Some users say they dont over-committe a thin provision disk.
But I think if they are not over-commiting then how are they actullay using the benefits of thin provisioning. Instead why dont they use thick provision ???
Do you guys agree with my view ???
In my opinion it comes down to the management overhead associated with it as you need to make sure everything is properly monitored, and with the procurement agility of an organisation. There's no real technical reason not to do it, as long as you make sure everything is monitored properly and you'll be in a position to buy additional storage when it becomes necessary. A lot of the companies I work with tend to go for Thick disks on Thick Luns and this is because, on discussion with them, we discover that they don't have the agility to add an additional shelf of disks should the need arise and they can't guarantee they could go through the procurement process quickly enough to stop their environment falling over.
We, on the other hand, have the ability to plan accordingly and, should we need to buy disks at short notice (same/next day), we can. So we monitor everything closely and make sure that our Thin disks on Thin Luns never get near their limits and have sufficient capacity overhead to make sure this isn't an issue; this coupled with our ongoing capacity planning lets us make the best use of our investment in storage.
Here is the great article I could find on thin & thik: Worth to read twice ;
1.Thin vs Thick basic overview
2.Option 1 – Thin Provision at the Array Side
3.Option 2- Thin Provision at the Hypervisor Side
4. Thin Provisioning Concerns
5.So which option should I go for?
-Thick on Thin
-Thin on Thick
-Thin on Thin
6.How much space does a thin disk consume with example?
7.A note on Fault Tolerant VM & MSCS nodes.
Thanks to Cormac Hogan for writing this.