HPE Storage Users Group

Got a nice Message today:

LOL, no more 16TiB limit, however chuncklets are now 16TiB each.

Is that 3.3.1?

3.3.1 MU1 & SSMC 3.3.0
Only if Compression is enabled.

Hi guys,

Do we know which of the suggestions here HPE have accepted as things to work on?

A couple of pages back there was a mention of wildcards in searches. Is this going to be added?

Thanks.

The new "Add host to all systems in the federation" - feature does strange things here, when adding one new WWN and clicking "Add+", ALL known WWNs (off ALL already defined hosts) are put in the list for the current host. We did not dare to cklick "OK", but canceled.

But to be honest, we don't have federation here, we were hoping it would add the host to both 3PARs that are in a sync remote copy-relation. Now this feature would really speed up things...

apol wrote:The new "Add host to all systems in the federation" - feature does strange things here, when adding one new WWN and clicking "Add+", ALL known WWNs (off ALL already defined hosts) are put in the list for the current host. We did not dare to cklick "OK", but canceled.

But to be honest, we don't have federation here, we were hoping it would add the host to both 3PARs that are in a sync remote copy-relation. Now this feature would really speed up things...

Yes certainly would be a bonus and a very common action, even not resetting all the values when changing array in the Add+ would be helpful.

Or an export host definitions, import option for bulk creation on a new array.

apol wrote:But to be honest, we don't have federation here, we were hoping it would add the host to both 3PARs that are in a sync remote copy-relation. Now this feature would really speed up things...

I somewhat agree. It could be an option, but I have a lot lf scenarios where I don't want that. Many systems/volumes are not replicated even if the system is in a RC relationship. Another scenario is when using CLX/Cluster Extension... Another interessting scenario is when you have a 1-to-many RC setup (ie one 3PAR replicates different volumes to different 3PARs).

Do you really have more systems in federation-configuration than systems in good old remote copy setups? We're not talking volumes here, but plain host definitions.

apol wrote:Do you really have more systems in federation-configuration than systems in good old remote copy setups? We're not talking volumes here, but plain host definitions.

No, but in a federation the intension is that a volume can move across 3PARs, ie it is natural to have the hosts zones and defined on multiple/all arrays in the federation.

The only reason for adding one host to multiple arrays in a RC-setup is Peer Persistence.

The only reason for adding one host to multiple arrays in a RC-setup is Peer Persistence.

Not here

All hosts are zoned to both arrays, PP or plain old RC. That way, a storage failure does not force you to change hosts as well. Oh, and there's this vmware stretched cluster stuff as well.

I guessthere are a zillion ways one could implement rc "the right way", ask four it infrastructure people and you get five opinions, but "The only reason for adding one host to multiple arrays in a RC-setup is Peer Persistence" is a little bit too academic imho.

And even if that was a 100% correct: Are there more federation environments than peer persistence setups?