Storage subsystem failure
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?

    Requires Free Membership to View

    Login

    When you register for SearchStorage.com, you’ll also receive targeted emails from my team of award-winning editorial writers. Our goal is to keep you informed on the hottest topics, the latest news and the biggest challenges you face as a storage professional today.

    Rich Castagna, Editorial Director

    By submitting your registration information to SearchStorage.com you agree to receive email communications from TechTarget and TechTarget partners. We encourage you to read our Privacy Policy which contains important disclosures about how we collect and use your registration and other information. If you reside outside of the United States, by submitting this registration information you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Your use of SearchStorage.com is governed by our Terms of Use. You may contact us at webmaster@TechTarget.com.

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.


This was first published in October 2002