Addendum No. 1 to Packet No. 28-13 Enterprise Data Storage Solution and Strategy for the Ingham County MIS Department The following clarifications, modifications and/or revisions to the above project shall be considered a part of the original specifications: 1. Refer to #6 in Section 3: You want to mix size on SATA which is odd you'd move to the lowest common denominator "without the need to manage the new disks" We want the solution to support a wide variety of disk types giving us the broadest range of compatibility with current and future technologies. This requirement is closely centered on simplicity of storage management functions like but not limited to auto-provisioning of disk. 2. Need to confirm capacity- need to know if measurements are usable or raw on all listed boxes. All capacity requirements are usable numbers unless otherwise indicated. 3. Is NAS box CIFS or NFS? Is listed usable or raw? All existing NAS solutions utilize CIFS. 4. What are current options for connectivity to storage from the ESX hosts? Sounds like you have extra ports to use for CIFS and NFS Our hosts currently have 12 NIC ports each, 4 ports per host free in their current configuration. NIC ports are 1 Gb capable TOE. The current implementation on our vserver side do not have fiber channel capability. The two hosts on the vdesktop side both have dual port 2 Gb FC HBAs. 5. Refer to #13 on section 3- can you clarify? Define requirements. Review the list of major applications (Section #2). Your proposed solution should meet the needs of those applications. 6. Is 640GB Cache inclusive of FLASH? Cache requirements are not firm. We are looking for vendor recommendation. Solutions that deviate from the stated cache requirements will not be disqualified if vendor provides sufficient rationalization. 7. In line 4 of the requirements you mention Netware. But you do not list Netware as an OS within your current environment. Is there a future plan for Netware?
There will be no Netware in this implementation. 8. In line 10 of the requirements you mention DVR like recovery capabilities. Are you looking for a system that can rewind to any point in time and not just different increments throughout a work day? Incremental recovery capabilities are sufficient. 9. In line 18 of the requirements you mention Application Virtualization. Could you list the applications that will be part of the virtualization project? Any and all applications that are supported under VMware ThinApp (Horizon) are potential candidates for virtualization. 10. In line 28 & 29 of the requirements you mention the need for 640GB of cache and expandable to 2TB. Are there performance requirements that require this amount of cache in the array? See #6 on this addendum 11. Do you currently experience any type of performance issue (boot storm) with your thin clients that are already running in the environment? No but there is only a very small number of active clients. 12. When do the maintenance contracts expire on the existing storage? Existing storage will not be reused therefore this question is not relevant. 13. How many TBs of data are you using in your environment? 60 TB 14. What are the peak and average IO per second for EMC Celerra? See the Dpack addendum. No further analysis is available. 15. What are the peak and average IO per second, host attach protocol, disk count, drive size and drive speed for HP MSA 1000? Raid Type? Metrics for this hardware is not available. The disks are configured using RAID 5. 16. What are peak and average IO per second for HP EVA 3000?
See #14 on this addendum 17. HP EVA 3000 is FC attached. Is there a SAN switch involved or direct attached? If so, what is SAN switches Brand Model and type? There are two SAN switches. Compaq SANswitch 2/16-EL, HP SANswitch 18. Are the Virtual Desktops getting adequate IO response? Many Virtual Desktop clients use solid state storage for better performance with Virtual desktops. Is this something that is required? Yes. We are open to vendor recommendation. 19. What are the peak and Average IO per second for MSA2100? See #14 on this addendum 20. What is driving the desire to move exchange to another storage device? Performance? Reliability? Availability? Scalability? There is no desire beyond the need to consolidate on a single storage solution. Exchange performance is acceptable on the current hardware. 21. What are peak and average IO per second for Sun Server (BFFS) Raid Type? Drive count, size and speed? These metrics are not available. 22. RFP states, Work seamlessly in a variety of OS environments including UNIX, Linux, Netware, SUN and Windows with no OS modifications. Yes, it does. 23. What OS levels other the VMWare 4.1 would be connecting to Storage? ESX 5.1, Windows 2003, Windows 2008, Windows 2012, Solaris 24. What is your current backup infrastructure? What is the backup application? Tape drives? Offsite required? Is there a DR site involved? Arcserve for hardware servers backing up to two Exagrid appliances. Veeam for virtual servers backing up to a RDM on a MSA P2000. An offsite option is required. We have a DR site identified. 25. For requirement 1: Are you looking for integration with your existing backup infrastructure or to replace your backup infrastructure.
