Unsolved
This post is more than 5 years old
232 Posts
0
1076
SAN centralization
Hello,
I have 6 Emc disk arrays corresponding to 6 SAN networks, 2 of
them have integrated Brocade switches (Blade) and the rest are
normal switches, all in redundancy, how can I centralize all the
SANs and later on virtualize them. The aim is to get more flexibility
in affecting LUNs from one server (network) to the other network.
Thanks
COnsty
Consty
232 Posts
0
February 10th, 2010 11:00
Yes, 6 stand alone SAN switches not connected to other switches.
Thanks
Consty
dynamox
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
20.4K Posts
0
February 10th, 2010 11:00
What kind of switches, what kind of arrays, what kind of blade enclosures ?
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).
dynamox
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
20.4K Posts
0
February 10th, 2010 11:00
So 6 stand alone san switches, not connected to other switches ?
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).
Consty
232 Posts
0
February 10th, 2010 11:00
All the switches are Brocade : BR300, DS200B, Brocade 4GB 6+14ports, Silkworm 3250
Blades are IBM HS21, HS22
Arrays are CX300, CX500, CX3-40, CX3-80, CX4-480
Regards
Consty
Allen Ward
2.1K Posts
0
February 10th, 2010 12:00
So, if I understand correctly (and forgive me for asking the same questions again a different way)...
You have one switch attached to each array (with multiple connections?), with the hosts accessing that array connecting through that switch (with one connection or two each?)
If this is correct, it may take some work to get things revamped to what it sounds like you want in the end. If the hosts have two HBA connections each, the ideal target state would be two have two identical fabrics with each host and each array connecting to both fabrics. Not sure if that works with the blade enclosures, but they may have to connect one to each fabric if not. If you only have one HBA from each host (and no option to put more in) then you will likely end up with one big fabric that all the switches and hosts attach to. Either way will allow any host can be provisioned from any array once the change is complete.
I haven't worked hands on with any of the speific switch models you have, so I'm not absolutely certain of the interoperability without doing some more research.
Consty
232 Posts
0
February 10th, 2010 14:00
Each array (or SAN network) has 2 switches connected (redundancy),
each server then has 2 HBA.
Thanks
Consty
Allen Ward
2.1K Posts
0
February 11th, 2010 07:00
OK, I think I missed something there. Your original post indicated 6 arrays, and a follow up post indicated 6 switches, but this post says each array is connected to two switches.
It might help if you could "diagram" your current environment for us something like this:
CX300 - connected to 2 x 300B switches
CX500 - connected to 2 x 200B switches
etc.
And I'm not sure how the Blade Chassis fit into the picture. Do they connect to another pair of switches for one of the arrays (using NPIV?), or do they connect directly to an array through the integrated switches?
Sorry to ask so many questions, but the better we understand where you are starting, the better advice we can give on how to get where you want to be.
Consty
232 Posts
0
February 12th, 2010 06:00
1) CX300 - connected to 2 x Sikworm 3250
2) CX500 - connected to 2 x DS200B
3) CX3-40 - connected to 2 x DS200B
4) CX3-80 - connected to 2 x integrated Brocade 4Gb (direct connection to the array)
5) CX3-80 - connected to 2 x integrated Brocade 4Gb (direct connection to the array)
6) CX4-480 connected to 2 x BR300
Thanks
Consty
dynamox
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
20.4K Posts
0
February 13th, 2010 13:00
Consty
232 Posts
0
February 14th, 2010 10:00
As I was saying in my first message, we can first consolidate
and then virtualize. If necessary the switches will be changed.
Regards
Thanks
Consty
Allen Ward
2.1K Posts
0
February 16th, 2010 12:00
As dynamox pointed out, none of your switches really stand out as anything I would want to put at the core of a consolidated fabric. The best way to proceed now depends a lot on what you see for growth in connectivity needs over the next 2 to 3 years. For now I'm going to make an assumption of moderate continued growth in server connectivity, as well as connectivity for another array or two. I'm also going to go with an assumption that all the switches you have today are licensed to allow full fabric connectivity. As I mentioned, I'm not directly familiar with these models so I don't know if this is an issue. If it is just lump straight to option number two.
If this were my environment to plan for (based on the info we have so far) I would probably try to do something like this:
Option 1
Option 2
So, suddenly I'm looking at my watch thinking (is it time to go pick up my son yet) and losing focus on this. I reread through, but it isn't making as much sense this time as last. I'll leave it as is and look at it again tomorrow. Maybe in the mean time others can comment, suggest, modify, and otherwise correct and we can potentially refine the plan further based on your findings regarding fabric licensing (or the requirement for such).
Consty
232 Posts
0
February 18th, 2010 12:00
Thanks for your answer,
I was thinking of a backbone running at 8Gb/s by adding or replacing old
switches by new ones, what do you think about that.
Regards
Consty
Allen Ward
2.1K Posts
0
February 22nd, 2010 12:00
Even though the new switches support 8G FC connectivity, we haven't populated any of ours with 8G SFPs yet. We are still putting in the 4G SFP since the price is right and not much hardware out there can take advantage of anything faster yet.
I guess it all depends on your growth plans. If you will be getting lots of new equipment that will be 8G, then it might make sense. Otherwise you can switch to 4G and still have the option of adding 8G when you need it. Keep in mind that the SFPs you choose won't change the internal bandwidth of the switch.