toasters June 2004

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

76 participants
86 discussions

RE: Defraging the excahgne DB
by SKIP HOFMANN 07 Jun '04

07 Jun '04

It seems that Netapp is very confused about this issue and or topic, as I have called into tech support on three separate occasions about this issue and I'm always left feeling more confused than when I called in. Netapp needs to figure this out and give an answer to this question, which I think should be a YES or NO answer. Can the waffle scan safely defrag an exchange DB, if so what are the steps? If a waffle scan cannot defrag an exchange DB then can running eseutil and pointing eseutil to the exchange DB on the filler run, and will it defrag the DB? Thanks Skip _____ From: Waters, G Scott THE LOG.SEC TEAM [mailto:george.scott.waters@us.army.mil] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 7:33 AM To: SKIP HOFMANN; 'Borders, Rich'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Defraging the excahgne DB Importance: High WOW ... this is the exact opposite of what NetApp support told me. On a volume used for storing Exchange data, the WAFL SCAN REALLOCATE command will never complete. It goes for a while and then stalls. We monitor the layout ratios weekly and schedule down time to perform an offline DEFRAG every 4 - 6 weeks. This is all based on information received at the time ... If NetApp has fixed this then someone enlighten me. - Scott W. -----Original Message----- From: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com <mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com> ] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 2:31 PM To: 'Borders, Rich'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Defraging the excahgne DB Hi I just got done talking with support at Netapp, and they told me that doing an offline defrag of my exchange DB using the esutil will have absolutely no impact on the exchange DB on the filer, and they also told me that in order to defrag the exchange DB I must use the fillers Waffle utility to do this and that this would also defragment everything on the vol. They said that it's the responsibility of the file system on the filer to determine if a vol is fragmented or not, this includes all data on the vol. So knowing this is it safe to defrag a vol that contains an exchange DB?? Thanks again for your help it is much appreciated Skip -----Original Message----- From: Borders, Rich [mailto:Rich.Borders@netapp.com <mailto:Rich.Borders@netapp.com> ] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 11:13 AM To: SKIP HOFMANN; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Defraging the excahgne DB <<< I am replying in-line >>> From: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com <mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com> ] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 1:33 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Defraging the excahgne DB Howdy I have my exchange 5.5 DB pub and priv and my filler it's a FAS250 and I want to know a few things #1 can I run the eseutil utility if the DB is on my FAS 250 to defrag the DB? <<< This is doable as it is an offline defrag. The curious thing about doing this is that you are accomplishing the APPLICATION defrag, and at the same time getting a great by-product of a WAFL defrag. ( Essentially a database re-write ) >>> #2 is it the filer that determines if the exchange DB is fragmented or not, and if it is how would I defrag the DB? <<<The Application can fragment ( very common and accounted for by an online and offline defrag funciton in Exchange ) and the Filer can fragment. I say that tounge in cheek because the fragmentation is really only identified when you access the data. Since the database is one large file the request for data in it is atypical, the data 'fragments' over time. The blocks of the filer rarely match up to the blocks of the database, so the issues becomes when you want to get a LOT of sequential data from a large file ( aka mail store verify ) you will be essentially asking the filer to scan through it's blocks at a super high rate of speed.>>> #3 what happens to all other data that is stored on the same vol as the exchange DB once I defrag this vol? ie snap shots <<<The Mail store can be reallocated or the volume can. I would recommend the snapshots be removed as you can really get yourself into a pickle by 'RE'-writing a database with an application defrag, or a WAFL reallocate. If you are short on space, you need to get the snapshots out of there. Snapshots are locked images and if the file system is 'fragmented' then it is unlikely that you are doing much more than spinning your wheels if you are trying to defragment into a fragemnted snapshot. >>> #4 I ran a waffle scan and I got a reading of 1.8 si this fragmented? That is basically a ratio of actual file size ( df essentially ) to block allocation. Ex. A one terabyte volume has a 500 gig database. If it's layout is 1 then the File is essentially using the exact number of blocks that a Filer of 500 gigs needs. If the layout were 1.8 then the 500 gig df would still be 500 but the block allocation would actually be closer to the 900 gig . This is usually not an issue until the ratio takes the block allocation higher then the volume size. A 2.1 layout would mean that a 500 gig df would be 1.05 TB. This means you are rescanning on a request of data on the last .05 TB. If the Filer were a 900 gig df, then a layout of 1.8 would be MUCH more impactful. It is not the end of the world, you just have to manage it. You are on the right track I can see, so good luck. Thanks a bunch Skip Rich Borders

