Hp P2000 G3 Firmware Upgrade Problem

NOTE: You cannot downgrade below GL200 if running virtual pools.UPGRADE NOTE: If upgrading from a version of firmware that is more than two major firmware versions back, it will require a multiple step process to get to the latest firmware version. Firmware can only be upgraded from the last two major firmware releases. For example, to upgrade to GL225P002-02 the MSA must already be running GL220xxxx or GL210xxxx. If the running firmware version is previous to GL210xxxx, the Smart Component will block the upgrade with a message.

• Hp P2000 G3 Firmware Upgrade Problem 1
• Hp P2000 G3 Firmware Upgrade Problems
• Firmware Upgrade For Mp4 Players

To proceed, upgrade the firmware in steps.Here is an HPE suggested upgrade path: GL200P002 GL220P010 GL225P002-02. Definitions of firmware status:Current – Identifies a HPE recommended firmware version.Active - Identifies a version of code with code base sustainment capabilities. Customers running on active versions of code will receive all warranty, support, and elevation capabilities based on their existing warranty and/or contract terms and conditions service level entitlements.Inactive - Identifies a version of code with no code base sustainment capabilities. HPE Services will help the customer determine if the reported issue matches any known issues. If not, services will investigate to determine if there are any other contributors, and then support the customer based on service entitlement through the upgrade to an active code release.Superseded – Identifies a firmware version is not the most recent. HPE recommends you update to the current firmware version.2.

There may be newer firmware for the D2700, but the version listed in this table is the supported firmware when used as a MSA drive enclosure.3. For the MSA 2050, the HPE D2700 is supported in a “data-in-place” upgrade only.

Hp P2000 G3 Firmware Upgrade Problem 1

New installations of MSA 2050 arrays utilize the MSA 2050 disk enclosures.

We orignally purchased an MSA 2012i a.k.a. JRewolinski wrote:Local storage (yes I've read a lot of the articles posted about it by you and others SAM) I don't think is the best option here. This is a 3-host cluster.

2 ProLiant DL360p's and 1 DL360 G7, so drive technology and slots are varied. I also need the shared storage for survive-ability, so unless I go with some kind of vSAN option, I don't see how local storage helps me.3 Host Cluster - This suggests local storage VERY strongly. This is far too small to use a SAN effectively.DL360s have very few drive slots, that is definitely a limitation. These are not well suited for small clusters like this.Survivability is not something that you have now, you are far riskier than if you used straight local storage so survivability isn't something you need or else you'd be forced to replace what you have.

So something is wrong here. A P2000 is far less reliable than a DL360. And you have then in an inverted pyramid of doom with a single point of failure.Of course vSAN or StarWind would give you real HA, very survivable. But that would be an enormous step above where you are today. Going to just local disks without vSAN would be a very small step above where you are today.

But at least a step in the right direction.So from all of your reasoning, local disks remain the only path forward that I see. I completely agree.

I don't want to invest in the outdated box anymore. However, I don't have the budget to outright buy a new SAN.Local storage (yes I've read a lot of the articles posted about it by you and others SAM) I don't think is the best option here. This is a 3-host cluster. 2 ProLiant DL360p's and 1 DL360 G7, so drive technology and slots are varied.

Scott Alan Miller wrote:JRewolinski wrote:I completely agree. I don't want to invest in the outdated box anymore. However, I don't have the budget to outright buy a new SAN.a SAN makes no sense here. SANs are exclusively for large physical scale, which you do not have. So SAN shouldn't even be on the table. There are no benefits to be had.Then what exactly are you suggesting is the best option?Note: we may potentially add additional hosts in less than a year, as we are rolling out Horizon View. JRewolinski wrote:Local storage (yes I've read a lot of the articles posted about it by you and others SAM) I don't think is the best option here.

Nas ether rapidshare. Thomas over at wrote up an extensive (And I mean extensive) write up about the whole beef between Nas & Jay.

