« VMAX 40K+5876 = (Powerful, Trusted, Smart) ^ More | Main | VNX Inyo is going to blow some minds. »

May 21, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dominic Rivera

So I've looked at this solution pretty extensively, and the problem that I see with it is that it's extremely difficult to manage the pathing policies on the ESX hosts, there's not a real easy way to script out and determine which LUNS belong to each side of the VPLEX. Dedicating HBAs to each side of the VPLEX makes it easier to determine which paths should be active, but you still end up in a situation where if you reboot the host you're going to lose those pathing policies ( and now youve also doubled your HBA costs ). Mabye I'm missing something? What do other customers do to get around this. I even use PP/VE and there's no value-add in that PP/VE isn't any smarter about automatically selecting the right path/HBA to make it easy to work with.


The RecoverPoint VPLEX splitter is an awesome feature and will definitely make things easier when it comes to, among other things, volume recovery in a VPLEX environment.

You mention that RecoverPoint and VPLEX have a "shockingly low cost entry model", but with this new integration, will I now have to license RecoverPoint per TB and then turn around and, essentially, re-license that same space in order to present it to VPLEX and take advantage of this new integration? If so, I'm not sure I would consider that "low cost", but I would call it shocking.

PJ Spagnolatti

All cool and all great Chad... but what about the fact that Recoverpoint 3.5 STILL DOESN'T support (Clariion/VNX, not to mention SanTap splitters) VAAI?

And by "support" I mean really support it, not just reject the commands. I really can't believe VAAI is getting so little attention from EMC. What's the point of having a VAAI-enabled array if one can't use these features?

Very disappointing.


Stretched clusters in VM ONLY work with L2 network... EMC fails to mention this in all their slide decks... even at EMC World :)


You guys are on the right path, but you don't have a truly integrated "3 Data Center" solution here, yet. In your Tokyo/Kawasaki/Sapporo example above, only Kawasaki has a relationship with the async site, Sappporo. I think most customers would want either Tokyo or Kawasaki to have the same data protection in Sapporo, without having double the copies of data there (the current "workaround" to this issue). Vplex and RP need to be one product, not two and they need to embrace a true 3-site model. We need a VMware stretch cluster across two sites that can share a common RP/async relationship with the third site.

The comments to this entry are closed.

  • BlogWithIntegrity.com


  • The opinions expressed here are my personal opinions. Content published here is not read or approved in advance by Dell Technologies and does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Dell Technologies or any part of Dell Technologies. This is my blog, it is not an Dell Technologies blog.