Maximum DIsk Size VMS 6.2? - VMS

This is a discussion on Maximum DIsk Size VMS 6.2? - VMS ; Can anyone enligthen me on this Customer needs to aechive using simple scsi up to 2TB He is stuck with VMS 6.2-1H3 HELP ! -- David B Turner ============================================= Island Computers US Corp PO Box 86 Tybee GA 31328 Toll ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Maximum DIsk Size VMS 6.2?

  1. Maximum DIsk Size VMS 6.2?

    Can anyone enligthen me on this
    Customer needs to aechive using simple scsi up to 2TB
    He is stuck with VMS 6.2-1H3


    HELP !

    --
    David B Turner

    =============================================

    Island Computers US Corp
    PO Box 86
    Tybee GA 31328

    Toll Free: 1-877 636 4332 x201, Mobile x251
    Email: dturner@islandco.com
    International: 001 706 993 1787
    Fax: 912 786 8505
    Web: www.islandco.com

    =============================================



  2. Re: Maximum DIsk Size VMS 6.2?

    David Turner, Island Computers wrote:
    > Can anyone enligthen me on this
    > Customer needs to aechive using simple scsi up to 2TB
    > He is stuck with VMS 6.2-1H3
    >
    >
    > HELP !
    >


    Well 6.2-1H3 is pretty far back in the dark ages! 1997? I don't recall
    that there was any limitation on disk size. . . .

    What sort of SCSI hardware does he have? How many drives does he want
    to use? ISTR that drives in the 300 - 500 GB range are available these
    days. . . .


  3. Re: Maximum Disk Size VMS 6.2?

    David Turner, Island Computers wrote:
    > Can anyone enlighten me on this
    > Customer needs to archive using simple scsi up to 2TB
    > He is stuck with VMS 6.2-1H3


    Maximum volume size is 1 Tbyte.

    He'll need to make use of a bound volume set, which is
    perfect for just such an application.

  4. RE: Maximum DIsk Size VMS 6.2?

    > Can anyone enligthen me on this
    > Customer needs to aechive using simple scsi up to 2TB
    > He is stuck with VMS 6.2-1H3


    One thing you need to watch out for with a large disk under old
    versions of VMS is that you must make sure the disk is physically
    correct;

    Tracks per cylinder * Sectors per track * Total cylinders = Total
    blocks for the disk

    If you are presenting some sort of virtual disk and it is over
    67,107,840 blocks and the formula does not work out correctly
    then VMS has some really interesting crashes. There is a patch
    available for V5.5-2, V6.2 and V7.1 but the patch was never
    officially released.

    Peter Weaver
    www.WeaverConsulting.ca www.OpenVMSvirtualization.com
    www.VAXvirtualization.com www.AlphaVirtualization.com



  5. Re: Maximum DIsk Size VMS 6.2?

    The hardware - a KZPBA-CA connected to one of our raid arrays with say 2TB
    of storage
    It is for medical archiving... their tapes are slowly degenerating
    apparently...

    He can use volume shadowing but I would rather sell a raid solution
    Can VS create logical volumes of say 1TB for 6.2 or does it have smaller
    limitations.
    I am familiar with newer versions but 6.2 is out of my league...


    --
    David B Turner

    =============================================

    Island Computers US Corp
    PO Box 86
    Tybee GA 31328

    Toll Free: 1-877 636 4332 x201, Mobile x251
    Email: dturner@islandco.com
    International: 001 706 993 1787
    Fax: 912 786 8505
    Web: www.islandco.com

    =============================================
    "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message
    news:jKednWlFef9y-r3VnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d@comcast.com...
    > David Turner, Island Computers wrote:
    >> Can anyone enligthen me on this
    >> Customer needs to aechive using simple scsi up to 2TB
    >> He is stuck with VMS 6.2-1H3
    >>
    >>
    >> HELP !
    >>

    >
    > Well 6.2-1H3 is pretty far back in the dark ages! 1997? I don't recall
    > that there was any limitation on disk size. . . .
    >
    > What sort of SCSI hardware does he have? How many drives does he want to
    > use? ISTR that drives in the 300 - 500 GB range are available these days.
    > . . .
    >




  6. Re: Maximum DIsk Size VMS 6.2?

    On Tue, 06 May 2008 06:59:57 -0700, David Turner, Island Computers
    wrote:

    > Can anyone enligthen me on this
    > Customer needs to aechive using simple scsi up to 2TB
    > He is stuck with VMS 6.2-1H3
    >
    >
    > HELP !
    >

    Why not sell him a small Alpha connect to an HSG80 via dual HBAs
    and cluster it.


