IBM Storwize V7000 - MetroMirror vs. MetroCluster


Does any of you have any information on what the advantage of MetroCluster is over IBMs MetroMirror ?

As i can read the product only use FC, and they do not have Dedupe and the Snapshots are CoW.

But when a potential NetApp MetroCluster, that will only use FC, will this product do the same as we can do with MC ??

IBM Storwize V7000 - MetroMirror vs. MetroCluster

V7000 MetroMirror is more analogous to SnapMirror. The value in MetroCluster is the automated failover and failback without anyone in the middle.  It's also deisgned to prevent the split-brain scenrios that come up when software is used to automate the automatic failover.

Re: IBM Storwize V7000 - MetroMirror vs. MetroCluster

Can only support what has been said, MetroCluster is a pretty clever NetApp function, allowing for no single point of failure design, in a stretched data centre environment, allowing for the controllers to be separated over great distance and presenting a single storage controller.

IBM don’t have this functionality yet within V7000, although V7000 is a nice solution especially its storage virtualisation capability, built on the IBM SVC unit, however in terms of a smart storage solution, it offers nowhere near the capability you will get with a NetApp filer as you have already mentioned, no dedupe, copy on write snapshots, however they will support 255 snapshots…but it does strike me as a classic example of wanting to be a NetApp solution.

But quick answer to your question, if you want a metrocluster solution, then V7000 not the answer and…well metrocluster is! ☺

IBM Storwize V7000 - MetroMirror vs. MetroCluster

Yeah, I won't bring anything new to the table, yet (funnily enough) both technology names are 100% spot on in this case :

- MetroCluster = a cluster stretched over a metropolitan distance

- MetroMirror = mirroring (synchronous) over a metropolitan distance