From Scott's post it seemed to say the data written to the drives that allows rebuilding the array when the RAID is replaced is what is missing. If that data is gone, aren't you hosed? Unless it is backed up somewhere?
It's not the disks that are bad, it's the controller itself. It's ROM is messed up.
With luck the flashed controller will pull the array data back in.
Wow. I can understand dropping product lines if they're not making money, but immediately burning it all without communicating this to customers. HPE, that doesn't look good at all.
I agree, not a good sign for the health of the new company. Burning bridges with customers, presumably big ones, means that they were desperate and had to make the move rather than just doing it strategically.
This will really lower competition in the SAN space. Only a few viable vendors left. Nimble was one of the few major players.
I disagree. What about Tintri, Kaminario, or Tegile? There are still plenty of vendors out there in Nimble's competitive tier. I mean they don't compare to HDS or IBM but again, Nimble is a completely different use case.
Honestly I think it would have made more sense for HPE to acquire Tintri for their portfolio at a reasonable price. Nimble is awesome for its own use case, but the acquisition seemed to be just one of appeasement to shareholders.
Unless they are shifting gears and trying to get more competitive in small-medium markets as an all around vendor (aside from adding Nimble, thinking of them purchasing Aruba a couple years ago as well).
I don't care about the hardware, but I have always bought Dell because the onsite warranty costs were better.
I have clients that prefer one thing or another for whatever reason. But I care not.
I'm not sure I understand brand loyalty especially where servers are concerned. They are commodity hardware now, and have been for the past several years, get what you need for the moment at the best price and move on.
You are reading something into what I said. I said I buy dell because the warranty is cheaper. Period. I did not say anything about the parts. I also have not bought a new server in years. Last few have been from XByte.
Nope, not reading anything into what you said. Using your comment, that your customers have a preference, to spring board to something else.
Those preferences don't matter though, because they are just responses to marketing. They are not IT people and have no idea. Thankfully there is no difference as we have all said.
Thanks again to everyone who replied and gave feedback on this. It's great to know that there's a solid community of knowledgeable people who are willing to share their expertise - I really appreciate it!!
Sadly we didn't find your solution. But happily you found it on your own!
I understand your goal and the idea isn't bad, it's just not possible. Now, what IS possible, if you really want to do this and are set up as I imagine you are from the description (that is, assuming that this is a data-only array and not the OS... so we assume that the OS is always still intact...)
Have a WARM spare (no such thing as a HOT spare with RAID 0, it just is nonsensical, it's a meaningless term to use in that case.) This will sit idly by.
Have a monitoring script that looks for an array failure.
Have the script talk to the Smart Array utility and disengage the dead drive.
Have the script talk to the utility and add in the WARM spare to a new array group.
Have the script built a new RAID 0 array.
Have the script unmount the old array and remove any legacy bits of it.
Detect the new array.
LVM the new array.
Format the new array.
Mount the new array.
Signal to the node that it is ready to proceed.
So I think that this does what you want, but it is not a HOT spare and it is not the RAID controller doing the work, it is your own script. So your end result can be done, just not using the exact tool and location of tool that you were imagining. But having a spare on board and rebuilding the system is possible.
But most likely there will be a better way to skin this cat. But I can see a potential use case for this.
I would guess that HP-UX will be retired. The cost of porting it will be high and so much of its value was tied to PA-RISC and then to Itanium. HP-UX on Xeon will lack much of what made HP-UX important.