    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  7. Re: Maximum DIsk Size VMS 6.2?

    I'll ask
    Cluster licenses though are not that cheap...


    --
    David B Turner

    =============================================

    Island Computers US Corp
    PO Box 86
    Tybee GA 31328

    Toll Free: 1-877 636 4332 x201, Mobile x251
    Email: dturner@islandco.com
    International: 001 706 993 1787
    Fax: 912 786 8505
    Web: www.islandco.com

    =============================================
    "Tom Linden" wrote in message
    newsp.uaqpvhfxhv4qyg@murphus...
    > On Tue, 06 May 2008 06:59:57 -0700, David Turner, Island Computers
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Can anyone enligthen me on this
    >> Customer needs to aechive using simple scsi up to 2TB
    >> He is stuck with VMS 6.2-1H3
    >>
    >>
    >> HELP !
    >>

    > Why not sell him a small Alpha connect to an HSG80 via dual HBAs
    > and cluster it.
    >
    >
    > --
    > PL/I for OpenVMS
    > www.kednos.com




  8. Re: Maximum Disk Size VMS 6.2?

    "Tom Linden" wrote in message
    newsp.uaqpvhfxhv4qyg@murphus...
    >> On Tue, 06 May 2008 06:59:57 -0700, David Turner, Island Computers
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Can anyone enlighten me on this
    >>> Customer needs to archive using simple scsi up to 2TB
    >>> He is stuck with VMS 6.2-1H3
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> HELP !

    >
    >> Why not sell him a small Alpha connect to an HSG80 via dual HBAs
    >> and cluster it.


    David Turner, Island Computers wrote:
    > I'll ask
    > Cluster licenses though are not that cheap...


    (a) for such a trivial problem to solve (archiving ca. 2 Tbytes
    of data), clustering is way overkill (and, as pointed out, not
    cheap. Creative use of DECnet would suffice.

    (b) you might well be cheaper with a low-end Itanium system,
    perhaps with an MSA (modular storage array), with a bundle of
    300 Gbyte disks.

  9. Re: Maximum Disk Size VMS 6.2?

    On May 6, 1:53*pm, "R.A.Omond" wrote:
    > "Tom Linden" wrote in message
    >
    > newsp.uaqpvhfxhv4qyg@murphus...
    > *>> On Tue, 06 May 2008 06:59:57 -0700, David Turner, Island Computers*>> wrote:
    >
    > *>>
    > *>>> *Can anyone enlighten me on this
    > *>>> Customer needs to archive using simple scsi up to 2TB
    > *>>> He is stuck with VMS 6.2-1H3
    > *>>>
    > *>>>
    > *>>> HELP !
    > *>
    > *>> Why not sell him a small Alpha connect to an HSG80 via dual HBAs
    > *>> and cluster it.
    >
    > David Turner, Island Computers wrote:
    >
    > > I'll ask
    > > Cluster licenses though are not that cheap...

    >
    > (a) for such a trivial problem to solve (archiving ca. 2 Tbytes
    > of data), clustering is way overkill (and, as pointed out, not
    > cheap. *Creative use of DECnet would suffice.
    >
    > (b) you might well be cheaper with a low-end Itanium system,
    > perhaps with an MSA (modular storage array), with a bundle of
    > 300 Gbyte disks.


    I think the client already has a cluster license (if it is the same
    guy as I was reading about in a different newsgroup).

    I read the earlier comment re. "shadowing is OK, but I'd rather sell a
    RAID solution"

    Isn't it more appropriate to give the customer what is best for them,
    not what you would rather sell. RAID is fine, however it doesn't
    provide the level of Data Security which comes from shadowing. All
    of the physical spindles in a RAID set need to be in the same physical
    storage subsystem, any problem which results in the destruction of
    that physical subsystem, destroys your data. Only shadowing allows
    multiple physical copies of the data (guaranteed to be up to
    date.).

    So shouldn't you be pushing some kind of HSx storage solution.

    Dave

  10. Re: Maximum DIsk Size VMS 6.2?

    On May 6, 11:09 am, "David Turner, Island Computers"
    wrote:
    > The hardware - a KZPBA-CA connected to one of our raid arrays with say 2TB
    > of storage
    > It is for medical archiving... their tapes are slowly degenerating
    > apparently...


