nwraidutil output from a Series4S Hybrid on v11

[someone]

Can someone please provide me the output from a Series4S Hybrid from a v11 setup?

I'm looking to see if RSA have finally addressed the issue they have created themselves were they used a single disk on RAID 0 for the index volume. 

[Anonymous]

I do not have the output from a fresh 4S Hybrid on v11, but just to clarify, did you mean to type RAID 1? Was there an old configuration on Series 4S Hybrids that setup the index SSDs in RAID 0? We certainly don't do that any longer and  I hadn't heard of us doing that before. Just want to make sure it's not a typo.

[someone]

No, I meant RAID 0 with a single disk in the RAID. This is for mechanical disks on a Hybrid (10x 1TB mechanical disks).

Adapter: 0 - PERC H710P Mini
Virtual Disk: 0 (O) - Found 6 of 6 {Raid Level 5, 4.545 TB, 128 KB Stripe Size, WriteBack, ReadAdaptive, Cached, Write Cache OK if Bad BBU}
PD: 0 Enclosure: 32 Slot: 0 (O) 931.512 GB SEAGATE ST91000640SS ABCDEFGXZZ6
PD: 1 Enclosure: 32 Slot: 1 (O) 931.512 GB SEAGATE ST91000640SS ABCDEFGXL88
PD: 2 Enclosure: 32 Slot: 2 (O) 931.512 GB SEAGATE ST91000640SS ABCDEFGXSAF
PD: 3 Enclosure: 32 Slot: 3 (O) 931.512 GB SEAGATE ST91000640SS ABCDEFGXM5X
PD: 4 Enclosure: 32 Slot: 4 (O) 931.512 GB SEAGATE ST91000640SS ABCDEFGXPRR
PD: 5 Enclosure: 32 Slot: 5 (O) 931.512 GB SEAGATE ST91000640SS ABCDEFGWY7Q
Virtual Disk: 1 (O) - Found 3 of 3 {Raid Level 5, 1.818 TB, 128 KB Stripe Size, WriteBack, ReadAdaptive, Cached, Write Cache OK if Bad BBU}
PD: 0 Enclosure: 32 Slot: 6 (O) 931.512 GB SEAGATE ST91000640SS ABCDEFGY005
PD: 1 Enclosure: 32 Slot: 7 (O) 931.512 GB SEAGATE ST91000640SS ABCDEFGWZZV
PD: 2 Enclosure: 32 Slot: 8 (O) 931.512 GB SEAGATE ST91000640SS ABCDEFGXMFW
Virtual Disk: 2 (O) - Found 1 of 1 {Raid Level 0, 931.0 GB, 128 KB Stripe Size, WriteBack, ReadAdaptive, Cached, Write Cache OK if Bad BBU}
PD: 0 Enclosure: 32 Slot: 9 (O) 931.512 GB SEAGATE ST91000640SS ABCDEFGWYZB

"We certainly don't do that any longer and  I hadn't heard of us doing that before" 

Because you don't see this issue any longer it doesn't mean that customers that previously got stuffed have had this issue addressed. RSA wouldn't even lend us an appliance to aid in the resolution of this issue that was 100% created by RSA's scripts and PS before my time here.

That's the reason I'm trying to get things straight in advance and try to take control since RSA wouldn't take responsibility.

[JohnSnider]

In the original 4S hybrids the index was part of a larger RAID5, but performance was an issue for the searches.  Since the 4S hybrid DOES NOT have any SSD drives, they changed the architecture to put the index on a single drive by itself to improve performance and not contend with the meta and session db writes. (No I don't think this is a great idea, but that is why they did it)

Solution is to upgrade them to a Series 5 or Series 6 Hybrid which both have SSD drives for the concentrator index.  

[someone]

Thanks John, 

I know, it's a brilliant design! Even better than the RAID on SD cards. 

This problem existed since before Series 5 and 6 have become available so it's important to point out that even if customers were willing to spend more money with RSA and buy new hardware that they didn't need (until it went EOPS), they would still be left with an expensive appliance with a single point of failure until Series 5 & 6 became available.

It's the attitude that is the problem: We have a solution to the problem we created, just trust us and buy more from us

[Anonymous]

"Because you don't see this issue any longer it doesn't mean that customers that previously got stuffed have had this issue addressed."

I didn't suggest that it was never an issue, only that I hadn't heard of it in order to suggest that it must have gone away with the advent of Series 5 in 2015. Hopefully you can find someone with a Series 4S Hybrid to answer your question.

[someone]

Thanks Sean