This post is more than 5 years old
10 Posts
0
1736
Mainframe Data Domain - 2 heads
Okay first I let me say I might be missing a piece or two of the architecture. What I am trying to figure out is - redundancy within the DD.
let's say we have DD9500 with ONE HEAD servicing 500 TiB of storage and structured into 5 MTREE; replicating to an identical system 347.8 miles away.
If I loose the functionality of the DD9500 head - I loose access to the mainframe library is supports.
Redundancy in the head I believe to be in 4's CPU/FAN/RAM/POWER.
One of the reasons I ask is that normally new storage in configured with a new head.
I do not consider it a "redundancy" of the original DD9500 head.
How should one consider redundancy for the DD head
Rusty
ble1
14.3K Posts
1
March 21st, 2017 05:00
If you wish to have redundant head, you have failover head (but this is always active/passive setup and comes at price).
I think if your head is gone, it would be replaced soon in case of such failure (and you can always request spare parts on site if paranoid, but it will cost you).
Dell-JoeB
Moderator
Moderator
•
41 Posts
1
March 21st, 2017 07:00
We now have the ability to do HA (two heads) on the 9500 as Hrvoje has mentioned it is expensive but doable with your model.
rusty_feo2
10 Posts
0
June 4th, 2019 11:00
Thank you for your replies.
Having spent now some time with HA heads here is my summary:
1. Having HA heads does not eliminate a filesys failure, found out the hard way of course over Thanksgiving Holiday.
2. Upgrades have several options. Normal is both heads are engaged in the upgrade process at the same time.
3. We prefer to
We think as time moves on the DDos upgrade process will get better when it involves a HA head.