1 / 13

Storage Survey and Recent Acquisition at LAL

Storage Survey and Recent Acquisition at LAL. Michel Jouvin LAL / IN2P3 jouvin@lal.in2p3.fr. Outline. Context and requirements Options considered Solutions evaluated. Context. SAN deployed and working very well Dual redundant fabric (2 ports available on each) 1 Gb/s technology

jamar
Download Presentation

Storage Survey and Recent Acquisition at LAL

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Storage Survey and Recent Acquisition at LAL Michel Jouvin LAL / IN2P3 jouvin@lal.in2p3.fr

  2. Outline • Context and requirements • Options considered • Solutions evaluated LAL Storage Survey - HEPix - Amsterdam 2003

  3. Context • SAN deployed and working very well • Dual redundant fabric (2 ports available on each) • 1 Gb/s technology • 1 consolidated main file server • Based on HP TruCluster technology (2 machines) • Tru64 Advfs allows for huge filesystems (1TB or +) • Distributed file system protocol : NFS (and CIFS) • 1 storage array (Compaq ESA 12000) • 1,5 TB : almost full • SCSI2 Disks difficult to find, expensive, low perfs LAL Storage Survey - HEPix - Amsterdam 2003

  4. Need for more TBs • Experiments want more data locally • D0 group requested 1 TB more in 2003 • Expect other groups in the near future (Auger, Planck, Babar) • Request for standard file system space • To complement HSM/HPSS huge space available in main centers • Issue is space rather than performance (mainly sequential) • Low budget : 45 K€ for 1,5 user TB (2 raw TB) • Disks, controllers, servers, switches… LAL Storage Survey - HEPix - Amsterdam 2003

  5. Option 1 : Server based IDE RAID • Advantage = cost • A good Linux server is not very expensive • Disks are cheap • Drawbacks • Doesn’t scale : more TBs = more servers • Can be nightmare to manage with NFS • No high availability (or not mature) • Don’t integrate with current SAN infrastructure LAL Storage Survey - HEPix - Amsterdam 2003

  6. Option 2 : SAN based IDE RAID • Advantages • SAN integration : easy to manage • Cost # 8€/GB • Drawbacks • Generally not dual redundant controllers • Doesn’t scale : more TBs = more controllers • Serial ATA allows 1 disk per bus (channel) • Hidden cost : need for more FC ports • No TruCluster support : need to setup a new server • Lack of high availability (Linux) • Significant cost increase LAL Storage Survey - HEPix - Amsterdam 2003

  7. Option 3 : SAN based SCSI RAID • Advantages • SAN integration : easy to manage • More Scalable than IDE : ability to grow to 5TB • High availability : dual redundant controllers • TruCluster support : server consolidation • Drawbacks • Cost • Controllers : significantly higher than IDE RAID • Disk relatively expensive : less and less manufacturers • Technology end of life ? • Replaced by Serial ATA for low end, FC for high end LAL Storage Survey - HEPix - Amsterdam 2003

  8. Option 4 : SAN based FC RAID • Advantages • SAN integration : easy to manage • Scalability • Ability to grow until 32TB or + • Disk pools sharing between multiple OS • High availability : dual redundant controllers • FC Disk performance • TruCluster support : server consolidation • Drawbacks • Cost • Controllers > 50 K€ (public price…) • Disks (143 GO) # 10€/GB (raw disk) LAL Storage Survey - HEPix - Amsterdam 2003

  9. Selected Option : FC RAID • Technically most attractive • Large (huge) discount can be expected • 3 vendors considered/accepted to compete • Requirement : 1,5TB for 45 K€ • Vendors selection based on technical leadership and ability to obtain specific conditions LAL Storage Survey - HEPix - Amsterdam 2003

  10. HP EVA110 • HP StorageWorks natural candidate • Long relationship • TruCluster server • High end technology • Back end virtualization • Raid level defined at LUN level • Dynamic reconfiguration of pools and LUN • Drawbacks • Management appliance (dedicated PC) required • Dedicated rack needed • High impact cost on small configuration LAL Storage Survey - HEPix - Amsterdam 2003

  11. StorageTek (LSI) D178 • Middle range controllers • Perfs probably a little bit lower than EVA • Dynamic resizing of LUN and RAID groups • Bladestore : disks are FC modules made of 5 ATA disks • Price/GB divided by 2 • Minimum configuration = 5TB (1 blade = 1TB) • Ability to mix FC disks and bladestores in the same config • Support of TruCluster unclear LAL Storage Survey - HEPix - Amsterdam 2003

  12. Hitachi HDS 9570V • 4 FC loops (backend) in each disk shelf • Only 2 per shelf at competitors • No dynamic resizing of RAID groups • Coming soon • Support of TruCluster • Clean implementation of multipath access and fail over • Efficient cache mirroring • Only writes are mirrored LAL Storage Survey - HEPix - Amsterdam 2003

  13. Option Selected : HDS 9570V • At the end, the less expensive… • Next 2 TB cost ~ IDE2FC • Better support of TruCluster (compared to STK) • Most attractive feature of STK : bladestore • Not appropriate for « small » configuration • Will be connected at 1Gb/s to start • Fabric upgrade next year if possible • Very excited (anxious ???) to test cooperation between vendors in SAN environment…!!! LAL Storage Survey - HEPix - Amsterdam 2003

More Related