[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference mvblab::sable

Title:SABLE SYSTEM PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Moderator:COSMIC::PETERSON
Created:Mon Jan 11 1993
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:2614
Total number of notes:10244

2594.0. "Internal drive bay RZ28 supported?" by OHFSS1::MALOTT (Lost in a Maze of DecNis') Mon May 12 1997 11:37

    I originally placed this in the Alphastation conference, but I was
    informed that I may fare better here:
    
    I am about to quote an upgrade for a customer with an Alpha Server
    2100A 4/275 Deskside.  Part of this upgrade plan requires that we
    move their
    current Win NT system disk to an internal drive bay (not in SW
    shelf).  
    I just want to be sure that this is in fact a Digital supported
    option. 
        
    The internal disk will be an RZ28M-E with the 12-31734-01 grommet
    kit for internal drives.
        
    My problem is that I do not see this on the orderable options
    listing on the intra-net, which makes me a little nervous...
        
    Any thoughts helpful...
        
    Best Regards,
        
    John Malott
    
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
2594.1OTOOA::JPONDMon May 12 1997 15:109
    Where did you get the idea that you *could* do this?? Although you
    could probably scrounge together the appropriate mounting hardware to
    mount a drive directly to the bracket that comes with a 2100 for
    removable media devices, I doubt that you will find anybody that will
    tell you this is a supported configuration.
    
    What is your motivation for doing this?
    
    Jim
2594.2Actually....OHFSS1::MALOTTLost in a Maze of DecNis'Mon May 12 1997 15:3340
    Jim,
    
    Actually, I do *not* want to do this.  I just cannot find anything
    anywhere saying I can't.
    
    Here's the background:
    
    Customer has an A2100A server.  They have two internal SW shelves.  One
    is a split bus with first bus going to I/O module controller.  The
    second bus is unused.  The other shelf is single bus connected to a
    KZESC Swxcr 3 channel controller populated with all RZ28x-VA drives. 
    They are configured as a seven member (6 data + 1 parity) Raid 5 set.
    This Raid set is getting too small.  And, they want 'wide' SCSI type
    disks.  
    
    They want to increase their disk capacity and speed (mostly capacity).  
    I have suggested going to a KZPSC-BA (or -AA) and an external shelf 
    (BA356-KC) populated with RZ29B-VW disks for a large Raid set.  We
    would then have two Raid sets and a third "4 member" bus available for
    expansion from the existing split bus shelf.  The reason I spec the -BA
    controller is that they can then add 'wide' drives to the system on
    different channels as needed and gradually phase-out the Eisa Swxcr
    module.
     
    However,they want to 'try' to utilize the internal shelf that now houses 
    only one disk (NT system disk).  
    
    Therein lies my problem.  I need to be able to say that doing what is 
    described in .0 is *not* supported.  I am an ex-field engineer.  In
    speaking with a member of support (also an ex-FE) he mentioned he had
    seen a customer with an RZ28 in an internal drive bay on the
    rack-mounted A2100A Server.  I have found a grommet kit for mounting RZ
    drives, but again, I am very leary since these type of drives are
    not on the supported drives listing.
    
    Any help appreciated...
    
    Best Regards,
    
    John Malott  
2594.3OTOOA::JPONDMon May 12 1997 17:0421
    Well, keep in mind that the rackmount 2100 system is totally different
    than the pedestal 2100. In the case of the rackmount version, you are
    fully expected to mount drives directly inside the chassis (these are
    orderable as the -EJ variants). So, it's a bad assumption that just
    because the 2100R can take them that the regular 2100 could too.
    
    I think there are some better ways to accomplish what you are trying to
    do. First of all, note that your system disk does not *have* to be on
    the internal SCSI bus; it could just as easily be on the EISA Mylex
    controller. Secondly, is your EISA RAID controller a one-channel
    controller only? If not, you could always cable a spare bus from there
    to the other side of the split shelf.
    
    Are your internal shelves the old style or the new style (i.e. wide
    capable)? I would suspect they are new style if it is an "A" box. Why
    wouldn't you add a KZPSC-BA, use two busses to go an external split
    BA356 and cable the third bus internally to the shelf that is now split
    but in single-bus mode? Then you could have your one existing drive and
    six more in that shelf.
    
    Jim
2594.4But is it unsupported?OHFSS1::MALOTTLost in a Maze of DecNis'Tue May 13 1997 11:5631
    Jim,
    
    I agree with your idea of going to the KZPSC-BA.  But, can I split a
    Raid set among channels (it has been over a year since I've been into
    these)?  For example, if I put the one existing single bus shelf and
    add'l one side of split bus.  I just want to understand my options.  I
    also agree with going to the external shelf as well.  This will allow
    them to:
    1.  Keep existing Raid set on EISA Raid controller in tact.
    2.  Cable external shelf to PCI Raid controller channel and use other
    channel(s) for future growth.
    3.  Cable either the unused side of the internal split shelf to the PCI
    Raid controller or reconfig that shelf to single bus and cable that to
    the PCI Raid controller. 
    
    Also, can I house a Raid set on the same bus as the system disk, but
    not have the system disk be a member (ie, your idea of putting system
    disk on KZESC, which is 3 channel BTW)?
    
    Aren't there some considerations about placing an NT system disk on a
    KZESC controller?
    
    At any rate, I would like to indicate that placing the system disk
    (RZ28M-EJ) in an internal drive bay is not a supported option.  
    Is this a correct position?
    
    Thank you in advance...
    
    Best Regards,
    
    John Malott
2594.5OTOOA::JPONDWed May 14 1997 11:4942
    
>    I agree with your idea of going to the KZPSC-BA.  But, can I split a
>    Raid set among channels (it has been over a year since I've been into
>    these)?  For example, if I put the one existing single bus shelf and
>    add'l one side of split bus.  I just want to understand my options.  I

Yes, a RAID set can consist of members that physically reside on different
busses and in different enclosures (i.e. disks inside a Sable shelf and in
an outside BA356).

>    Also, can I house a Raid set on the same bus as the system disk, but
>    not have the system disk be a member (ie, your idea of putting system
>    disk on KZESC, which is 3 channel BTW)?
 
Well, there are two answers to this. First of all, you can create one drive
on the RAID controller to be a JBOD and would appear as a single disk like
what you are used to. However, note that an existing drive on the internal
SCSI bus is not transportable to the bus on the RAID controller.

The second point to be made is that, since your system disk is probably your
most crucial disk on the system, it makes the most sense to have that disk
as a member of a RAID set, instead of being just standalone. This by the
way is a strength of the Mylex in an AlphaServer; there are no boot 
restrictions. You sometimes see this on other products where the boot disk
is separate from the data disks; this is not optimum, it is just a result
of the RAID controller not supporting booting.
   
>    Aren't there some considerations about placing an NT system disk on a
>    KZESC controller?
 
There used to be. Way back when, there were minimum versions of firmware,
OS, and SP's, etc. that were required. Unless you're using some really
old stuff, you should have no issues. But check the versions.
   
>    At any rate, I would like to indicate that placing the system disk
>    (RZ28M-EJ) in an internal drive bay is not a supported option.  
>    Is this a correct position?
 
I'm not Engineering so don't quote me, but I think this is correct.   

Regards,
Jim