dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
955
share rss forum feed

amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·KCH Cable

New SAN - remapping volumes - naming scheme

So we've got a shiny new SAN that's coming online soon. 100TB of usable space
Just about got all the logistics in place, such as a fresh fiber patch panel between locations, patch cables, SFP's for switches, electrical work, etc.

My question is this - if you had a fresh storage environment, how would you lay out your volumes?

The current setup is kind of a mess, and makes managing multiple volumes confusing at times. The previous scheme just didn't scale as well as the last person had thought. It is also now at capacity, and it's difficult to get a good picture of how things are truly allocated.

I'm working out a spreadsheet based on RVTools export to plan for new volumes in the new SAN, so that when it's all online, I can begin to simply storage vMotion things into their new clean world.
I also need to plan for future expansion of some existing servers which will double in capacity over the next year, as well as a massive new project involving tons of new VMs, and a good chunk of space.

I'm thinking of a 1:1 mapping as follows:
Vol.##.ServerName.Drive##

I realize that there is a possible future mess with the first ## part. The second set of ##'s would be sequential, like 01=C:, 02=D: etc. (edit: but not in all cases - some servers can happily live on one SAN volume - this is mostly for larger ones that would benefit from multiple volumes, such as large file servers)

Should I avoid that, or just make sure to meticulously track / reuse when needed? Take another approach altogether?

Looking for how others approach this, for any pointers on what works in your world, what doesn't, what you'd change if you could.

Thoughts?


mkaishar

join:2000-12-20
united state
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

curious what your current and new san are?
brand?
technology?
price?

I primarily use iSCSI everywhere these days.

My vm volume naming is simple:
vmvol01, vmvol02, etc...
vdivol01, vdivol02, etc...

For VMs that have iSCSI connected through the OS:
exchvol01, exchvol02, etc...
sqlvol01, sqlvol02, etc...
fsvol01, fsvol02

For the fileserver, I name each LUN to the resource or department
marketingvol01, financevol01, etc...

The problem is that eventually the requirement and naming convention that you thought is good becomes outdated.

Then the cycle starts all over again



Modus
I hate smartassery on forums
Premium
join:2005-05-02
us
reply to amungus

Ditto the questions mkaishar asked

I just went through the same refresh on my SAN a few months ago. Went with a dell compellent series 40 and stuck to fiber channel

I have Tier 1 & Tier 3 storage levels, i named my volumes SQL, VM's, File Storage and Sandbox
--
Think Ahead. Learn More. Solve Now!


amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·KCH Cable

Good questions! Lol, so it goes with things being outdated on naming conventions.
Current stuff: One old HP MSA (fibre channel), two Equallogics (iSCSI)
Total HP storage, ~4.5TB - - Total Equallogic storage, ~38TB

New Stuff: Compellent (fibre channel) 2 SC8000 controllers and a boatload of drives - price... can't really say much on that, other than "expensive."

iSCSI within a VM?? Interesting.. Seems odd to me, as I've always just added volumes to the machine directly through VMWare, leaving the OS to see the drive without an internal initiator.

The "vdivol1,2,3" scheme is similar to what we have now.
The problem is with disparate machines within them. I hate having to look up, for example, "vdivol5" and track what machines are there.
Example: "machine "x" is also in vdivol5, and is thin provisioned up to "y," so I cannot grant "z" without being very careful, due to considerations for machine "w" and its allocations"
...would rather just look at machine 'x' and know what it's provisioned for, go to the SAN volume for further needs, without being worried about other considerations. Would help with better tracking of what's actually allocated in the "bigger picture."
I don't mind some groupings, as long as it's sane. Just want to start "clean" this time, and lay things out as sensibly as possible for my own sanity.

I may just take the 1st set of #'s out of the scheme, as that could get out of hand if I wanted to add, say, another volume to a file server, and it ends up being "vol.72.fileserver4.06" when others are "vol.10..." - - looking at it now, I'm leaning towards this being simpler. Perhaps changing it to something like the following for future tracking reasons.

"hq.fs01.01"
"hq.fs01.02"
"hq.sql01.01" etc


mkaishar

join:2000-12-20
united state
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to amungus

said by amungus:

iSCSI within a VM?? Interesting.. Seems odd to me, as I've always just added volumes to the machine directly through VMWare, leaving the OS to see the drive without an internal initiator.

Makes this much more flexible and less storage required for VM backups.


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
reply to mkaishar

said by mkaishar:

My vm volume naming is simple:
vmvol01, vmvol02, etc...
vdivol01, vdivol02, etc...

Simple is always easier to maintain, especially when your spreadsheets are massive. Me though, I prefer to start with a number.

mkaishar

join:2000-12-20
united state
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to amungus

Not sure how large your environment is, but ours might be small in comparison.

To me with storage vmotion and drs, I set it and forget it...wait where have I heard that before

You can always just throw more disks online or send it to the cloud



urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable

Small today, big tomorrow!

I always have a tendency to think long term and when I started out many ages ago, I'd always debated with people that their 'clever' naming scheme loses out to my simple naming scheme (ie. their AD001NY, AD002NY, AD001NJ vs. my SERVER001, SERVER002) but as I gained more experience I realized that it's easier to sort a spreadsheet when you start with a number (unless you're a crazy man using hex).

Sometimes, if possible, we try to tie asset tags with IP addresses if possible.



Drex
Beer...The other white meat.
Premium
join:2000-02-24
Not There
kudos:1
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
reply to amungus

A 1:1 ratio sounds too difficult to manage in my eyes (or would that be ears since eyes can't hear?). I'd rather just carve up some large volumes, present them up to VMware, make datastores, and dump as many servers on there as I can.

In an enterprise environment, I'd segment everything out...production, test, dev, etc. and probably name the volumes accordingly.
--
I'm actually not funny, I'm just really mean and people think I'm joking.