Comments on: NetApp and EMC: Exchange 2007 Replication http://storagesavvy.com/2010/01/15/netapp-and-emc-exchange-2007-replication/ An attempt to decipher the complex topics around enterprise storage systems, technology, and trends in the industry. Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:26:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: storagesavvy http://storagesavvy.com/2010/01/15/netapp-and-emc-exchange-2007-replication/#comment-84 storagesavvy Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:50:40 +0000 http://storagesavvy.com/?p=142#comment-84 Following up on the performance issue I mentioned, there are myriad reasons it could take a long time, in our case I believe it was because there were only two servers, each verifying over 1TB, and SnapManager would not run multiple ESEUTILS at the same time on the same server. It was a serial process. We also found that the FAS3170 was pegged at 100% CPU Utilization during the ESEUTIL job. We ended up truncating logs during each update and disabling ESEUTIL which brought our RPO window down. EMC RecoverPoint/SE is an amazing product for CLARiiON Customers and scales to 150TB of protected capacity in the SE version. It is far superior to either SnapMirror or MirrorView but it is a separate product with it's own licensing cost. I left it out for simplicity sake. EMC is driving much of it's replication technology with RecoverPoint going forward. I like the IBM guys, but based on my own experience, I would recommend that any customer looking at NetApp storage should buy it from NetApp, not put IBM in the middle. Following up on the performance issue I mentioned, there are myriad reasons it could take a long time, in our case I believe it was because there were only two servers, each verifying over 1TB, and SnapManager would not run multiple ESEUTILS at the same time on the same server. It was a serial process. We also found that the FAS3170 was pegged at 100% CPU Utilization during the ESEUTIL job. We ended up truncating logs during each update and disabling ESEUTIL which brought our RPO window down.

EMC RecoverPoint/SE is an amazing product for CLARiiON Customers and scales to 150TB of protected capacity in the SE version. It is far superior to either SnapMirror or MirrorView but it is a separate product with it’s own licensing cost. I left it out for simplicity sake. EMC is driving much of it’s replication technology with RecoverPoint going forward.

I like the IBM guys, but based on my own experience, I would recommend that any customer looking at NetApp storage should buy it from NetApp, not put IBM in the middle.

]]> By: Ben Di Qual http://storagesavvy.com/2010/01/15/netapp-and-emc-exchange-2007-replication/#comment-79 Ben Di Qual Mon, 21 Jun 2010 07:11:03 +0000 http://storagesavvy.com/?p=142#comment-79 You forgot to mention EMC Recoverpoint (SE is quite cheap for under 4TB) which is by far their best asynch replication product. Coming out as a virtual appliance soon As per comment to other blog you wrote NetApp have brought out protection manager to co-ordinate multiple snapshots on different hosts and arrays from one location. I have personally setup exchange on a FAS 3140 with clustering and CCR on vmware with FC connected LUNs and had no issues. Snapshots and verifications of 1.2TB of Exchange data took well under 1 hr so I would say you have a configuration issue. I believe that anyone who buys the N will have issues with support as IBM have not invested a lot of time in supporting the OEM netapp product You forgot to mention EMC Recoverpoint (SE is quite cheap for under 4TB) which is by far their best asynch replication product. Coming out as a virtual appliance soon

As per comment to other blog you wrote NetApp have brought out protection manager to co-ordinate multiple snapshots on different hosts and arrays from one location.

I have personally setup exchange on a FAS 3140 with clustering and CCR on vmware with FC connected LUNs and had no issues. Snapshots and verifications of 1.2TB of Exchange data took well under 1 hr so I would say you have a configuration issue. I believe that anyone who buys the N will have issues with support as IBM have not invested a lot of time in supporting the OEM netapp product

]]>