Unsolved
This post is more than 5 years old
718 Posts
1
12928
Ask the Expert: VMAX FAST VP and Performance
|
|
Ask the Expert: Business Continuity; disaster recovery vs. data availability Ask the Expert: SAN (Connectrix), FC Connectivity Recommendations and Best Practices |
The VMAX has multiple settings and features available on the Front end as well as on the backend within the FAST VP mechanism. Tuning the VMAX can be complex and multiple factors can impact performance. The goal of this forum is to focus on what settings and options allow full optimization of VMAX performance.
Meet Your Expert:
 |
Technical Account Manager at EMC. Kevin has been with EMC for nearly 20 years. He has spent 15 years supporting EMC Symmetrix product range at many levels. For the last 5 years he has worked in the Symmetrix Level 2 group specializing in performance. In 2012 he moved to the role Technical Account Manager supporting an EMC Elite Customer. Kevin was also recently named as a member of EMC’s Technical Leadership Academy. |
This discussion takes place from Jan. 12th - Feb. 6th. Get ready by bookmarking this page or signing up for e-mail notifications.
Share this event on Twitter or LinkedIn:
>> Join me! Ask the Expert: VMAX FAST VP and Performance. http://bit.ly/1wrhcw3 Jan. 12 #EMCATE <<
Harshak
52 Posts
0
February 7th, 2015 17:00
By default we allocate every LUN to FC pool, Now I am thinking of creating a fast policy with only SATA Tier in it. Can I apply that SATA Tier policy to a storage group that has LUNS Bound to FC Pool ?
kgleeson
62 Posts
0
February 9th, 2015 11:00
If you have only SATA in a policy, there will be no possibility for movements.
If you need to move luns from FC to SATA the fastest way to do that is VLUN migration.
Compliance moves are not prioritized within FAST VP. So again if you need to move the data from FC to SATA use VLUN.
and take the SG out of FAST VP control if you do not want the data promoted.
Harshak
52 Posts
0
February 11th, 2015 07:00
I actually dont want to perform VLUN Migration..My new fast policy contains 100% SATA Tier and 1% FC.. so that even if my SATA gets completely filled up..LUNS can get extents from FC Pool..
Can we perform this ?
Harshak
52 Posts
0
February 12th, 2015 02:00
Yes..Bind by policy is enabled
kgleeson
62 Posts
0
February 12th, 2015 02:00
1% for FC may be too narrow in that case. Do you have bind by policy enabled ?
kgleeson
62 Posts
0
February 12th, 2015 02:00
You can create the policy of 100$ SATA and 1% FC.
Note however that the SG may not move into compliance in the short term if a large portion currently resides in FC.
Also not sure you will see enough overflow space with 1% FC. would you consider 5%
Also one last question where do you plan to bind the data to ?
Thanks
kgleeson
62 Posts
0
February 12th, 2015 02:00
That should help.
What is the expected write update rate?
Harshak
52 Posts
0
February 12th, 2015 02:00
Luns are bound to FC pool
Harshak
52 Posts
0
February 12th, 2015 02:00
what do you mean by write update rate..I am not aware what it is ?
kgleeson
62 Posts
0
February 12th, 2015 03:00
The new write would get directed to SATA, but Raid 6 SATA config does not have the same ability to absorb massive dumps of write workload, which could lead to write latency of the applications with a large chunk of data in SATA.
But assuming there is no expected write workload like Dumps etc. then all should be fine.
Harshak
52 Posts
0
February 12th, 2015 03:00
So what would be the impact if 1% FC allocation get filled up quickly ?
Do you think new writes should be allocated from SATA even that 1% FC get full ?
kgleeson
62 Posts
0
February 12th, 2015 03:00
In relation to the SG(s) being assigned to the SATA policy. What is the expected new write ingest rate expected to be.
I am just try to get a picture of what the new write load hitting the SATA tier would be if the 1% FC allocation became allocated quickly. Like in the example of application write dump etc.
Harshak
52 Posts
0
February 12th, 2015 14:00
Just a brief overview why we are doing this..EMC created 3 thin pools and asked us to bind all LUNS to FC pool and even they set subscription rate to zero for rest of the pools. EFD and FC pool is completely utilized 98% and 89% respectively..But SATA is only 8 % utilized..so we have identified few servers that can reside only on SATA tier..so the only option that we have is to create a FAST Policy with only SATA Tier in it and associate it to respective SG's.
Do you see any other alternatives apart from creating SATA only FAST Policy ?
VLUN migration is not an option since we cannot bind a LUN to SATA ?
Please suggest..
dynamox
1 Rookie
1 Rookie
•
20.4K Posts
0
February 12th, 2015 18:00
why can you not bind a LUN to SATA pool ..if you determined those specific servers are good candidates for that tier ?
kgleeson
62 Posts
0
February 13th, 2015 00:00
You can Bind to SATA, but it has been seen to cause performance issues on heavy write load to SG bound to SATA.
Best practise is to bind to FC and FAST VP will demote the relevant data to the SATA tier.
I know of customers who bind some back-up loads to SATA, but do not put that workload under FAST VP control.
When you Bind to SATA do you allow FAST VP control the SG ?