Well its been a while, thanks for returning. This is the third installment of the Recoverpoint Bit Series, finishing it out with design considerations. Now to this point I have sprinkled in a few design tips for any Recoverpoint implementation such as
repository sizing but really nothing else of any girth. Point noted. So lets see if I can change that…
ChangesFirst things first, lets make some changes here. The repository as part of 3.1 no longer should be sized to 124GB. Remember 4G for cluster metadata/configuration info and 120G marking mode used in times of
WAN flapping. Now the repository is sized to no larger than 5G and marking mode occurs, or is stored, within the production journal volume, hence the size reduction. So properly size your PJV for both marking mode operations and failback.
Journal Volume SizesKeep it tight, keep it snappy, this volume needs to perform well. Generally, it should be mirrored for protection and capable of sustaining a large amount of writes.
RAID 1/0 may be overkill (depends on your env) so stick to R5, remember JVol’s can be expanded on the fly to increase
throughput and capacity but keep the following in mind during creation.
- What is your RPO? How far back do you need to recover from?
- What is your change rate? Yeah easier said than done, when in doubt use the EMC rule of thumb, 20%..
- Will remote target side processing come into play? Temporary action or lengthy? Write activity?
For those sappy math buff’s out there here is an equation to determine your proper journal size
OR you can engage your friendly neighborhood consultant to assist,
we would be more than happy to help : )
Journal Size = [(data per second) * (required RPO in seconds) / (1 – target log size)] x 1.05
Consistency GroupsAny doubt what a Consistency Group is? Maybe I can
help. Design concerns? Here are a few..
- What are my maximums per CG?
- 64 per RPA, 128 per cluster. No worries, remember you can have multiple replication sets per CG (or 2048 replicated LUNs in a single cluster). Now in points of failover a single RPA can handle 128 CG’s temporarily but depending on the amount of replicated traffic you could run into periods of high load (ie. system can’t keep up with replicating your data)
- A Consistency Group cannot span RPA’s so YOU will have to properly load balance your traffic across the available RPA’s. Manual process, done at CG creation or can be tuned on the fly or failed over to the another RPA with minimal interruption to replication.
- If cross consistency group consistency is needed across RPA’s or across CG’s on the same RPA consider using or defining a Group Set. This allows you to group (key word here) multiple CG’s together to establish a parallel bookmark for write consistency.
What else? WAN sizing and potential bottlenecks….although I may take a hiatus from RP posts for a short stint…And for those that are visually impaired here is a quick sketch of how a typical Recoverpoint-CDP implementation would look. Although not represented the splitting could occur either at that host, fabric or array.