I'd like to put the cat among the pigeons here(!), and ask why you feel it is
necessary or desirable to "contain each volume to a shelf of its own". The same
situation you have seen here is likely to occur again if another disk fails (it
will, eventually).
One reason to buy a filer is to minimise administration and maximise uptime, and
this process will increase administration as well as introduce unnecessary
downtime.
One possible explanation is that you need to move some disks later to another
filer - in which case identify at that time which disks comprise the volume you
wish to move, and then simply move those. As mentioned by others, if you halt
the filer, you can move the disks around with no fear whatsoever of confusing
the filer - the disk's identity is not related to the slot in which it finds
itself, rather to the label on the disk.
It is also desirable to minimise the number of "disk fail" operations, following
the maxim of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" :-)
Regards,
Andrew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fox, Adam
> Sent: 10 July 2000 15:55
> To: toasters(a)mathworks.com
> Subject: RE: volume/shelf containment
>
>
> There is a simplier way to do this, but it involves halting
> the filer.
>
> You could simply, halt the filer, place the disks where
> you want them, then reboot.
>
> Sorry I didn't mention this obvious way before, but I
> tend to think in terms of no downtime.
>
> -- Adam Fox
> NetApp Professional Services, NC
> adamfox(a)netapp.com
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fox, Adam
> > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 10:38 AM
> > To: makin(a)dnrc.bell-labs.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com
> > Subject: RE: volume/shelf containment
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bhavnesh Makin [mailto:makin@dnrc.bell-labs.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 10:04 AM
> > > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com
> > > Subject: volume/shelf containment
> > >
> > >
> > > We have a F740 filer with two 18 gig shelves. Each shelf is
> > > dedicated to
> > > a volume.We have reserved disk on each shelf as a
> hotspare for that
> > > particular volume. So in total we have two hot spares.
> > >
> > > Last week one of the disks failed on the first volume and
> > failed disk
> > > was recontructed on the spare which was physically
> present on second
> > > shelf. So we ended up with the volume which transgresses over to
> > > another shelf. Our goal was to contain each volume to a
> shelf of its
> > > own.
> > >
> > > First,is there a way to contain the volumes with hot
> > spares? Secondly
> > > how do I make the first volume give up the disk on second
> shelf and
> > > recontruct it on spare which is physically present on first shelf.
> >
> > As far as I understand it, spares are global to the filer.
> The filer
> > will pick the smallest spare disk that will fit. So unless you have
> > different sized disks on different volumes, you can't make a
> > filer pick
> > one disk over another.
> >
> > As far as fixing your current situation. Config your system
> > now so that
> > it only have 1 spare (it may be that way anyway now), then
> > fail over the
> > spare in the 2nd shelf which is now a data drive for the
> volume on the
> > first shelf. In my opinion, the best way to do this is to
> > run the 'disk fail'
> > command rather than pull the drive. I think it's cleaner
> > since you won't
> > have to cause your lop to reset. Then you will force your
> > volume to rebuild
> > on the only spare in the system, which not so coincidentally
> > is the one you
> > want.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > -- Adam Fox
> > NetApp Professional Services, NC
> > adamfox(a)netapp.com
> >
>