Anyone here has experience with the Sun StorEdge 3310 array?

I am planning to attach this to a Fire V880 server. Current data needs
are about 1TB (x2 if I use RAID10), so the 3310 with its max. capacity
of 3.52TB seems ideal. Does it support daisy chaining more 3310s to
increase capacity?

Thanks

Vikas Agnihotri wrote:
> Anyone here has experience with the Sun StorEdge 3310 array?
>
> I am planning to attach this to a Fire V880 server. Current data needs
> are about 1TB (x2 if I use RAID10), so the 3310 with its max. capacity
> of 3.52TB seems ideal. Does it support daisy chaining more 3310s to
> increase capacity?
>
> Thanks

Yes, you can attach up to 2 JBOD (non RAID) units to a 3310 that has a
controller (or controllers).

With one RAID unit and 2 JBODs you would have 36 disk drives, 12 per
tray, of up to 146GB each.

Aside from the amount of storage do you have any performance
requirements? What type of workload will you be putting on it?

Elias

In article <2sj0rjF1m0h16U1@uni-berlin.de>,
Vikas Agnihotri <usenet@vikas.mailshell.com> wrote:
>Anyone here has experience with the Sun StorEdge 3310 array?

Yes! It works!

>I am planning to attach this to a Fire V880 server. Current data needs
>are about 1TB (x2 if I use RAID10), so the 3310 with its max. capacity
>of 3.52TB seems ideal. Does it support daisy chaining more 3310s to
>increase capacity?

With your needs, and the server you are using, try to afford the 3510 instead.
With the 3510 you get double the performance and mpxIO load-balancing/
path failover capability.

When you grow the 3310 beyond one JBOD you loose host connections, and
'there can be only one' after that.

Regards
Fredrik



--
Fredrik Lundholm
dol @ ce.chalmers.se

Fredrik Lundholm wrote:
> In article <2sj0rjF1m0h16U1@uni-berlin.de>,
> Vikas Agnihotri <usenet@vikas.mailshell.com> wrote:
>
>>Anyone here has experience with the Sun StorEdge 3310 array?
>
>
> Yes! It works!
>
>
>>I am planning to attach this to a Fire V880 server. Current data needs
>>are about 1TB (x2 if I use RAID10), so the 3310 with its max. capacity
>>of 3.52TB seems ideal. Does it support daisy chaining more 3310s to
>>increase capacity?
>
>
> With your needs, and the server you are using, try to afford the 3510 instead.
> With the 3510 you get double the performance and mpxIO load-balancing/
> path failover capability.
>
> When you grow the 3310 beyond one JBOD you loose host connections, and
> 'there can be only one' after that.
>
> Regards
> Fredrik
>
>
>

The only problem with 3510 is its price...
As for performance, it will not double for a single node, however for a
whole solution it would be better of course. What I mean is that with
3310, you have 320MBytes, whereas with FC you have 2 x 2Gbits
(200MBytes) or 400MBytes per host (anybody, please correct me if I'm
wrong). So per host you have a performance increase of 80MBytes/sec. But
with 3310 you are limited to two hosts per array (in redundant
configuration), with 3310 you can go up to 4. So if you count overall
performance (assuming all nodes write constantly to the storage):
3310:
2 x 320MB = 740MB/sec
3510:
4 x 400MB = 1600MB/sec (and this is indeed two times faster than 3310)

In article <2snmh1F1l77ipU1@uni-berlin.de>,
Rytis Sileika <rytis@_NS--PLEASE-REMOVE-THIS_dr.com> wrote:
>Fredrik Lundholm wrote:
>> In article <2sj0rjF1m0h16U1@uni-berlin.de>,
>> Vikas Agnihotri <usenet@vikas.mailshell.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Anyone here has experience with the Sun StorEdge 3310 array?
>>
>>
>> Yes! It works!
>>
>>
>>>I am planning to attach this to a Fire V880 server. Current data needs
>>>are about 1TB (x2 if I use RAID10), so the 3310 with its max. capacity
>>>of 3.52TB seems ideal. Does it support daisy chaining more 3310s to
>>>increase capacity?
>>
>>
>> With your needs, and the server you are using, try to afford the 3510 instead.
>> With the 3510 you get double the performance and mpxIO load-balancing/
>> path failover capability.
>>
>> When you grow the 3310 beyond one JBOD you loose host connections, and
>> 'there can be only one' after that.
>>
>> Regards
>> Fredrik
>>
>>
>>
>
>The only problem with 3510 is its price...
>As for performance, it will not double for a single node, however for a
>whole solution it would be better of course. What I mean is that with
>3310, you have 320MBytes, whereas with FC you have 2 x 2Gbits
>(200MBytes) or 400MBytes per host (anybody, please correct me if I'm
>wrong). So per host you have a performance increase of 80MBytes/sec. But
>with 3310 you are limited to two hosts per array (in redundant
>configuration), with 3310 you can go up to 4. So if you count overall
>performance (assuming all nodes write constantly to the storage):
>3310:
>2 x 320MB = 740MB/sec
>3510:
>4 x 400MB = 1600MB/sec (and this is indeed two times faster than 3310)
>

Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.hardware
Subject:
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Keywords:
Cc:

--
Fredrik Lundholm
dol @ ce.chalmers.se

Elias wrote:
>> I am planning to attach this to a Fire V880 server. Current data needs
>> are about 1TB (x2 if I use RAID10), so the 3310 with its max. capacity
>> of 3.52TB seems ideal. Does it support daisy chaining more 3310s to
>> increase capacity?