    What I've done for our online archives is to use simple search lists
    in a logical name. This application predates big disks... The
    process that does the archiving grabs the last member of the search
    list and starts writing to it (if you delete from your archives, write
    to the disk with the most free space). The process that pulls the
    archive searches all the disks listed in the search list.

    Quick, dirty, and works on releases way, way back... Since they're
    currently writing to tape, they already have the ability to write to
    and read from multiple volumes. Substitute disk for tape but keep
    this functionality in there and you can go forever. Don't restrict
    the archives to a single physical volume.

    .../Ed

  11. Re: Maximum Disk Size VMS 6.2?

    I would but he needs huge amounts of backup and he is running an AS4100 with
    6.2
    At first he wanted an MSA1000
    Then realised it was not SCSI

    He does not have a cluster license - all he wants to do is archive data on a
    big medium for simple replacement of tapes.
    That's why I think a RAID SCSI to SATA subsystem would do him just fine and
    dandy
    We can create 1TB or just less than disk volumes and he can backup as he
    likes with his 4100 UW SCSI box.
    I don't think there is a SCSI-SATA option from HP that will work with VOl.
    Shadowing, or am I wrong?

    DT



    --
    David B Turner

    =============================================

    Island Computers US Corp
    PO Box 86
    Tybee GA 31328

    Toll Free: 1-877 636 4332 x201, Mobile x251
    Email: dturner@islandco.com
    International: 001 706 993 1787
    Fax: 912 786 8505
    Web: www.islandco.com

    =============================================
    wrote in message
    news:0c877050-5154-4b03-99e8-d9f763b2066c@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
    On May 6, 1:53 pm, "R.A.Omond" wrote:
    > "Tom Linden" wrote in message
    >
    > newsp.uaqpvhfxhv4qyg@murphus...
    > >> On Tue, 06 May 2008 06:59:57 -0700, David Turner, Island Computers >>
    > >> wrote:

    >
    > >>
    > >>> Can anyone enlighten me on this
    > >>> Customer needs to archive using simple scsi up to 2TB
    > >>> He is stuck with VMS 6.2-1H3
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> HELP !

    > >
    > >> Why not sell him a small Alpha connect to an HSG80 via dual HBAs
    > >> and cluster it.

    >
    > David Turner, Island Computers wrote:
    >
    > > I'll ask
    > > Cluster licenses though are not that cheap...

    >
    > (a) for such a trivial problem to solve (archiving ca. 2 Tbytes
    > of data), clustering is way overkill (and, as pointed out, not
    > cheap. Creative use of DECnet would suffice.
    >
    > (b) you might well be cheaper with a low-end Itanium system,
    > perhaps with an MSA (modular storage array), with a bundle of
    > 300 Gbyte disks.


    I think the client already has a cluster license (if it is the same
    guy as I was reading about in a different newsgroup).

    I read the earlier comment re. "shadowing is OK, but I'd rather sell a
    RAID solution"

    Isn't it more appropriate to give the customer what is best for them,
    not what you would rather sell. RAID is fine, however it doesn't
    provide the level of Data Security which comes from shadowing. All
    of the physical spindles in a RAID set need to be in the same physical
    storage subsystem, any problem which results in the destruction of
    that physical subsystem, destroys your data. Only shadowing allows
    multiple physical copies of the data (guaranteed to be up to
    date.).

    So shouldn't you be pushing some kind of HSx storage solution.

    Dave



  12. Re: Maximum Disk Size VMS 6.2?

    On May 6, 3:04*pm, "David Turner, Island Computers"
    wrote:
    > I would but he needs huge amounts of backup and he is running an AS4100 with
    > 6.2


    Sounds like:
    http://forums11.itrc.hp.com/service/...readId=1228637

    > At first he wanted an MSA1000
    > Then *realised it was not SCSI
    >
    > He does not have a cluster license - all he wants to do is archive data ona
    > big medium for simple replacement of tapes.
    > That's why I think a RAID SCSI to SATA subsystem would do him just fine and
    > dandy


    Sure sounds like that! Perfect application for raid-5.

    Sounds like the actual storage cost is small compared to the labor/
    project management needed.
    If the storage price is low enough, then just take two and take extra
    copy every now and then while gathering.
    Sounds like ongoing volume shadowing is overkill and even dangerous
    (accidental deletes are shadowed as well ;-)

    In fact... I would investigate whether you want to have the main
    storage sit on
    a number of larger (close to 1TB) volumes, and also clone that of
    related chunks
    of say 200 - 500 GB to be stored on individual cheap disks (sata, ide,
    'E-books' :-)
    I would possibly want those extra copies NOT to be on an OpenVMS based
    file system, but a simple Fat32.
    Store those off-line and off-site with a simple labels:
    1987, 1988, .. 2005H1, 2005H2, ... 2008Q1.. whatever.
    Have a plan to take a directory on each of those disk once a year to
    make sure they
    have not 'frozen over', and need to be re-cloned.

