The reason I asked because of the whole UUID thing, I don’t think it will matter here as you are not changing Host id, not migrating to another array ..something that would require VMFS resignature.
i hear you. Naturally you will add more load on the other RGs but everything i've read says that stacking affect sequential workloads, is that the case for VMs residing on that datastore ? Look at Analyzer numbers for FC LUNs as well as RG numbers for SATA drives, can they handle more IOPS. How are you going to move extents to SATA RGs, LUN migrator ?
dynamox
9 Legend
•
20.4K Posts
0
June 8th, 2010 08:00
The reason I asked because of the whole UUID thing, I don’t think it will matter here as you are not changing Host id, not migrating to another array ..something that would require VMFS resignature.
kenn2347
3 Apprentice
•
542 Posts
0
June 8th, 2010 07:00
unfortunatly yes. I know that isnt best practice but trying to clean up an environment i inherited.
dynamox
9 Legend
•
20.4K Posts
0
June 8th, 2010 07:00
so you have VMFS file system that spans SATA and FC RGs ?
dynamox
9 Legend
•
20.4K Posts
0
June 8th, 2010 08:00
i hear you. Naturally you will add more load on the other RGs but everything i've read says that stacking affect sequential workloads, is that the case for VMs residing on that datastore ? Look at Analyzer numbers for FC LUNs as well as RG numbers for SATA drives, can they handle more IOPS. How are you going to move extents to SATA RGs, LUN migrator ?
kenn2347
3 Apprentice
•
542 Posts
0
June 8th, 2010 08:00
To move them i would just use the normal migrate command on the lun. The array doesnt know it is an extent anyway.
The VM's that reside on that datastore are not high workload/IO users.
kenn2347
3 Apprentice
•
542 Posts
0
June 8th, 2010 09:00
2 of the extents have been migrated in the past with no problems.
dynamox
9 Legend
•
20.4K Posts
0
June 8th, 2010 13:00
good to know ..thanks Kenn.