|
|
Post by junlinchen on May 20, 2021 12:18:22 GMT
Hi all,
I'm confusing about the devices in SimpleStorage and drives in Storage.
Their definition in the redfish schemas are below.
Drive: This resource shall represent a drive or other physical storage medium for a Redfish implementation.
StorageController: This resource shall represent a storage controller in the Redfish Specification.
SimpleStorage: This Resource contains a storage controller and its directly-attached devices.
Storage: This resource shall represent a storage subsystem in the Redfish Specification.
Are the devices in Simple Storage and the drives in Storage the same?
Or the drives in Storage included the devices in Simple Storage? because drives in Storage also represent drive too.
Thank you for answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by mraineri on May 20, 2021 12:51:21 GMT
SimpleStorage was the early model in Redfish for showing storage devices, and "Devices" in this resource do equate to drives. It's been superseded by the Storage resource for representing the more complete method of showing a storage subsystem, its controllers, devices, and volumes. SimpleStorage intentionally did not scale beyond direct attach storage since it predated any introduction of the fabric model.
It is okay to report both SimpleStorage and Storage simultaneously for the same storage subsystem. There may be existing clients that rely on SimpleStorage that do not understand the full Storage model. If you do support showing a storage subsystem as both SimpleStorage and Storage, there is a property in the Links object of each resource to step between the two views; it also allows newer clients understand that the two resources represent the same subsystem.
|
|
|
|
Post by junlinchen on May 21, 2021 2:21:18 GMT
Thank you very much for your answer.
This helped me a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by rajvakilan on Aug 21, 2023 4:48:16 GMT
SimpleStorage was the early model in Redfish for showing storage devices, and "Devices" in this resource do equate to drives. It's been superseded by the Storage resource for representing the more complete method of showing a storage subsystem, its controllers, devices, and volumes. SimpleStorage intentionally did not scale beyond direct attach storage since it predated any introduction of the fabric model. It is okay to report both SimpleStorage and Storage simultaneously for the same storage subsystem. There may be existing clients that rely on SimpleStorage that do not understand the full Storage model. If you do support showing a storage subsystem as both SimpleStorage and Storage, there is a property in the Links object of each resource to step between the two views; it also allows newer clients understand that the two resources represent the same subsystem. Hi mraineri, Regarding the links between the Storage and simple storage.this links are not array object. if Multiple simple storage instance can be mapped under one storage instance , in this case linking only one simple storage instance will not be correct. during such scenario can collection links be used (/redfish/v1/Systems/{ComputerSystemId}/SimpleStorage) or Array object usage (needed change in spec) ? please let me know your comments. Thanks, Akilan |
|
|
|
Post by mraineri on Aug 21, 2023 12:45:01 GMT
I don't see how that would be possible to map multiple SimpleStorage instance to one Storage instance... Can you please provide an example hardware topology to show this scenario?
|
|
|
|
Post by rajvakilan on Aug 22, 2023 8:39:42 GMT
I don't see how that would be possible to map multiple SimpleStorage instance to one Storage instance... Can you please provide an example hardware topology to show this scenario? Storage unit information: Storage-> StorageMember1 (contain 3 storage controllers Nvme ,Sata1 ,Sata2) ( set of physical or virtual storage controllers) Simple Storage details : |SimpleStorage1 (Nvme ) SimpleStorage->|SimpleStorage2 (Sata1) |SimpleStorage3 (Sata2) SimpleStorage Linking to Storage : SimpleStorage1 -> StorageMember1 SimpleStorage2 -> StorageMember1 SimpleStorage3 -> StorageMember1 Storage Linking to SimpleStorage: Member1 -> SimpleStorage1 ,SimpleStorage2,SimpleStorage3 Please correct me if the understanding is incorrect. Thanks, Akilan |
|
|
|
Post by mraineri on Aug 22, 2023 16:00:46 GMT
Each of those would be their own Storage resources since they are different storage subsystems. We do allow for an array (or collection depending on the version of the model you're supporting) of storage controllers, but the intent of this is for when the controllers operate together on the same drives, such as in an HA RAID card where you have a primary and failover controller.
|
|
|
|
Post by rajvakilan on Aug 23, 2023 10:25:38 GMT
Each of those would be their own Storage resources since they are different storage subsystems. We do allow for an array (or collection depending on the version of the model you're supporting) of storage controllers, but the intent of this is for when the controllers operate together on the same drives, such as in an HA RAID card where you have a primary and failover controller. as per the comment , below will be the format |StorageMember1 - Nvme Storage-> |StorageMember2 - Sata1 |StorageMember3 - Sata2 |StorageMember4 - RAID Controller1(primary) ,RAID controller2(failover ) |SimpleStorage1 (Nvme ) SimpleStorage->|SimpleStorage2 (Sata1) |SimpleStorage3 (Sata2) |SimpleStorag4 ( RAID Controller -primary ) |SimpleStorage5 ( RAID controller -failover ) In this scenario Storage -> SimpleStoarge links will be as below
StorageMember1 - Nvme link with SimpleStorage1 (Nvme )
StorageMember2 - Sata1 link with SimpleStorage2 (Sata1) StorageMember3 - Sata2 link with SimpleStorage3 (Sata2) StorageMember4 - RAID link with SimpleStorage4 and SimpleStorage5 (This may need Array link )usage of Array in Storage -> Links-> SimpleStorage may be required for above case. Thanks, Akilan |
|
|
|
Post by mraineri on Aug 23, 2023 13:24:04 GMT
SimpleStorage4 and SimpleStorage5 in that case should be a single SimpleStorage resource. The two controllers work in tandem and should be treated as a single logical entity. Otherwise if you model each as their own SimpleStorage resource, you'd duplicate all of the drive information between the two instances.
|
|