> Yes, you can attach up to 2 JBOD (non RAID) units to a 3310 that has a
> controller (or controllers).

Hm. I am not interested in JBOD, I need RAID10 for fault tolerance and
performance.

Given that I need RAID and I plan to attach it to only one host, what is
the maximum amount of storage I can get? If I start with one 3310 unit,
how can I expand it later? What is the max expansion possible without
sacrificing performance?

> Aside from the amount of storage do you have any performance
> requirements? What type of workload will you be putting on it?

This is going to be used only for Oracle 9iR2 database files. Part of a
growing data warehouse. Also plan to use Oracle's pluggable tablespace
feature for "near-online" availability.

[I know that Oracle 10g has automatic storage management (ASM) built in
so when we upgrade to 10g, I *can* use the 3310s as JBOD and have Oracle
take care of all the striping, mirroring, etc]

Thanks

Rytis Sileika wrote:
>> Yes! It works!

Thats nice to know. I read that recent Sun storage products are a result
of many alliances Sun has made with other lesser-known storage vendors
and is just rebranding/marketing them under the Sun StorEdge name.

Have these 3310s and 3510s (Workgroup storage) line been on the market
for very long? What are their RAS, MTTR, etc numbers? What kind of disks
do they use? How are the hardware RAID controllers? Are they any
better than the old A1000 array which I have currently?


>> With your needs, and the server you are using, try to afford the 3510
>> instead. With the 3510 you get double the performance and mpxIO load-balancing/
>> path failover capability.

My only concern with the 3510 is that it has a FC and not SCSI
interface. I dont have any experience with FC and SCSI just "feels" more
comfortable and familiar. Has FC matured to the point of being used in
mission criticial, large volume systems?

>> When you grow the 3310 beyond one JBOD you loose host connections, and
>> 'there can be only one' after that.

Not sure what you mean by that? Can you please elaborate?

> The only problem with 3510 is its price...
> As for performance, it will not double for a single node, however for a
> whole solution it would be better of course. What I mean is that with

Well, I dont plan to connect more than one host to the the arrays. So
this is not an issue.

Isnt 740MB/sec a little on the slower side? Maybe I dont have my facts
right, but is that the state of the art in storage technology these days?

Thanks

Elias wrote:
>
>
> Yes, you can attach up to 2 JBOD (non RAID) units to a 3310 that has a
> controller (or controllers).

One more question:

We plan to implement a SAN in the near future. How do these arrays 3310,
3510, etc integrate with a SAN? Is the 3310 out because it doesnt have a
FC interface? Would the 3510 with FC plug in cleanly with any SAN that
we implement?

Thanks

In article <2sr6clF1nupn8U2@uni-berlin.de>,
Vikas Agnihotri <usenet@vikas.mailshell.com> wrote:
>Elias wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes, you can attach up to 2 JBOD (non RAID) units to a 3310 that has a
>> controller (or controllers).
>
>One more question:
>
>We plan to implement a SAN in the near future. How do these arrays 3310,
>3510, etc integrate with a SAN? Is the 3310 out because it doesnt have a
>FC interface? Would the 3510 with FC plug in cleanly with any SAN that
>we implement?

3510 will integrate.
3310 Will not.


--
Fredrik Lundholm
dol @ ce.chalmers.se

In article <2sr674F1nupn8U1@uni-berlin.de>,
Vikas Agnihotri <usenet@vikas.mailshell.com> wrote:
>Rytis Sileika wrote:
>>> Yes! It works!

>Have these 3310s and 3510s (Workgroup storage) line been on the market
>for very long?

Yes.

> How are the hardware RAID controllers? Are they any
>better than the old A1000 array which I have currently?

Yes.


>My only concern with the 3510 is that it has a FC and not SCSI
>interface. I dont have any experience with FC and SCSI just "feels" more
> comfortable and familiar. Has FC matured to the point of being used in
>mission criticial, large volume systems?

Yes.


>>> When you grow the 3310 beyond one JBOD you loose host connections, and
>>> 'there can be only one' after that.
>
>Not sure what you mean by that? Can you please elaborate?

The 3310 and 3510 with hardware RAID controllers can be expanded with
JBOD arrays like an old A3500 making it to appear as one large array
with >12 disks.

>Isnt 740MB/sec a little on the slower side? Maybe I dont have my facts
>right, but is that the state of the art in storage technology these days?

Don't get tangled up in MB/s figures.

First of all the 3310 is Ultra 160 SCSI based while the 3510 is 2GBit FC.
If you really need performance you can connect up to 8 FC cards from one
server and Solaris will stripe the load across the cables to a 3510.

The 3510 is twice as fast as a 3310 even for just one host.
The 3310 is 3-4 times faster that an A1000.
The 3310 will give you better availability than a A1000. The 3510 will
give you even better availability.

You can expand a 3510 with a total of 8 trays with good performance.
You can only add one extra tray to the 3310 without loosing performance.

/Fredrik
--
Fredrik Lundholm
dol @ ce.chalmers.se