Replace existing with a single solution. 26. For requirement 5: What is the expected lifetime of SAN equipment? Do you realize as drive access technology changes some upgrades may have to be done to realize the full potential of some equipment? 5+ years. Yes, we understand that drive technology changes. Please review Section 3, #6 and #32. 27. For requirement 10: Please describe DVR capabilities? Are you looking for replication between multiple sites or the capability to do so in the future? See #8 on this addendum. Provide options for remote site replication but understand that, if there is a licensing component, it must be included with the initial purchase. 28. Do you require CIFS/NFS access to the same volumes? No, CIFS only. 29. Do you require the ability to provision storage and set auto-tiering from vcenter (as well as view it)? Required: no Prefer: yes 30. Section 3.0, 1.0: Provide integrated and automatic functions for volume management, virtualization, backup and recovery and data replication: Is the desire around integrated backup/recovery/replication to have the capabilities allow for simply Crash Consistent recovery points or to have true Application Consistent restore points? Application Consistent recovery points reduce/eliminate the need to have to run consistency checks and other processes in order to ensure there is not corruption or incomplete data due to only have Crash Consistency for a database. In looking at the application list it appears the county would need that capability for VMware, SQL and Exchange. Are there any Oracle databases in use that would also need Application Consistency capabilities? There is no requirement either way. Application consistent would be preferred is financially feasible. 31. Section 3.0, 13.0 Match existing Ingham County application to storage requirements:does the county have specific performance (I/O) and capacity requirements for each of the applications? See #5 on this addendum
32. Section 3.0, 18.0, Provide the ability for Application Virtualization. Ingham County will begin to virtualize applications in 2013: Are there specific capabilities around Application Virtualization that the county is looking for? See #9 on this addendum What Application Virtualization technology do you plan on purchasing? What storage capacity, specifically used as an Application Virtualization repository, do you require at time of new SAN installation and for future growth? 33. Section 3.0, 18.0, Provide for Desktop Virtualization/VMWare View. Ingham County currently employs approximately 100 (up to 1,200 in 5 years) virtual desktops operating in a separate VMWare cluster. Ingham County will continue to utilize this technology and will require an expandable storage solution: Does the county have performance data on VDI needs? No. 34. Section 3.0, 21.0, Utilize the County s current MSA P2000 for archiving: Please clarify the archiving use for the MSA P2000. Is there a specific archiving application the county intends to use? What are the retention policies for that data? Or is this simply a statement that the county intends to still use the MSA P2000 to be able to move older data to manually or with an application the county already has? We currently utilize Veeam for VM backups. There is no retention policy currently defined. The P2000 hardware will be available if needed. 35. Section 3.0, 21.0 Provide for image level backups of the VMs: Is this stating a need for creating image-level storage-based snapshots of VMs? Or is the county looking for a VMware aware/integrated back-up software solution for creating actual back-ups of VMs off to other disk or tape storage devices? Veeam created image level backups that will need to be stored on this new solution. 36. Section 3.0, 25.0, Be expandable to accommodate the growing paperless/imaging needs: Are there specific performance requirements for this imaging data? What is the anticipated growth for this data? The only reference we see in the RFP states 500GB through 2013. We need fast, redundant storage. There are no metrics available that dictate future space needs or performance requirements. 37. Section 3.0, 25.0 Provide for 150TB with a 5-year growth to 300TB before de-duplication. Minimum of 640GB Cache with capability to upgrade support of all commonly available types of physical storage resources, including flash memory, SSD, 2.5, 3.5 and allow mixing of
different disks sizes: Multiple questions regarding this item: Is the 150TB the amount of usable or raw capacity required? If it is a raw number, we strongly suggest the county clarify the amount of USABLE capacity needed, as that is the amount that will truly matter to the county and there can be significant differences between vendors regarding their raw/usable efficiencies. Usable before de-duplication. Based on the information provided, it appears the county only has 50TB of usable capacity today with less than 42TB actually used. If the 150TB requested is the usable capacity desired, what are the applications or data types that will be driving a 200% increase over the capacity available today? Are there any performance estimates for these future increases? Our needs are justified by past experiences. There are no performance related estimates available aside from those outlined in the RFP.. In looking at the current environment, it appears that only 17TB of the county s 50TB available are on high performance disk. Everything else is on slower, high capacity drives. How much of the requested 100TB (over the current 50TB) is expected to drive high performance needs versus simply high capacity requirements? Our performance needs are dictated by the applications listed in the RFP. What is driving the request for at least 640GB of Cache? Industry recommendations. 38. Section 3.0, 34.0 If a backup/disaster recovery solution is available, it should be documented as a separate option with solution details and cost if implemented: What is the county looking for from this item? Backup and Disaster Recovery are two HUGE topics that need a lot more data provided in order to design a solution for the county. In fact, backup itself would really be worthy of a separate RFP, or an entire list of requirements specific to that portion. Disaster recovery could be the same, unless the county simply wants to replicate the entire environment to a separate location, which would not necessarily be recommended as there could most likely be performance and capacity differences for the DR site versus Production. This is actually a topic covered by at least a few assessments or reviews of the environment to properly design to meet needs. This one sentence in the Storage RFP could result in an extremely wide range of solutions provided by the responders, with the potential for none of them to actually meet the true needs of the county. Just a handful of the many questions that would need to be answered for a backup solution would be:
If your solution offers and backup/recovery facet, please include it in your response as a separate option. What backup application is being used today? What are the biggest pain points with the solution currently in place? Arcserve and Veeam. Backup window and complexity are the pain points. How much data will be backed up? (Especially since the storage array is to be sized for 150TB yet the county has less than 50TB today.) Start with 60 TB What are the retention policies for backup? How long will the county keep dailies, weeklies, monthlies, etc.? There are no defined retention policies. What are the requirements and desires for getting data off-site? Replicating backups to another location? Shipping out tapes? We would like to replicate off-site, no tapes please. Is the county currently meeting backup windows? Please provide details on backup times if this is currently a challenge. Backup windows are an issue. They are currently running 24 hours a day. An acceptable window is 6PM to 6AM M-F and all day on weekends. 39. Is there sufficient UPS capacity to power the new system in parallel to the old systems during migration? If, not should new UPS equipment be included in our response? That would depend on the power requirements of the proposed solution. Our UPS is running at 80% capacity. 40. How many open rack U s are available in order to rack the new system in parallel with the old systems? 38U at go-live. 41. Which of three available FC interconnects is the MSA1000 configured with: Fiber Channel I/O module, embedded SAN 2/8 switch or embedded SAN 2/3 hub?
