Joe_M1
1 Copper

Re: Basic questions un-answered by storage scope?

Another opportunity is  earmarked storage or storage frames part of Tech refresh. Coding outside the box seems to be the only alternative for customized reports. Not properly accounting for these items will  affect overall available storage numbers for provisioning , reporting and trending.

Classifying tiers , availability and cost of storage within a tiered category isn't possible.

Most of all the reporting required to effectively report requires coding outside of ECC.

Multi vendor support isnt consistent  for various flavors of arrays within the sts tables.   Symm, HDS, CLariion , Centera etc.

Oh dont let me forget.  Shared storage requires addtional coding as well.

There are many pieces to the vacuum as stated before depending on customer / business requirements.

These issues are very cumbersome in our large dynamic environments with multiple instances of ECC.

If Host utilization is required . A whole other challenge arises. Host agent management and LDT.   Storagescope will continue to report on Stale data and doesn't sync multi agent deployments.

Yet another area of customized reporting.

Ecc agents cannot truly determine host device utilization. Only FS utilization as a whole.  Certain groups would like to know device utilization by device/tier level for reclamation opportunities. Complex code is required to try an determine these values to get close to real numbers.

Regards,

-j

0 Kudos
JasonBailey
3 Argentium

Re: Basic questions un-answered by storage scope?

So, here is the math:

Usable = (configured) - (system devices)

Allocated = (mapped allocated/Possibly allocated) + (Mapped unallocated BCV/RDF)+(unmapped replicated)

Available = (unmapped regular)+(mapped unallocated regular)


I have been through some of this before and its admittedly tedious trying to figure out how to get the right outputs

One thing I have found is that the "allocated" flag for DMX devices is very useful in there is a decent amount of intelligence in its algorithm? If its an RDF or BCV device it will do some checks to figure out if its allocated "logically" somewhere even if its not mapped or masked? e.g. for an R2 it will check if the R1 is mapped or masked? or BCV I think it does a similar thing against the source dev or checks symdgs on symm agent host? (cant remember exactly, its in the console online help)

When it comes to finding accurate available (usable) devs I found I had to:

1) use query builder and filter dialogue to filter out any system devs when determining available/usable capacity

2) manually create dev storage pools in ECC console (via SPS) using BIN file knowledge of tiering and device ranges which then will appear in STS

0 Kudos
JasonBailey
3 Argentium

Re: Basic questions un-answered by storage scope?

Joe_M wrote:

Classifying tiers , availability and cost of storage within a tiered category isn't possible.

(...)

Ecc agents cannot truly determine host device utilization. Only FS utilization as a whole.  Certain groups would like to know device utilization by device/tier level for reclamation opportunities. Complex code is required to try an determine these values to get close to real numbers.

The ECC 6.1 UB7 release notes mentioned there is improved tier based reporting now in STS where you can now define tiers. I initially thought it was something to do with FAST only but apparently not according to a colleague. I haven't had a look at UB7 yet to verify.

You can also assign a $ value to a host/lun tiering report by using a custom calculated column in query builder e.g. multiply GB field by X for $X per GB ?

With the device utilization and reclaimation I am not sure what you mean? When I have gone hunting for orphaned luns which are mapped and masked to a server but never used I found the host agent was invaluable to identify this. Other stuff like finding luns which have an empty unused VG on them is also good.

0 Kudos
dnorton1
2 Iron

Re: Basic questions un-answered by storage scope?

I want to assure everyone that this thread has been of great interest to the StorageScope team.  We're definitely interested in helping you get the answers to these questions, via a Query Builder query in v6 and as part of the built-in reports in SRM7 when it arrives.  I plan to ask the members of the forum, and those on this thread in particular, for help when it comes time to re-work the utilization queries in SRM7 (we aren't to that stage yet).

As for the tiering comments from Joe_M:

UB7 now includes some built-in tiering capability.  You can define tier criteria based on array type, disk technology (Flash/FC/SATA), disk size, and RAID protection.  You can also import SymmTier definitions from a FAST-compatible Symmetrix and map them to tier definitions.  SScope will then scan all your LUNs and map them to the appropriate tier.  Built-in queries show tiered storage by host and storage group for chargeback purposes.  We also provide tiered storage by array or by site for capacity planning purposes.  We're planning a live demo of this capability in January for this forum.

Keep the suggestions coming -- we're listening!

0 Kudos
nfwtnit
1 Copper

We're lost on the premise

I think this should flow into a "request for enhancement".

After reading some of the posts here, I think we have an issue at the most basic level.

I agree with the EMC posts (and countless conversations) that it is extremely difficult to report "Allocated space" because the definition changes (at a query level) between EMC, HP, HDS, IBM, etc.  Indeed, the queries fall apart even in the comparison of DMX and Clariion's.

Could this be solved by simply changing the basics?

Instead of #arrays.allocated, would it be more appropriate to use:

#array.symmetrix.allocated

#array.clariion.allocated

#array.eva.allocated

I don't believe it is possible to apply a common defenition world wide.

I do plan on wrapping this up into a request for enhancement, so would appreciate any feedback.

0 Kudos
JasonBailey
3 Argentium

Re: We're lost on the premise

nfwtnit

I think you raise some good points

0 Kudos
bthessel
2 Bronze

Re: Basic questions un-answered by storage scope?

Does anyone know if this https://powerlink.emc.com/nsepn/webapps/btg548664833igtcuup4826/km/live1//en_US/Legacy_Conversion/PL_Support/Doc_Library/300-000-651_a04_C1110.pdf is still valid?

It is from 2004 but does all the decriptions between the different array types still hold true?

0 Kudos
dnorton1
2 Iron

Re: Basic questions un-answered by storage scope?

What is the title of the document you're looking for -- is it one of the terminology guides?  I couldn't find anything with the filename you posted.
0 Kudos
bthessel
2 Bronze

Re: Basic questions un-answered by storage scope?

Odd, the link works for me. Yes it is a terminology doc that says it is for 5.2. The part number is 300-000-651. Is there an updated one for 6.X?
0 Kudos
Highlighted
bthessel
2 Bronze

Re: Basic questions un-answered by storage scope?

Based on what I am reading it looks like devices used for replication (Mirrorview, Snapview, Sancopy) are not tracked seperatly only as a part of Allocated for a Clariion? Is that correct?

Also it looks like you can't break unused down further into ATA vs. FC space which is very important.

0 Kudos