Tag Archives: nseries

NetApp and EMC: Exchange 2007 Replication

Posted on by

Exchange Replication

Building on the redundant storage project, we also wanted to replicate Exchange to a remote datacenter for disaster recovery purposes.  We’ve been using EMC CLARiiON MirrorView/A and Replication Manager for various applications up to now and decided we’d use NetApp/SnapMirror for Exchange to leverage the additional hardware as well as a way to evaluate NetApp’s replication functionality vs EMC’s.

On EMC Clariion storage, there are a couple choices for replicating applications like Exchange.
1.) Use MirrorView/Async with Consistency Groups to replicate Exchange databases in a crash-consistent state.
2.) Use EMC Replication Manager with Snapview snapshots and SANCopy/Incremental to update the remote site copy.

Similar to EMC’s Replication Manager, NetApp has SnapManager for various applications, which coordinates snapshots, and replica updates on a NetApp filer.

Whether using EMC RM or NetApp SM, software must be installed on all nodes in the Exchange cluster to quiesce the databases and initiate updates.  The advantage of Consistency groups with MirrorView is that no software needs to be installed in the host; all work is performed within the storage array.  The advantage of RM and SM/E is that database consistency is verified on each update and the software can coordinate restoring data to the same or alternate servers, which must be done manually if using MirrorView.

NetApp doesn’t support consistent snapshots across multiple volumes so the only option on a Filer is to use SnapManager for Exchange to coordinate snapshots and SnapMirror updates.

Our first attempt configuring SnapManager for Exchange actually failed when we ran into a compatibility issue with SnapDrive.  SnapManager depends on SnapDrive for mapping LUNs between the host and filer, and to communicate with the filer to create snapshots, etc.  We’d discussed our environment with NetApp and IBM ahead of time, specifically that we have Exchange CCR running on VMWare, with FiberChannel LUNs and everyone agreed that SnapDrive supports VMWare, Exchange, Microsoft Clustering, and VMWare Raw Devices.  It turns out that SnapDrive 6 DOES support all of this, but not all at the same time.  Specifically, MSCS clustering is not supported with FC Raw Devices on VMWare.  In comparison, EMC’s Replication Manager has supported this configuration for quite a while.  After further discussion NetApp confirmed that our environment was not supported in the current version of SnapDrive (6.0.2) and that SnapDrive 6.2, which was still in Beta, would resolve the issue.

Fast forward a couple months, SnapDrive 6.2 has been released and it does indeed support our environment so we’ve finally installed and configured SnapDrive and SnapManager.  We’ve dedicated the EMC side of the Exchange environment for the active nodes and the IBM for the passive nodes.  SnapManager snapshots the passive node databases, mounts them to run database verification, then updates the remote mirror using SnapMirror.

While SnapManager does do exactly what we need it to do, my experience with it hasn’t been great so far…  First, SnapManager relies on Windows Task Scheduler to run scheduled jobs, which has been causing issues.  The job will run on its schedule for a day, then stop after which the task must be edited to make it run again.  This happens in the lab and on both of our production Exchange clusters.  I also found a blog post about this same issue from someone else.

The other issue right now is that database verification takes a long time, due to the slow speed of ESEUTIL itself.  A single update on one node takes about 4 hours (for about 1TB of Exchange data) so we haven’t been able to achieve our goal of a 2-hour replication RPO.  IBM will be onsite next week to review our status and discuss any options.  An update on this will follow once we find a solution to both issues.  In the meantime I will post a comparison of replication tools between EMC and NetApp soon.

Category: comparisons, problems, solutions, technologies | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NetApp and EMC: Startup and First Impressions

Posted on by

In the last post, I talked about a project I am involved in right now to deploy NetApp storage alongside EMC for SAN and NAS.  Today, I’m going to talk about my first impressions of the NetApp during deployment and initial configuration.

First Impressions

I’m going to be pretty blunt — I have been working with EMC hardware and software for a while now, and I’m generally happy with the usability of their GUIs.  Over that time, I’ve used several major revisions of Navisphere Manager and Celerra Manager, and even more minor revisions, and I’ve never actually found a UI bug.  To be clear, EMC, IBM, NetApp, HDS, and every other vendor have bugs in their software, and they all do what they can to find and fix them quickly, but I just haven’t personally seen one in the EMC UIs despite using every feature offered by those systems. (I have come across bugs in the firmware)

Contrast that with the first day using the new NetApp, running the latest 7.3.1.1L1 code, where we discovered a UI problem in the first 10 minutes.  When attempting to add disks to an aggregate in FilerView, we could not select FC disk to add.  We could, however, add SATA disk to the FC aggregate.  The only way to get around the issue was to use the CLI via SSH.  As I mentioned in my previous post, our NetApp is actually an IBM nSeries, and IBM claims they perform additional QC before their customers get new NetApp code.

Shortly after that, we found a second UI issue in FilerView.  When creating a new Initiator group, FilerView populates the initiator list with the WWNs that have logged in to it.  Auto-populating is nice but the problem is that FilerView was incorrectly parsing the WWN of the server HBAs and populating the list with NodeWWNs rather than PortWWNs.  We spent several hours trying to figure out why the ESX servers didn’t see any LUNs before we realized that the WWNs in the Initiator group were incorrect.  Editing the 2nd digit on each one fixed the problem.

I find it interesting that these issues, which seemed easy to discover, made it through the QC process of two organizations.  ONTap 7.3.2RC1 is available now, but I don’t know if these issues were addressed.

