOSPAMTHANKSDaniels_at_themail.co.uk)
Date: 06/30/04
- Previous message: Andrew Harrison: "Re: Intel Itanium's very survival in doubt - inquirer article"
- In reply to: Lee: "Re: Volume shadowing between FC Storage at different sites, and the allocation class"
- Next in thread: Lee: "Re: Volume shadowing between FC Storage at different sites, and the allocation class"
- Reply: Lee: "Re: Volume shadowing between FC Storage at different sites, and the allocation class"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 23:22:12 +0100
"Lee" <lytmah@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:LNdEc.37807$_5.23580@clgrps13...
> I have done multiple tests on these disks across a multi-site cluster.
> I was able to shadow $1$DGA disks with Storageworks $2$DUA
> disks (with the same number of blocks of course) with no problems.
> There was no difference in functionality of the two types of
> physical disks or the mix of shadow sets created.
> Be warned that under current 7.3-1 VMS, any $1$/$1$ or $1$/$2$
> shadow sets you create will undergo long shadow merges
> (5-12 hours) if any of your cluster nodes reboots or hiccups.
>
> disks (with the same number of blocks of course) with no problems.
Doesn't have to be on 7.3-2
> (5-12 hours) if any of your cluster nodes reboots or hiccups.
Not on my boxes with Host Based Mini Merge, make that under 5 seconds...
Regards
Alex
- Previous message: Andrew Harrison: "Re: Intel Itanium's very survival in doubt - inquirer article"
- In reply to: Lee: "Re: Volume shadowing between FC Storage at different sites, and the allocation class"
- Next in thread: Lee: "Re: Volume shadowing between FC Storage at different sites, and the allocation class"
- Reply: Lee: "Re: Volume shadowing between FC Storage at different sites, and the allocation class"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|