    Biggest question for me would be the need, or not, to encrypt (how)
    the (medical) data if it is allowed out of the doors.

    KISS.

    Cheers,
    Hein.

  13. Re: Maximum Disk Size VMS 6.2?

    On Tue, 06 May 2008 12:04:48 -0700, David Turner, Island Computers
    wrote:

    > I would but he needs huge amounts of backup and he is running an AS4100
    > with
    > 6.2
    > At first he wanted an MSA1000
    > Then realised it was not SCSI
    >
    > He does not have a cluster license - all he wants to do is archive data
    > on a
    > big medium for simple replacement of tapes.
    > That's why I think a RAID SCSI to SATA subsystem would do him just fine
    > and
    > dandy
    > We can create 1TB or just less than disk volumes and he can backup as he
    > likes with his 4100 UW SCSI box.
    > I don't think there is a SCSI-SATA option from HP that will work with
    > VOl.
    > Shadowing, or am I wrong?
    >
    > DT
    >

    In that case a BA356 with three shadow sets each 300 to 500 GB does the
    trick


    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  14. Re: Maximum Disk Size VMS 6.2?

    R.A.Omond wrote:
    > David Turner, Island Computers wrote:
    >> Can anyone enlighten me on this
    >> Customer needs to archive using simple scsi up to 2TB
    >> He is stuck with VMS 6.2-1H3

    >
    > Maximum volume size is 1 Tbyte.
    >
    > He'll need to make use of a bound volume set, which is
    > perfect for just such an application.


    He'll need to be aware of the disadvantages! Failure of either disk
    entails the potential loss/corruption of all the data since any file can
    be stored on either or both of the disks.

    Backup, if possible at all, is going to be a nightmare!

  15. Re: Maximum DIsk Size VMS 6.2?

    David Turner, Island Computers wrote:
    > Can anyone enligthen me on this
    > Customer needs to aechive using simple scsi up to 2TB
    > He is stuck with VMS 6.2-1H3
    >
    >
    > HELP !
    >


    This is a perfect case for HSM. With it he can store the daily or weekly
    needed files on his current disks and let HSM move the older files to
    another array with enough disk space (which can consist of lots of LUNs).
    I recommend to read the HSM SPD.

    Btw. Tapes need regular (at least bi-yearly) rewinding to keep them from
    degenerating. DLT tapes have a shelf life of 30 years if maintained
    according to the manufacturers instructions. DDS tapes have a
    significantly shorter life.

    Regards,

    Kari

  16. Re: Maximum DIsk Size VMS 6.2?

    On May 8, 1:03*am, Kari Uusimäki
    wrote:
    > David Turner, Island Computers wrote:
    >
    > > Can anyone enligthen me on this
    > > Customer needs to aechive using simple scsi up to 2TB
    > > He is stuck with VMS 6.2-1H3

    >
    > > HELP !

    >
    > This is a perfect case for HSM. With it he can store the daily or weekly
    > needed files on his current disks and let HSM move the older files to
    > another array with enough disk space (which can consist of lots of LUNs).
    > I recommend to read the HSM SPD.
    >
    > Btw. Tapes need regular (at least bi-yearly) rewinding to keep them from
    > degenerating. DLT tapes have a shelf life of 30 years if maintained
    > according to the manufacturers instructions. DDS tapes have a
    > significantly shorter life.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Kari