This is a 3-host cluster. 2 ProLiant DL360p's and 1 DL360 G7, so drive technology and slots are varied. I also need the shared storage for survive-ability, so unless I go with some kind of vSAN option, I don't see how local storage helps me.3 Host Cluster - This suggests local storage VERY strongly. This is far too small to use a SAN effectively.DL360s have very few drive slots, that is definitely a limitation. These are not well suited for small clusters like this.Survivability is not something that you have now, you are far riskier than if you used straight local storage so survivability isn't something you need or else you'd be forced to replace what you have.

So something is wrong here. A P2000 is far less reliable than a DL360. And you have then in an inverted pyramid of doom with a single point of failure.Of course vSAN or StarWind would give you real HA, very survivable. But that would be an enormous step above where you are today.

Going to just local disks without vSAN would be a very small step above where you are today. But at least a step in the right direction.So from all of your reasoning, local disks remain the only path forward that I see. JRewolinski wrote:Scott Alan Miller wrote:JRewolinski wrote:I completely agree. I don't want to invest in the outdated box anymore.

However, I don't have the budget to outright buy a new SAN.a SAN makes no sense here. SANs are exclusively for large physical scale, which you do not have. So SAN shouldn't even be on the table. There are no benefits to be had.Then what exactly are you suggesting is the best option?Note: we may potentially add additional hosts in less than a year, as we are rolling out Horizon View.This depends. If you NEED survivability far beyond where you are today, then VSAN or StarWind.

If you only need what you have today or better, then just local disks. In every case, local makes the most sense.If you need more capacity than your servers can hold, then it makes sense, nearly always, to replace the servers as this is a far better investment than throwing money at the technical debt of the past. Plus you could easily go down to two nodes instead of three and save a lot of money, get high availability for free and reduce the number of things that can fail. Scott Alan Miller wrote:JRewolinski wrote:Note: we may potentially add additional hosts in less than a year, as we are rolling out Horizon View.Even better case for fewer, larger boxes and not putting yourself in a financial corner with a SAN that doesn't meet your needs.By larger boxes, I assume you mean 2U servers?I don't want to go on that tangent, but you seem to have a high-disdain for the HP MSA SANs.

I've had zero problems with it, or any of our HP servers for that matter.My only concern with local storage is, in the event of a server failure, you're stuck restoring backups, or hoping you can get a replacement server/part to reclaim that array and it's data. Yes, I suppose the SAN is in the same boat, but with dual controllers, dual P/S, and raid, that should, in theory, be less likely to happen. You can also supposedly drop the disks in a new MSA and it picks up the arrays/data. I suppose either way a hardware failure is potentially going to rely on backups.Honestly I have limited knowledge on storage options.there's too damn many of them.that's for sure, so I appreciate all the feedback.I was told HP Gen8 servers and up come with a free limited-license to use HP's virtual SAN offering. However the last guy I spoke to about this, was talking 3-host minimum, and SSDs for performance.Ultimately though, it sounds like getting local drives is the way to go.so any thoughts on best config? Raid-5, Raid-10?

10 or 15K drives? Should I consider SSDs in one slot?

Pretty sure both vSphere and vSAN can take advantage of SSDs for caching now.but I can't keep track of all the changes. JRewolinski wrote:I don't want to go on that tangent, but you seem to have a high-disdain for the HP MSA SANs. I've had zero problems with it, or any of our HP servers for that matter.Servers are extremely reliable. MSA SANs are less reliable.

Looking at 'if a server has failed' is a completely worthless way to judge reliability. You don't have enough servers to judge the difference between a 1% failure rate and a.0001% rate. But those are the kinds of numbers you are trying to hedge against.Standalone HP servers can easily hit six nines reliability. (Ours our at 100% after 16 years!!) But you want higher availability than that. But what you did brought you lower, not higher.

The MSA is not as reliable as the DL360. That doesn't remotely suggest that it fails 100% of the time. It means it fails.1% instead of.01%. That you chained them together makes both the MSA a point of failure that is worth than a server AND you added risk together from architectural design.Don't confuse understanding design and failure rates with disdain. And don't try to use your own tiny cross section of success to believe that things never fail nor should you use your own failure rate to believe equipment is no good. You will fall into this problem.

