Understanding EVA 1

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 3
7 views
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.

Download

Document Related
Document Description
Understanding EVA I’ve not had much exposure to HP EVA storage however recently I’ve had a need (as part of a software tool project) to get into the depths of EVA and understand how it all works. The following is my understanding as I see it, plus some comments of my own. I’d be grateful for any feedback which help improve my enlightenment or equally, knock me back for plain stupidity! So, here goes. EVA arrays place disks into disk groups. The EVA system automatically sub-groups the disks into
Document Share
Document Tags
Document Transcript
  Understanding EVA I’ve not had much exposure to HP EVA storage however recently I’ve had a need (as part of a software toolproject) to get into the depths of EVA and understand how it all works. The following is my understanding asI see it, plus some comments of my own. I’d be grateful for any feedback which help improve myenlightenment or equally, knock me back for plain stupidity!So, here goes. EVA arrays place disks into disk groups. The EVA system automatically sub-groups the disksinto redundant storage sets (RSS). An RSS is simply a logical grouping of disks rather than some RAIDimplementation as there’s no underlying RAID deployment at the disk level.Within each disk group, it is possible to assign a protection level. This figure is “none”, “one” or “two”,indicating the amount of storage to reserve for disk failure rebuilds. The figure doesn’t represent an actualdisk, but rather an amount of disk capacity that will be reserved across the whole pool. So, setting “one” ina pool of 16 disks will reserve 1/16th of each disk for rebuilds.Now we get to LUNs themselves and it is at this point that RAID protection comes in. A LUN can be createdin a group with either vRAID0 (no protection), vRAID1 (mirrored) or vRAID5 (RAID-5) protection. vRAID5 usesa RAID5 (4+1) configuration with 4-data and 1-parity.From the literature I’ve read and playing with the EVA simulator, it appears that the EVA spreads a LUNacross all volumes within a disk group. I’ve tried to show this allocation in the diagram on the right, using adifferent colour for each protection type, within a disk pool of 16 drives.The picture shows two RSSs and a LUN of each RAID protection type (vRAID0, vRAID1, vRAID5).Understanding vRAID0 is simple; the capacity of the LUN is striped across all physical disks, providing no  protection against the loss of any disk within the configuration. In large disk groups, vRAID0 is clearlypointless as it will almost always lead to data loss in the event of a physical failure.vRAID1 mirrors each segment of the LUN, which is striped across all volumes twice, one for each mirror. I’veshown these as A & B and assumed they will be allocated on separate RSS groups. In the event that a diskfails, then a vRAID1 LUN can be recreated from the other mirror, using the spare space set aside on theremaining drives to achieve this. Question: Does the EVA actively re-create failed mirrors immediately on failure of a physical disk. If so,does the EVA then actively rebuild the failed disk, once it has been replaced?Now, vRAID5, a little more tricky. My understanding is that EVA uses RAID-5 (4+1), so there will never be aneven layout of data and parity stripes across the disk group. I haven’t shown in on the diagram, but Ipresume as data is written to a vRAID5 LUN it is split into smaller chunks (I think 128KB) and striped acrossthe physical disks. In this way, there will be as close to an even distribution of data and parity as possible.In the event of a disk failure, the lost data can be recreated from the other data and parity componentsthat make up that stripe. Question: What size block does the EVA use for RAID-5 stripes?At this point, I’m not sure of the benefit of Redundant Storage Sets. They aren’t RAID groups, so there’s noinherent protection if a disk in an RSS fails. If LUNs are created within the same RSS, then perhaps thisminimizes the impact of a disk failure to just that group of disks; see the second diagram.The upshot is, I think the technique of dispersing the LUN across all disks is good for performance, but badfor availability – especially as it isn’t easy to see what the impact of a double disk failure can be – myassumption is that it means *all* data will be affected if a double disk failure occurs within the same RSSgroup. I may be wrong but that doesn’t sound good.Feel free to correct me if I’ve got any of this wrong!
Search Related
Previous Slide

jurnal_12488

We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks