This is's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
A different viewpoint of my own, after reading this yesterday. Would love feedback and continued discussion! If nothing else, thanks for keeping this topic active, Chad! -Nick
One of the best parts about being a NetApp customer is seeing the light that NetApp is shining, and it also comes as almost a grassroots effort to want to grab everyone else by the wrists and drag them along for the ride as well. I've done that several times with a few other (non-NetApp customers) users, and it was amazing to see their eyes light up and the smiles come across their faces when the light bulb went on and they "got it."
1 reply
I see storage vendors making a push to do for traditional storage arrays what VMware did for physical servers. I hope to see a complete abstraction of logical storage containers from being held down to any 1 controller, shelf stack, array. I hope to be able to "right click, maintenance mode," and similar to vMotion, have all of my data shuffled off to another "host/filer/controller" in my "cluster" of storage arrays, unbeknownst to the end user. I understand that it is limited by connection mediums between controllers and trad disk arrays/shelves (among other things), but I see this becoming abstracted VERY soon. With regards to NetApp specifically, DataMotion is cool, but take it to the next level and completely abstract my logical FlexVol's from being tied down to a particular filer. Abstract my filers in a "cluster" completely from the dumb pool of disk. Give me a "vCenter" equivalent for my storage arrays and allow me to build logical clusters of filers/heads/controllers/etc, and allocate certain workloads (i.e. random vs. sequential) seamlessly without any real need for hard configuration. I see BIG pushes from all of the manufacturer's to make something like this more of a reality, and if it already is, then it should be PoC'ed and made more public. -Nick
1 reply
"Maybe one day Oracle will even join this decade and update their anti-virtualization enterprise licensing model so we can look for ways to increase our Oracle footprint instead of decrease..." ^THIS! Huge victory, however, for those of us that took a giant Leap of Faith in VMware and our virtualization talents to go ahead and do it anyway!
Amazing! Awesome digging there, V.
1 reply
I wonder who will walk away from VMworld with the most iPad's... I'll be checking ebay throughout the week. haha.
1 reply
@Steve, you could do a tricky boot-from-SAN, but the easiest way would be to have a physical box on standby, with a comparable version of Oracle (same patch level) installed and powered down, waiting to mount your luns/disks to it. One thing I would add, especially for NFS/dNFS, is that to clone your vmdk's, requires a VOLUME-LEVEL snap, i.e. you have to mount the entire datastore in which your VMDK's reside. One of the beauties of NFS is how well it dedupes and scales, so it behooves you to cram everything into one large datastore (check volume size limits for dedupe compatability!) I found that the more I crammed into one datastore, I took a negligible performance hit, and increased my dedupe %'age. Point is, these methods work, but sometimes you can't remount ANOTHER 1-2TB volume. I would almost go through the effort of spinning up another smaller volume, mount to vmware, svmotion the vmdk's to it, THEN snap. Seems...."safer." It is fine to store your OS vmdk for linux/solaris in this big massive datastore, but your oracle bin/data/log/tmp volumes are still just going to be typical flexvol's on your storage that you mount via fstab/vfstab, with no regard to vmware. This scenario also makes for easy support scenarios. Have another physical box laying around, install same patch level oracle, copy over your $ORACLE_HOME, umount NFS from VM, and remount your NFS mount points. I honestly don't know that I would ever use these methods for a V2P support scenario, but with SMO+Flexclone, I could easily restore a copy of the database somewhere else (i.e. physical), which seems worlds easier to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, please! -Nick
1 reply