Re: p4300 10.0 and storevirtual 11.0 (256 Views)
Reply
Advisor
Frankiboy
Posts: 18
Registered: ‎01-04-2013
Message 1 of 12 (422 Views)

p4300 10.0 and storevirtual 11.0

Hi.

I have a lefthand p4300 10.0 cluster and a CMC 10.5. We have just purchased a storevirtual 4330 which comes with 11.0.

I want to create a new cluster for the 2 new storevirtual nodes.

 

1. Can CMC 10.05 manage both a 10.0  and a 11.0 cluster? OR should i upgrade cmc to 11, and will CMC 11 be able to manage a 10 and 11.0 cluster?

 

2. Can these clusternodes reside on the same iscsi subnet? (i know the traffic to hyper-v host may be a bottleneck if u se the same network card)

Please use plain text.
Advisor
Frankiboy
Posts: 18
Registered: ‎01-04-2013
Message 2 of 12 (417 Views)

Re: p4300 10.0 and storevirtual 11.0

and one more thing; if I install the newest version of the hardware vss driver on the hyper-v host, will these be compatible with the p4300 cluster running 10.0?

Please use plain text.
Honored Contributor
oikjn
Posts: 756
Registered: ‎07-20-2011
Message 3 of 12 (400 Views)

Re: p4300 10.0 and storevirtual 11.0

[ Edited ]

upgrade CMC and the DSM/VSS software all of that is compatible with v10.  I think you will have to create a new management group if you want to take advantage of the new features of v11 which don't get activated until ALL the members of the management group are upgraded.

 

edit:  corrected my post... I said cluster instead of management group...  you will need a new mgt group.

Please use plain text.
Advisor
Frankiboy
Posts: 18
Registered: ‎01-04-2013
Message 4 of 12 (363 Views)

Re: p4300 10.0 and storevirtual 11.0

Ok.

I can use the same subnet on all the nodes?

Please use plain text.
Regular Advisor
a_o
Posts: 69
Registered: ‎02-22-2012
Message 5 of 12 (359 Views)

Re: p4300 10.0 and storevirtual 11.0

[ Edited ]

IP address  subnetting  has nothing to do with performance per-se.
Are you routing data between your nodes and hosts?
If so, your performance is going to be  affected by your router's capabilities. If the router can give above NIC/wire speeds, it might not be an issue.


In your specific case, the solution to your CMC problem is not affected by subnetting.

Please use plain text.
Regular Advisor
a_o
Posts: 69
Registered: ‎02-22-2012
Message 6 of 12 (352 Views)

Re: p4300 10.0 and storevirtual 11.0

[ Edited ]

To expand on the above, putting your two clusters on two separate subnets has no benefit from a performance perspective.


For example, as long as they're on the same collision domain, they would be sharing what ever bandwidth is available on that part of the physical network. Again, this has nothing to do with IP subnetting.

Even in a normal switched network, the aggregate bandwidth provided by your core or main switch will determine the total available bandwidth, having nothing to do with IP subnetting.

If you've physically separated the networks, i.e. in a truly partitioned network, then I guess you'll have to expand on your question.

Please use plain text.
Honored Contributor
oikjn
Posts: 756
Registered: ‎07-20-2011
Message 7 of 12 (343 Views)

Re: p4300 10.0 and storevirtual 11.0

you really need a new managment group and not just a new cluster since v11 and v10 in the same mgt group will default the GROUP to the v10 features.  That said, you can have both management groups managed by CMCv11 AND you can have both management groups on the same subnet.  Assuming you are only splitting this because of the version difference and all your servers are on the same subnet, it would be a mistake to put the new nodes onto a different subnet.

Please use plain text.
Advisor
Frankiboy
Posts: 18
Registered: ‎01-04-2013
Message 8 of 12 (305 Views)

Re: p4300 10.0 and storevirtual 11.0

If i create a new management group, does this group need its own FOM too or will the one I have in the P4300 group be used?
Please use plain text.
Honored Contributor
oikjn
Posts: 756
Registered: ‎07-20-2011
Message 9 of 12 (299 Views)

Re: p4300 10.0 and storevirtual 11.0

it would need its own.  Its logically 100% independant from the other group.  You would have to setup users, servers, sites, DNS...  everything.  In that respect its a pain in the ass, but the upside is that you get the features of v11 in the new nodes AND in theory it would allow you to do staged updates between the two groups so you don't have 100% of your SAN under one configuration (for even more redundancy).

Please use plain text.
Advisor
Frankiboy
Posts: 18
Registered: ‎01-04-2013
Message 10 of 12 (295 Views)

Re: p4300 10.0 and storevirtual 11.0

hi,

when it comes to features i reallu just need two nodes with network redundancy and a large lun to save my hyper-v files and hardware snapshot, thats it :)

 

What yould you guys do then?

 

If I put them in the same management group, i could still keep my p4300 on 10 and f.eks update the storevirtual 4330 nodes separately to a future edition of 11.5?

Please use plain text.
HP Pro
HPstorageTom
Posts: 36
Registered: ‎01-31-2012
Message 11 of 12 (289 Views)

Re: p4300 10.0 and storevirtual 11.0

if you don't need any of the 11.0 features, then you can go and put the 4330 systems into the same management group - this would avoid the need for an additional FOM and would give you peer motion capabilities between the P4300 and the 4330 cluster (I am assuming here that you are creating a new cluster with the 4330 systems).


I would still recommend to upgrade the P4300 systems to 11.0 as soon as it is available.

Please use plain text.
Advisor
Frankiboy
Posts: 18
Registered: ‎01-04-2013
Message 12 of 12 (256 Views)

Re: p4300 10.0 and storevirtual 11.0

I have upgraded the p4300 now, and it is now running version 10.5. The update went fine.

When we receive the new 4330 I will update the P4300 to 11.0

 

I think its best to do this on friday night so i have the weekend to fix thing if things happens..

 

I guess updating is just usingthe CMC again and click update and everything goes automatically like from 10 to 10.5?

 

I am actually using hyper-v live migration of storage a lot, I guess that does the same thing as peer to peer motion on the san level?

Please use plain text.
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of HP. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation