Networker

Re: [Networker] SAN Tape Drive / Storage / Host Connectivity

2003-04-09 08:07:44
Subject: Re: [Networker] SAN Tape Drive / Storage / Host Connectivity
From: Björn Lundström <bjorn.lundstrom AT PROACT DOT SE>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 14:07:06 +0200
Hi,

Interesting! 

Can you give me a pointer to where Microsoft states that
the don´t support disk and tape on the same HBA ?

I would be interested to read that document.

///Björn

-----Original Message-----
From: Willeat, Todd [mailto:TWilleat AT MHP.SMHS DOT COM]
Sent: den 8 april 2003 20:35
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [Networker] SAN Tape Drive / Storage / Host Connectivity


It should be OK to have disk and tape on the same SAN. Microsoft does NOT
support disk and tape on the same HBA - not that it won't work, but they
don't recommend or support it. I'm not sure about the other OSs...

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Madden [mailto:maddenca AT MYREALBOX DOT COM]
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 11:18 AM
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: [Networker] SAN Tape Drive / Storage / Host Connectivity


I have a SAN in production for disk access and we are looking at adding
fibre tape drives to the setup, initially driving these devices from a
single storage node and thereafter doing LAN-free backups (i.e. installing
additional storage nodes) on some larger hosts over time.  Today I have 2
distinct SANs which are mirror copies of each other for availability, and
have zoning implemented so that only hosts of a given OS type can see each
other and their storage ports.  Tech environment includes: IBM ESSs, AIX,
Solaris, Win2k, Netware, and coming soon 6 x IBM 3590H and 6 x IBM LTO-2
drives.

In order to add tape devices to the SAN I have some questions:

1) Is it wise to mix disk and tape on the same SAN?  My initial reaction is
why not if you zone correctly, but perhaps there are other issues?

2) Can the HBAs in our hosts be used for both disk and tape access?  Again,
my initial reaction is why not but perhaps there are other issues?  Is the
answer different for each OS and if so which are OK and which not?

I would prefer to share as much infrastructure between disk and tape as
possible and I suspect with proper zoning the same fabric can be used for
tape and disk.  If the case is however that I can't share the existing HBAs
and need to add a 3rd HBA for tape use I have to pick which SAN (A or B) to
plug it into, or I have to add a 4th HBA to get visibility to all the
drives.  At that point the complexity (i.e some drives/hosts on one SAN and
some on the other) suggests leaving SAN A and SAN B in place for disk, and
creating a SAN C for tapes.  Creating SAN C however has significant costs
(more switches, more HBAs) and would need good justification.

Fellow NetWorkers, what would you do in my shoes?

Kind Regards,
Chris

--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=