Hi Chris, 

I share tape and disk access on the same SAN and on the same HBA (Emulex 
LP8000) on a Solaris 2.8 and no problem.

We use also IP over SAN to obtain Lan free backup with the following config : 

     * In Windows box : one HBA LP8000 - protocol : Scsi over Fibre channel for 
access to data on IBM ESS disk
                                                  : IP over Fibre channel for 
sending backup data to Networker server and storage node runnign on Solaris 2.8;
     
     * Solaris backup server : four HBA's LP9002 - protocol : on two HBA's : IP 
over Fibre Channel
                                                              on two HBA's : 
Scsi over Fibre channel for writting backup data on STK drive 9940 (connected 
to the San) - and for writting backup catalog data on ESS disk.

With this config, I only need one Networker server and one storage node on 
Unix. On Windows machine, I have only Networker client. 

Regards.
Pierre.      
  

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Madden [mailto:maddenca AT MYREALBOX DOT COM] 
Sent: dinsdag 8 april 2003 18:18
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: 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.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=