    If the original posters' client is who I think it is, then Kari does
    not quite understand the situation. The data which is archived on
    the tapes is (I think) historical Medical data for patients who are
    still living.
    If often occurs that when one of these patients returns to their
    medical provider for treatment, it is necessary to "pull back" data
    from previous visits (sometimes years in the past). In a previous
    life I administered a system with the same requirements, however in
    those days the large capacity diskdrives were not available, and the
    "online" data was limited to 30 days, so history restores were quite
    frequent.
    Although the restore requests (statistically) tend to be in the
    more recent years/months, meeting restore deadlines (typically a
    couple of hours), preferably <15 minutes, is difficult even when the
    tapes are local. The ideal solution would be to have all of the
    data in online, or near online storage.
    This is obviously possible now that we have access to drives
    (either physical or virtual) with very large capacity. In fact, in
    most cases the limiting factor on volume size is now the Operating
    System.
    The next consideration should be "Is there any actual
    justification for movable media, i.e. CD, DVD, Tape, etc.). If you
    can set up an acceptable replication scheme which keeps an exact copy
    of the data at a remote site, then my answer would probably be no.
    Bear in mind that in this scenario, the archive data may grow by the
    addition of new archive files, but once archived, then the files are
    effectively Read-Only, so there is no real need for "point in time"
    copies. However, even if there is a (just to feel better) need for
    tape/CD/DVD copies, these can be made periodically at the remote site,
    using rotated media (to reduce the cost).

    IMHO, a replication solution (either Host-based (Shadowing), or
    Controller-based (CA?)) would provide a high level of both
    availability, redundancy, data protection and Disaster Recovery/
    Tolerance, where as RAID, for all its qualities, really only provides
    availability and data protection.

    A RAID solution would however be acceptable providing that the
    client is fully aware of its limitations. This is doubly important
    if the data is (as I suspect) medical data.

    Dave

  17. Re: Maximum DIsk Size VMS 6.2?

    BaxterD@tessco.com wrote:
    >
    > On May 8, 1:03 am, Kari Uusimäki
    > wrote:
    > > David Turner, Island Computers wrote:
    > >
    > > > Can anyone enligthen me on this
    > > > Customer needs to aechive using simple scsi up to 2TB
    > > > He is stuck with VMS 6.2-1H3

    > >
    > > > HELP !

    > >
    > > This is a perfect case for HSM. With it he can store the daily or weekly
    > > needed files on his current disks and let HSM move the older files to
    > > another array with enough disk space (which can consist of lots of LUNs).
    > > I recommend to read the HSM SPD.
    > >
    > > Btw. Tapes need regular (at least bi-yearly) rewinding to keep them from
    > > degenerating. DLT tapes have a shelf life of 30 years if maintained
    > > according to the manufacturers instructions. DDS tapes have a
    > > significantly shorter life.
    > >
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Kari

    >
    > If the original posters' client is who I think it is, then Kari does
    > not quite understand the situation. The data which is archived on
    > the tapes is (I think) historical Medical data for patients who are
    > still living.
    > If often occurs that when one of these patients returns to their
    > medical provider for treatment, it is necessary to "pull back" data
    > from previous visits (sometimes years in the past). In a previous
    > life I administered a system with the same requirements, however in
    > those days the large capacity diskdrives were not available, and the
    > "online" data was limited to 30 days, so history restores were quite
    > frequent.
    > Although the restore requests (statistically) tend to be in the
    > more recent years/months, meeting restore deadlines (typically a
    > couple of hours), preferably <15 minutes, is difficult even when the
    > tapes are local. The ideal solution would be to have all of the
    > data in online, or near online storage.
    > This is obviously possible now that we have access to drives
    > (either physical or virtual) with very large capacity. In fact, in
    > most cases the limiting factor on volume size is now the Operating
    > System.
    > The next consideration should be "Is there any actual
    > justification for movable media, i.e. CD, DVD, Tape, etc.). If you
    > can set up an acceptable replication scheme which keeps an exact copy
    > of the data at a remote site, then my answer would probably be no.
    > Bear in mind that in this scenario, the archive data may grow by the
    > addition of new archive files, but once archived, then the files are
    > effectively Read-Only, so there is no real need for "point in time"
    > copies. However, even if there is a (just to feel better) need for
    > tape/CD/DVD copies, these can be made periodically at the remote site,
    > using rotated media (to reduce the cost).
    >
    > IMHO, a replication solution (either Host-based (Shadowing), or
    > Controller-based (CA?)) would provide a high level of both
    > availability, redundancy, data protection and Disaster Recovery/
    > Tolerance, where as RAID, for all its qualities, really only provides
    > availability and data protection.
    >
    > A RAID solution would however be acceptable providing that the
    > client is fully aware of its limitations. This is doubly important
    > if the data is (as I suspect) medical data.


    This will depend on whether a database is invloved:

    For V6.2-1H3, I would think that a volume-set comprised of RAIDsets
    would do nicely. So long as the volumes are fully protected (RAID1,
    RAID0+1 or even RAID5). That gets around the individual volume size
    issues, if any.

    FWIW...

    D.J.D.

+ Reply to Thread