Something I'm not clear on for products like these. How do they tell the difference between a user really trying to read a file, and other system level activities that might access the file, such as backups?
Whenever we've tried to look into ways of archiving data that isn't being used any more, we always run up against not being able to really tell what isn't being used any more.
-----Original Message----- From: Louis Elias [mailto:louis.elias@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 6:43 PM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: HSM and Netapp
I would like to set the record straight for posterity.
NuView has 2 products that can be used to build an ILM strategy. 1.) Virtual File Manager (VFM) is software that can virtualize an enterprise namespace by taking advantage of either MS DFS which is built into the CIFS protocol or NFS.
DFS is not an in band solution but rather acts much like DNS by supplying referals to user requests. VFM automates the management of all of the DFS roots through several different policies. One of those policies is a Data Archival Migration policy that will find folders that contain files with attributes you are looking for. So I can say find all of the folders that contain files, 95% of which have not been accessed in 180 days, for instance, and move them to more cost effective storage. If done in conjunction with DFS this move will be transparent to users and applications. It is not HSM but actually moves the files.
VFM uses an SQL database (MSDE or SQL server). If it goes down the DFS roots are still available to the users so their is no impact.
This is only one small part of what VFM can be used for.
2.) File Lifecycle Manager (FLM) is more like traditional HSM in that it moves files from a filer leaving a stub (not shortcut) behind. When opened the file is pulled back from the nearline storage and opened. This is possible for CIFS and soon NFS (awaiting DOT 7.0.1) data.
FLM has other features such as the ability to prevent users from putting or creating files of certain types like .mp3 files on the filer.
It is extremely robust and easy to implement. If you have filers whose volumes are filling this is a quick way to alleviate the problem.
So depending on your particular need or environment, either of these products can present a lot of possibilities for HSM or ILM.
Louis
For CIFS data, Microsoft's DFS might also be a usable solution for what the poster had in mind, being able to move data around a bit.
***
Are people seeing good results with NuView?
I'd heard it runs on the "mini-SQL" database that vendors now ship with products (a subset of Microsoft SQL) and it's not clusterable or configurable in any highly available manner.
I understand that if you lose the server running NuView, you lose access to all the migrated data?
I'm not trying to lay flamebait, I just want to hear some "5000 mile reports" from people running NuView in the field.
JKB
I have heard that FLM actually has a throttle setting. If it sees a flood of read requests it will disable the recall.
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:24:59 -0600, Sphar, Mike Mike_Sphar@bmc.com wrote:
Something I'm not clear on for products like these. How do they tell the difference between a user really trying to read a file, and other system level activities that might access the file, such as backups?
Whenever we've tried to look into ways of archiving data that isn't being used any more, we always run up against not being able to really tell what isn't being used any more.
-----Original Message----- From: Louis Elias [mailto:louis.elias@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 6:43 PM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: HSM and Netapp
I would like to set the record straight for posterity.
NuView has 2 products that can be used to build an ILM strategy. 1.) Virtual File Manager (VFM) is software that can virtualize an enterprise namespace by taking advantage of either MS DFS which is built into the CIFS protocol or NFS.
DFS is not an in band solution but rather acts much like DNS by supplying referals to user requests. VFM automates the management of all of the DFS roots through several different policies. One of those policies is a Data Archival Migration policy that will find folders that contain files with attributes you are looking for. So I can say find all of the folders that contain files, 95% of which have not been accessed in 180 days, for instance, and move them to more cost effective storage. If done in conjunction with DFS this move will be transparent to users and applications. It is not HSM but actually moves the files.
VFM uses an SQL database (MSDE or SQL server). If it goes down the DFS roots are still available to the users so their is no impact.
This is only one small part of what VFM can be used for.
2.) File Lifecycle Manager (FLM) is more like traditional HSM in that it moves files from a filer leaving a stub (not shortcut) behind. When opened the file is pulled back from the nearline storage and opened. This is possible for CIFS and soon NFS (awaiting DOT 7.0.1) data.
FLM has other features such as the ability to prevent users from putting or creating files of certain types like .mp3 files on the filer.
It is extremely robust and easy to implement. If you have filers whose volumes are filling this is a quick way to alleviate the problem.
So depending on your particular need or environment, either of these products can present a lot of possibilities for HSM or ILM.
Louis
For CIFS data, Microsoft's DFS might also be a usable solution for what the poster had in mind, being able to move data around a bit.
Are people seeing good results with NuView?
I'd heard it runs on the "mini-SQL" database that vendors now ship with products (a subset of Microsoft SQL) and it's not clusterable or configurable in any highly available manner.
I understand that if you lose the server running NuView, you lose access to all the migrated data?
I'm not trying to lay flamebait, I just want to hear some "5000 mile reports" from people running NuView in the field.
JKB
-
Sphar, Mike -
Sto Rage©