JRewolinski wrote:I don't want to go on that tangent, but you seem to have a high-disdain for the HP MSA SANs. I've had zero problems with it, or any of our HP servers for that matter.Based on this logic, since you've had no issues with your servers, there is no reason to have a cluster since the logic as to why your MSA won't fail also applies (with 3x the experience) to your servers.

So if this is your reason for finding the MSA acceptable, it is even moreso logic for eliminating it. The logic isn't sound, but if used, would result in the same conclusion. JRewolinski wrote:My only concern with local storage is, in the event of a server failure, you're stuck restoring backups, or hoping you can get a replacement server/part to reclaim that array and it's data. Yes, I suppose the SAN is in the same boat, but with dual controllers, dual P/S, and raid, that should, in theory, be less likely to happen.This is the big marketing BS of low end SANs. Even a low end server has all of the good parts there with redundant fans, redundant power supplies, RAID, etc.

The only thing most servers (but not all) lack is the RAID controllers and this is actually a VERY important part of protecting you. In these low end SANs, what we have seen, is that it is the dual controller setup that causes the heightened failures. Having two of something is only good if they protect you instead of making disasters more likely.This gets said in every sales pitch for these cheap, flimsy SANs. They rely on the believe that redundancy and reliability and synonymous to state the one and hope that people hear the other. It is the dual controllers specifically that you are working to get away from.

They are not independent of one another, they almost always fail together but with two of them, the chances of one OR the other failing and taking the other out is that much more likely. JRewolinski wrote:Honestly I have limited knowledge on storage options.there's too damn many of them.that's for sure, so I appreciate all the feedback.With three or fewer servers there should not be many options. Shared external storage should be out of the question. Local storage should be a foregone conclusion with nothing else being considered.The only questions should be 'do you really need HA'. The answer should be 'no' 99% of the time (and should be for you since you have a P2000, we know that HA is not warranted at this time).

And that means standalone servers and local disks.If you are the rare case that needs HA, then replicated local storage like VSAN, VSA or StarWind.Only two choices with very clear delimination between them for clusters of this size - which pretty much addresses nearly all of the SMB market.. JRewolinski wrote:Pretty sure both vSphere and vSAN can take advantage of SSDs for caching now.but I can't keep track of all the changes.Honestly, VSAN is a huge leap over where you are. Are you absolutely sure you have any reason to be looking at replicated storage? You have only one single RAID array today. This is orders of magnitude more reliable than what was adequate in the past.

SMBs always think that they need HA, but they just don't. It's nice when it is free, but it never is.

There is cost and complication associated with HA and risks too. Like using the P2000, it is very easy to have HA the product but not get HA the reality if you don't really know what all of the pieces of the puzzle are doing.I'd avoid this if at all possible.

Simple local storage is a nice step up from where you have been. Take the win, don't shoot for the stars. Save money, make this simpler, get more reliable.

It can be a very simple project. JRewolinski wrote:Ultimately though, it sounds like getting local drives is the way to go.so any thoughts on best config? Raid-5, Raid-10? 10 or 15K drives?

Should I consider SSDs in one slot?This comes down to a lot of details that I don't have at hand. Performance needs in read and write, budget, capacity needs, if there is replication between nodes, etc. RAID 10 is ideal when you have no limits, it is the safest and the fastest. RAID 5 is acceptable with enterprise drives, this is not a huge array.

Hp P2000 G3 Firmware Upgrade Problems

But it is nowhere near as safe as RAID 10. Often RAID 6 is a happy medium.

Firmware Upgrade For Mp4 Players

But it really comes down to your specific workloads. We'd have to look at your IOPS needs, capacity needs, etc.SSD is awesome if the system can use it. The speed boost can be insane. If the system will leverage it and you can handle the capacity reduction then yeah, it's a great idea.