Manageability

As far as FilerView goes, it is generally easy to use once you know how NetApp systems are provisioned.  The biggest drawback in an HA-Filer setup is the fact you have to open FilerView separately for each Filer and configure each one as a separate storage system.  Two HA-Filer pairs? Four FilerView windows.  If you include the initial launch page that comes up before you get to the actual FilerView window, you double the number of browser windows open to manage your systems.  NetApp likes to mention that they have unified management for NAS and SAN where EMC has two separate platforms, each with their own management tools. EMC treats the two storage processors (SPs) in a Clariion in a much more unified manner, and provisioning is done against the entire Clariion, not per SP.  Further, Navisphere can manage many Clariions in the same UI.  Celerra Manager acts similarly for EMC NAS.  Six of one, half a dozen of the other some say, except that I find that I generally provision NAS storage and SAN storage at different times, and I’d rather have all of the controllers/filers in the same window than NAS and SAN in the same window.  Just my preference.

I should mention, NetApp recently released System Manager 1.0 as a free download.  This new admin tool does present all of the controllers in one view and may end up being a much better tool than FilerView.  For now, it’s missing too many features to be used 100% of the time and it’s Windows only since it’s based on MMC.  Which brings me to my other problem with managing the NetApp.  Neither FilerView nor System Manager can actually do everything you might need to do, and that means you end up in the CLI, FREQUENTLY.  I’m comfortable with CLIs and they are extremely powerful for troubleshooting problems, and especially for scripting batch changes, but I don’t like to be forced into the CLI for general administration.  GUI based management helps prevent possibly crippling typos and can make visualizing your environment easier.  During deployment, we kept going back and forth between FilerView and CLI to configure different things.  Further, since we were using MultiStore (vFilers) for CIFS shares and disaster recovery, we were stuck in the CLI almost entirely because System Manager can’t even see vFilers, and FilerView can only create them and attach volumes.

Had I not been managing Celerra and Clariion for so long, I probably wouldn’t have noticed the above problems.  After several years of configuring CIFS, NFS, iSCSI, Virtual DataMovers, IP Interfaces, Snapshots, Replication, and DR Failover, etc. on Celerra, as well as literally thousands of LUNs for hundreds of servers on Clariion, I don’t recall EVER being forced to use the CLI.  CelerraCLI and NaviCLI are very powerful, and I have written many scripts leveraging them, and I’ll use CLI when troubleshooting an issue.  But for every single feature I’ve ever used on the Celerra or Clarrion, I was able to completely configure from start to finish using the GUI.  Installing a Celerra from scratch even uses a GUI based installation wizard.  Comparing Clariion Storage Groups with NetApp Initiator groups and LUN maps isn’t even fair.  For MS Exchange, I mapped about 50 LUNs to the ESX cluster, which took about 30 minutes in FilerView.  On the Clariion, the same operation is done by just editing the Storage Group and checking each LUN, taking only a couple minutes for the entire process.

Now, all of the above commentary has to do with the management tools, UIs, and to some degree personal preferences, and does not have any bearing on the equipment or underlying functionality.  There are, of course, optional management tools like Operations Manager, Provisioning Manager, and Protection Manager available from NetApp, just as there is Control Center from EMC (which incidentally can monitor the NetApp) or Command Central from Symantec.  Depending on your overall needs, you may want to look at optional management tools; or, FilerView may be perfectly fine.

In the next post,  I’ll get into more specifics about how the Exchange 2007 CCR cluster turned out in this new environment, along with some notes on making CCR truly redundant.  I’ve also been working on the NAS side of the project, so I’ll also post about that some time soon.

Category: comparisons, technologies | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NetApp and EMC: Real world comparisons

Posted on by

I’ve been tasked recently on a project to increase availability of applications through the use of multiple/disparate storage systems.  This environment has heavily invested in EMC Clariion and Celerra storage systems over the past few years and needed a non-EMC platform from which to build the second half of a redundant storage environment.  For various reasons I won’t go into here, we chose IBM nSeries as that second platform. (Since the IBM system is rebranded NetApp FAS, I will refer to this as a NetApp filer.)  I’ve been working on implementing the new equipment as well as integrating it into the Business Continuity strategy.

The overall strategy is to continue to use the EMC Clariion/Celerra systems for production and disaster recovery replication and split applications between and across the two storage platforms for local redundancy.  The NetApp will also perform disaster recovery replication for some of the applications.  Here’s a really simple diagram that might help if the description is confusing:

EMC and NetApp Redundancy

EMC and NetApp Redundancy

Now this may sound easy, but it is, in fact, NOT straightforward.  This strategy requires close coordination with application owners and careful planning.  As we move forward on this project, I’ll talk about various idiosyncrasies, caveats, and problems we’ve faced, how we got around them, and I’ll also talk a lot about the differences between the Clariion/Celerra and NetApp platforms’ features and functionality, application support, and manageability.  These comparisons will include using both systems with FiberChannel connections as well as CIFS/NFS NAS, all in conjunction with DR replication and failover.

To start off, I figure we should compare some of the terminology between EMC and NetApp systems.  Some terms don’t directly translate, but I matched them up as close as I could and noted where there is no equivalent.   Below are two tables: one for Block Storage, and the other for NAS Storage.  Click on them to see full size versions.

EMC-NetApp Block Storage Terminology table

EMC-NetApp Block Storage Terminology

EMC-NetApp NAS Storage Terminology

EMC-NetApp NAS Storage Terminology

In the next update, I’ll start talking about the deployment itself.  The point of these articles is to discuss the differences, advantages, and disadvantages of each platform so that you can understand how each one might work in your environment.  I do not intend to disparage either platform or vendor.  I will try to be vendor agnostic as much as possible, and I do feel like I have a somewhat unique position of comparing new and recent hardware and firmware from both vendors, in the same production capacities, simultaneously, in the same environment.  I am NOT comparing old ONTap code to new FLARE/DART code or vise-versa, nor am I comparing old Clariion CX hardware to new NetApp/IBM hardware, etc.

Stay tuned!

Category: technologies | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,