Comments on: Capacity vs Performance: Thin Provisioning-Reclaiming Free Space http://storagesavvy.com/2009/10/26/capacity-vs-performance-thin-provisioning-reclaiming-free-space/ Deciphering the complex topics around enterprise storage systems, technology, and trends in the industry. Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:18:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: DJ http://storagesavvy.com/2009/10/26/capacity-vs-performance-thin-provisioning-reclaiming-free-space/#comment-204 Wed, 15 Dec 2010 18:51:22 +0000 http://storagesavvy.com/?p=104#comment-204 Thin is not a performance enhancer. Just the opposite. I’ve yet to see thin really perform. For typical garbage shares or dumping grounds it’s probably fine, but for any heavy-write DB/DWH (ORACLE/SAS) it can’t perform. I have massively reduced latencies by getting out of HDP pools on USPV by going thick.
As for booting, going thick for those OS’s with guaranteed static defined space eliminates the wonder of where the disk heads are. Give each node it’s own defined OS space on separate luns and there are no problems.
Thin, to me is only a space efficiency tool that vendors can sell the benefits of, but for performance it’s really not what you want for enterprise apps.

]]> By: storagesavvy http://storagesavvy.com/2009/10/26/capacity-vs-performance-thin-provisioning-reclaiming-free-space/#comment-65 Sat, 13 Feb 2010 06:21:12 +0000 http://storagesavvy.com/?p=104#comment-65 Thanks Vaughn..

I was actually reading about the T10 spec just the other day. Getting a standard that any OS vendor can implement along with any storage vendor without adding a 3rd party (like Symantec) would definitely be ideal. I just wish new features like these would be back ported to older Operating Systems. Windows 2008 has some volume shrink features for example that can help with thin provisioning and page reclaim.. But that means I’d have to move my entire environment up to Windows 2008 to take good advantage of it. Large environments can’t usually justify upgrading their software every time a new feature is added, even if that feature can save them money.

]]> By: Vaughn Stewart http://storagesavvy.com/2009/10/26/capacity-vs-performance-thin-provisioning-reclaiming-free-space/#comment-64 Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:40:12 +0000 http://storagesavvy.com/?p=104#comment-64 The T10 (aka hole punching) spec or as it is now know,the UNMAP standard, will provide this feature for all vendors and file systems (both in LUN and VMDKs). This will help move the ball forward beyond availability only with VXFS here or NTFS there.

Nice write up.

]]> By: Mr. X http://storagesavvy.com/2009/10/26/capacity-vs-performance-thin-provisioning-reclaiming-free-space/#comment-60 Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:30:26 +0000 http://storagesavvy.com/?p=104#comment-60 Get a hold of your local EMC rep and he can bring you up to speed on this. New info

]]> By: storagesavvy http://storagesavvy.com/2009/10/26/capacity-vs-performance-thin-provisioning-reclaiming-free-space/#comment-47 Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:56:04 +0000 http://storagesavvy.com/?p=104#comment-47 Mr. X, I haven’t been able to find any reference to shrinking LUNs/Volumes with respect to VMax or Symmetrix in general. I DID find information on using Windows 2008 Volume shrink in Disk Administrator to shrink CLARiiON LUNs. This requires FLARE 29 and Windows 2008 though.

]]> By: Mr. X http://storagesavvy.com/2009/10/26/capacity-vs-performance-thin-provisioning-reclaiming-free-space/#comment-46 Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:58:10 +0000 http://storagesavvy.com/?p=104#comment-46 V-Max now does this as well.

]]>