There are 2 SAN 2/8 switches. 42. Are your Law enforcement systems physical workloads or virtual machines? If physical, please provide hardware specifications of those server(s). If virtual machines, please provide specifications for the host hypervisor systems Virtual on ESX 5.1 43. Is your Exchange infrastructure running as VM s within your six (6) ESX 4.1 cluster, VM s within a different ESX cluster or as physical workloads? Yes, the 6 ESX cluster. 44. What version of MS Exchange? If 2010, is a DAG configured? If so, how many DAG members? Exchange 2010 with 2 member DAG 45. Are your two (2) VDI ESX host servers FC direct attached to the EVA 3000 or is a FC switch(s) used? If FC switch(s) are used, provide hardware specifications of the switch(s) and available/unused/open licensed port counts. Fiber channel switches are being used. HBAs are 2 Gb FC and will not be reused in the new solution. 46. Application Virtualization: 3.18 Provide the ability for Application Virtualization. Ingham County will begin to virtualize applications in 2013: What are the spec/blade population on the 6509 chassis? Are there any open 10GB ports in the 6509 Chassis? It is our preference is that our storage network be physically separate from our voice/data network. 47. Could you please provide detailed specs of each server that will be connected to the new San either by FC of iscsi? All ESX host servers are HP DL380 G6 or better with 12-1 Gb Ethernet NIC ports. 48. Is it planned for individual host servers to maintain their current SAN connectivity method or will host servers need to be configured with new FC or 10GB iscsi connection options. If new connections are to be made, will the County be providing new sever HBA s and infrastructure switches or should these be included in our response? Host servers must connect to the new SAN. Include an option to purchase all necessary networking hardware with response.
49. Are there any bond requirements as part of this RFP? No bond required. 50. What is address of primary datacenter? Mason, MI 48854 51. Current SAN storage totals 50TB usable. You are requesting 150TB with 5YR growth to 300TB. Can you provide a growth projection graph of years 1-5 by major using applications? No. 52. Do you have any performance IOPS data available on current SAN s that can be used to size new solution? See Dpack. No further metrics are available. 53. Current SAN is assumed to be 1Gb NAS/1Gb iscsi. Are you asking for 1Gb NAS/1Gb iscsi in this proposal? Are you asking for 10Gb NAS/iSCSI networking in this proposal? Are you asking for 8Gb Fiber Channel in this proposal? Are we to propose switch fabrics for either of the above? Please review Section 3, #30 and propose your best solution. 54. Item 28 and 29: Explain what you mean by cache. Are these SSD drives? See #6 on this addendum 55. Item 31: Please explain All features of the solution must be fully licensed and available at go-live. 56. Item 34: Are you requesting a full 2 nd Site DR SAN solution? Do you have a second datacenter for DR that has fiber cabling available to the primary datacenter? Where is it located and how far away is it (fiber distance) from the production datacenter? We would like the option for a 2 nd site. We have existing 10 Gb fiber to the DR site which is about 15 miles away. 57. What is the total amount of data protected by backups? (45TB?) Roughly, 40 TB
58. What is the retention period for the backups? There is no stated retention policy. 59. What is the total amount of virtual data protected by backups? 30 TB compressed 60. What is the retention period for the VM backups? See #58 in this addendum 61. Is there another location for the replication of data? Yes 62. If so what is the bandwidth between sites? 10 Gb fiber 63. Can you please clarify how much capacity that Ingham County is looking to start with for this proposal? Section 3.0, question 13, says to Match existing Ingham County application to storage requirements, while question 28 insinuated that the county is looking for 150TB: Provide for 150TB with a 5-year growth to 300TB before de-duplication. Section 3, #13 refers to storage performance not storage capacity. Please acknowledge your receipt and understanding of the aforementioned Addendum by signing below and returning it with the submittal of your proposal. Signature Date Print Name Title Company Name Phone #/Fax #