Historically, we are Unix mirrored to multiple storage subsystems to provide continuous availability in the event of a storage subsystem failure. Is it reasonable to think this is not needed, on which platforms? In particular, what about Clariion?
You are doing the right thing. All storage subsystems have single points of failure, including Clariion boxes. Consider the power source, the cache boards, internal controllers. Also consider the box itself. If a large cup of a sticky-sweet beverage were to be poured into a Clariion, it would almost certainly fail. I have never seen any single-box solution that did not have single points of failure. By mirroring to another subsystem, you are protecting yourself against the failure of a single subsystem.
Evan L. Marcus
Editor's note: Do you agree with this expert's response? If you have more to share, post it in our .HcX6azlxeJg^0@.ee83ce2!viewtype=&skip=&expand=>Administrator Central discussion forum.
Dig deeper on Data management tools
Related Q&A from Evan Marcus
Storage expert Evan Marcus compares software and hardware RAID and outlines the benefits and drawbacks of each.continue reading
This expert answer explains the purpose of creating LUNs and details reasons for creating multiple LUNs.continue reading
This advice details the hardware and software requirements for setting up two data servers in fail-safe cluster mode for high availability.continue reading
Have a question for an expert?
Please add a title for your question
Get answers from a TechTarget expert on whatever's puzzling you.