This post is more than 5 years old
1 Rookie
•
41 Posts
0
2621
May 13th, 2009 02:00
RDF Group Best Practises
I'm looking for best practise documentation for RDF Groups on a DMX-4.
Ours were setup by EMC and consist of:
A general srdf/s replication group
A general srdf/a replication group
An srdf/a group specifically for vmware replicated luns
Then there are 4 srdf/a groups, each of these groups has only a few devices and services 2 clustered windows boxes each.
Finally there are 2 static RDF groups. There are no devices inside so imagine they are for management purposes.
I guess i need to find out for the 4 srdf/a if this is normal practise to create small groups like this and what is the limit to the number of rdf groups I can have. For async it gives us more flexibility if we put just a few servers or groups of servers into an RDF group rather than having just a single async rdf group which can only have actions performed across the whole group.
Ours were setup by EMC and consist of:
A general srdf/s replication group
A general srdf/a replication group
An srdf/a group specifically for vmware replicated luns
Then there are 4 srdf/a groups, each of these groups has only a few devices and services 2 clustered windows boxes each.
Finally there are 2 static RDF groups. There are no devices inside so imagine they are for management purposes.
I guess i need to find out for the 4 srdf/a if this is normal practise to create small groups like this and what is the limit to the number of rdf groups I can have. For async it gives us more flexibility if we put just a few servers or groups of servers into an RDF group rather than having just a single async rdf group which can only have actions performed across the whole group.
0 events found
No Events found!


xe2sdc
6 Operator
•
2.8K Posts
0
May 13th, 2009 07:00
In case you want more then 8/16 RDFG on a single processor you need an RPQ.
RRR
6 Operator
•
5.7K Posts
0
May 13th, 2009 05:00
You'll always learn down the road, which is good
xe2sdc
6 Operator
•
2.8K Posts
0
May 13th, 2009 05:00
Since you have different clusters on the R1 side (and possibly hosts on R2 site able to "see" and use R2 devices in case you need) having different RDFG (one for each cluster) allows you to failover a single clustero on the R2 box without affecting all other clusters.
Unfortunatly there aren't only "best practices" .. we have also customer requirements that we must meet.
Message was edited by:
Stefano Del Corno
xe2sdc
6 Operator
•
2.8K Posts
0
May 13th, 2009 06:00
Now with a much higher limit (and also few hosts) we may choose a different approach .. Now.. 3 years (and 2 major release of code) later
BHORAN1
1 Rookie
•
41 Posts
0
May 13th, 2009 06:00
BHORAN1
1 Rookie
•
41 Posts
0
May 28th, 2009 03:00
xe2sdc
6 Operator
•
2.8K Posts
0
May 28th, 2009 04:00
xe2sdc
6 Operator
•
2.8K Posts
0
May 28th, 2009 04:00
BHORAN1
1 Rookie
•
41 Posts
0
May 28th, 2009 04:00
RPQ?
dynamox
11 Legend
•
20.4K Posts
•
87.4K Points
0
May 30th, 2009 06:00
xe2sdc
6 Operator
•
2.8K Posts
0
June 1st, 2009 02:00
danailp1
1 Message
0
June 18th, 2009 06:00
Best Practice is to have at least one group per host / custer system. That way you can enable "cosistency" protection for that SRDF/A group:
symrdf -g group_name -enable -nop
Whole point about SRDF/A replication is to have "consistent" state of all devices inside that group. That way you will be sure that application is consistent and recovery can be performed.
For larger applications, you can create even several groups per each host. Everything depends on application itself.
MikeMac1
2 Intern
•
292 Posts
0
June 23rd, 2009 08:00