AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20080711104508.5b030026@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:onstor-exch02.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<jhernandez@css.glasshouse.com>,<dl-cstech@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@onstor-exch02.onstor.net/INBOX	0	200807111636.m6BGadg04041@mailhost-rtp.css.glasshouse.com
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:48:02 -0700
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: "Jairo Hernandez" <jhernandez@css.glasshouse.com>
Cc: "'dl-cstech'" <dl-cstech@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: case 8693--[UCSF--lun size relation to an "unmounting volume]
Message-ID: <20080711104802.7a46694b@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <200807111636.m6BGadg04041@mailhost-rtp.css.glasshouse.com>
References: <200807111636.m6BGadg04041@mailhost-rtp.css.glasshouse.com>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

My only thought is that the maximum number of luns they currently have
would be about 40, which isn't too terribly much.  But they could
reduce that to 16 by making all their luns 250GB which is a perfectly
decent size.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:36:51 -0500 "Jairo Hernandez"
<jhernandez@css.glasshouse.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Customer is running 3.1.1.1 and asking a question about lun sizes and
> if it helps prevent ocassional volume "unmount on its own" problems.
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Question:
>=20
> =20
>=20
> "We are going to be taking an EXISTING volume (currently is 4
> terabytes in size) and mirror it across to near line disks. At this
> time, the existing volume consists of a series of 250 and 100 gig
> luns. Since we have an opportunity to do so, we are wondering if we
> create one huge 4 terabyte lun and mirror the volume onto that, would
> it be a more optimized way of managing the existing data? We could
> then let the autogrow luns (100 or 250 gigs in size) add on as
> needed. We?=E2=82=AC=E2=84=A2ve had some issues with mounting volumes in =
the past,
> and one of the solutions was to re-scan luns. Would this address
> those issues?"
>=20
> =20
>=20
> We have informed that the max lun size is 2 TB but I have no idea if
> bigger luns help in preventing these "unmount" problems.=20
>=20
> I think lun size does not matter in this case.
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Any thoughts?
>=20
> =20
>=20
> thanks,
>=20
> =20
>=20
> jairo
>=20
