V6 sucks: Two DSS servers and 1 Backup (replication) server NOT possible!

We recently bought 2 DSS V6 Servers to use with XenServer.
We also bought 1 DSS V6 server which we wanted to use as a Replication Destination.

http://www.roelbroersma.nl/media/ima...caiton-problem


I thought DSS V6 was an 'Enterprise' product but when you see these kind of fallacy (or call it 'restriction'), you realize it's not.

http://www.roelbroersma.nl/media/ima...on-problem.png

BTW. Why can't you change/edit your message on this forum in case you made a typo ? :confused:

This works for NAS volumes with data replication, if you set it up right.

Just because it's an "Enterprise" product does not mean you can use it in every possible combination or permutation possible. Try setting up, say, an EMC machine in whatever manner you want. They won't let you, you have to do it EMC's way if you want support (which you also have to spend A LOT of money for).

This can work with only two machines cross-replicating to each other (each DSS box is both a source and a destination). We have a customer set up that way. That way, you don't need a third machine and get basically as much performance, though the total disk space you need is still the same. This doesn't work with autofailover completely... yet.

Besides, perhaps if you ask the developers, they may add this as a feature. If you absolutely need it, they may issue an update soon. But if you come out publicly very hostile like this, I probably wouldn't help you! Just saying...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robotbeat

This works for NAS volumes with data replication, if you set it up right.

Just because it's an "Enterprise" product does not mean you can use it in every possible combination or permutation possible. Try setting up, say, an EMC machine in whatever manner you want. They won't let you, you have to do it EMC's way if you want support (which you also have to spend A LOT of money for).

This can work with only two machines cross-replicating to each other (each DSS box is both a source and a destination). We have a customer set up that way. That way, you don't need a third machine and get basically as much performance, though the total disk space you need is still the same. This doesn't work with autofailover completely... yet.

Besides, perhaps if you ask the developers, they may add this as a feature. If you absolutely need it, they may issue an update soon. But if you come out publicly very hostile like this, I probably wouldn't help you! Just saying...

---

Robotbeat,
I understand wht you're saying. But i am not talking about NAS data replication.
I have seen a lot of storage platforms, my point of view is that the basics of Open-E ar good (Linux, rsync, drbd, etc) but it's just NOT proper implemented in the web interface... if it's a beta... Ok.. But this is a poduct sold as Enterprise product which already exists for several years...

I will ask support/Open-E to make a solution and also ask to edit posts ;)

I agree that DSS V6 sometimes sucks.

There are products on the market where you build e. g. a "Storage-RAID" Level 1 or 5. But you pay much more than what you pay for DSS. And you are restricted to certain hardware. So in the end with the hardware-flexibility and all the features in the software we aren`t unhappy that we chose DSS.

But the support sometimes sucks as well and sometimes we think that there is the last 5% missing in the software.

We have 10 iSCSI Storages running (5 pairs) 6 SATA and 4 SAS Storages all with automatic failover in a nice mixture (1 SAS pair for 8 VMware hosts, 1 SAS pair with 10Gbit LAN for Databases and the SATA pairs for several servers under Linux and Windows - bare metal and VMs - for Data.).

Regards
DerFux