Is there any benefit to using Thick Lazy Zeroed and then using Thin Provisioning at the FC LUN level vs just using Vmware Thin provisioning? I guess I could use Thin for both VM and LUN, too.
Does Thick lazy Zeroed cause less lock/delay when filling unused space compared to Thin?
I don't think we see any savings using Thick Eager Zero with San Thin provisioning on our Netapp.
You should see the disks at full size in vsphere, but thin on your SAN.
Maybe this will help. http://theithollow.com/2013/03/are-you-thin-or-thick-where-at/
Pienso que son beneficios adicionales, ya que no en todos los sistemas operativos se puede expandir el disco, solo cargar un disco mas adicional, expandir solo en windows server 2008.
Hi Taylor,
We have been using Thin on Thin (thin disks on a thin lun) and we have not seen any problems with that. (we do use Equallogic instead of Netapp)
The only disadvantage I see, is that our EQL storage does not notice that space is freed out of the LUN.
So I don't see any reason why not to do it.
You should see the disks at full size in vsphere, but thin on your SAN.
Maybe this will help. http://theithollow.com/2013/03/are-you-thin-or-thick-where-at/
Some more info, I've seen this podcast today : https://itunes.apple.com/nl/podcast/online-vmware-training/id415180540#
Go to episode 4, you'll see the difference
Sorry for bumping an old post but Eager thick zeroed on a thin provisioned SAN means you cannot leverage VAAI.
It depends on the SAN.
Lazy zeroed and thin on SAN takes off all CPU from ESX. The SAN does the work.
Eager zeroed and thin on SAN:this might give you some small amounts of better IO but the SAN needs to understand "zeroes" so it does not reserve the space.
Thin on Thin: you use both ressources of ESX hosts and SAN. Not recommended.
Example for a HP 3PAR found here: http://www8.hp.com/h20195/v2/GetDocument.aspx?docname=4AA4-3286ENW