1 0

RE: Best practices for new RAID group
by Yarmas, Tom 04 Jun '04

04 Jun '04

The paper you reference is a little dated unless you are still running 5.x of Data ONTAP. Data ONTAP version 6.x included some significant changes to the WAFL and ONTAP RAID. The number of RAID groups is much less relevant than the total number of data drives in the volume. However, adding 1 or two drives to a volume (or RAID Group) is still not the best approach. Your best bet is to add a new RAID group of 6 disks to the volume. You will be adding the disks anyway (over time), and you are using qtrees to divvy up the space, so just add them all at one time and not worry about it. As Chris Thompson pointed out you can use RAID-DP (assuming you are running DOT 6.5), and add 2 disks to the existing RAID group. But that would likely not be optimal because you would still have a small number of "empty" disks in the RAID group and they will be utilized more than the other "more full" disks until space gets more evenly distributed across all of the drives. -tom -----Original Message----- From: Stewart, John [mailto:johns@artesyncp.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 5:44 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Cc: IT Technical Services Subject: Best practices for new RAID group We've got an F740 with three shelves of 36GB disks (the 3rd recently added). We've only got one volume, vol0, with 14 disks in it now (13 data and one parity). We use both CIFS and NFS. We have 7 spare disks (6 of which we'd like to eventually use for data, with one spare of course). I just went to add one of the spare disks to vol0 (running low on space) and got the error: vol add: starting a new RAID group; at least two disks are needed So, as I (now) understand it, we've got to either: - Override the 14 disk limit for a RAID group or - Add a new RAID group to the current volume or - Add a new volume The 3rd choice is unattractive because we like the idea of One Huge Filesystem, that we can divvy up as needed into different qtrees. The 2nd choice sounds like a Bad Idea in that according to this document, section 3.4: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3027.html, that the filer will try to distribute writes evenly between the old and new RAID group... if the new RAID group only contains two disks (we don't want to add more disk space than is needed now), this could be disatrous to performance So is the 1st choice, increasing the size of the RAID group, a viable option? What is the downsize? Only increased risk of a double disk failure taking out the whole system? Is it possible to add a second parity disk to the same RAID group? Am I missing something here? Any clue-by-fours quite welcome. thanks johnS

1 0

RE: Best practices for new RAID group
by Derek Lai 04 Jun '04

04 Jun '04

The first option is not good either because the moment you increase the size of the raid group and add only 1 drive, all the new writes are going to that one drive until it catches up in space utilization as the rest of the drives in that raid group. Performance will come to a screeching halt. So NetApp definitely will let you do it but at the risk of really bad performance. The only way I would do this is to back up everything, blow the volume away, create the volume again with all the drives and then restore the data. NetApp typically suggest you add at least a few drives at a time. Sorry. Derek -----Original Message----- From: Stewart, John [mailto:johns@artesyncp.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 2:44 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Cc: IT Technical Services Subject: Best practices for new RAID group We've got an F740 with three shelves of 36GB disks (the 3rd recently added). We've only got one volume, vol0, with 14 disks in it now (13 data and one parity). We use both CIFS and NFS. We have 7 spare disks (6 of which we'd like to eventually use for data, with one spare of course). I just went to add one of the spare disks to vol0 (running low on space) and got the error: vol add: starting a new RAID group; at least two disks are needed So, as I (now) understand it, we've got to either: - Override the 14 disk limit for a RAID group or - Add a new RAID group to the current volume or - Add a new volume The 3rd choice is unattractive because we like the idea of One Huge Filesystem, that we can divvy up as needed into different qtrees. The 2nd choice sounds like a Bad Idea in that according to this document, section 3.4: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3027.html, that the filer will try to distribute writes evenly between the old and new RAID group... if the new RAID group only contains two disks (we don't want to add more disk space than is needed now), this could be disatrous to performance So is the 1st choice, increasing the size of the RAID group, a viable option? What is the downsize? Only increased risk of a double disk failure taking out the whole system? Is it possible to add a second parity disk to the same RAID group? Am I missing something here? Any clue-by-fours quite welcome. thanks johnS

1 0

Best practices for new RAID group
by Stewart, John 03 Jun '04

03 Jun '04

We've got an F740 with three shelves of 36GB disks (the 3rd recently added). We've only got one volume, vol0, with 14 disks in it now (13 data and one parity). We use both CIFS and NFS. We have 7 spare disks (6 of which we'd like to eventually use for data, with one spare of course). I just went to add one of the spare disks to vol0 (running low on space) and got the error: vol add: starting a new RAID group; at least two disks are needed So, as I (now) understand it, we've got to either: - Override the 14 disk limit for a RAID group or - Add a new RAID group to the current volume or - Add a new volume The 3rd choice is unattractive because we like the idea of One Huge Filesystem, that we can divvy up as needed into different qtrees. The 2nd choice sounds like a Bad Idea in that according to this document, section 3.4: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3027.html, that the filer will try to distribute writes evenly between the old and new RAID group... if the new RAID group only contains two disks (we don't want to add more disk space than is needed now), this could be disatrous to performance So is the 1st choice, increasing the size of the RAID group, a viable option? What is the downsize? Only increased risk of a double disk failure taking out the whole system? Is it possible to add a second parity disk to the same RAID group? Am I missing something here? Any clue-by-fours quite welcome. thanks johnS

2 1

RE: Defraging the excahgne DB
by SKIP HOFMANN 03 Jun '04

03 Jun '04

Hi I just got done talking with support at Netapp, and they told me that doing an offline defrag of my exchange DB using the esutil will have absolutely no impact on the exchange DB on the filer, and they also told me that in order to defrag the exchange DB I must use the fillers Waffle utility to do this and that this would also defragment everything on the vol. They said that it's the responsibility of the file system on the filer to determine if a vol is fragmented or not, this includes all data on the vol. So knowing this is it safe to defrag a vol that contains an exchange DB?? Thanks again for your help it is much appreciated Skip -----Original Message----- From: Borders, Rich [mailto:Rich.Borders@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 11:13 AM To: SKIP HOFMANN; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Defraging the excahgne DB <<< I am replying in-line >>> From: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 1:33 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Defraging the excahgne DB Howdy I have my exchange 5.5 DB pub and priv and my filler it's a FAS250 and I want to know a few things #1 can I run the eseutil utility if the DB is on my FAS 250 to defrag the DB? <<< This is doable as it is an offline defrag. The curious thing about doing this is that you are accomplishing the APPLICATION defrag, and at the same time getting a great by-product of a WAFL defrag. ( Essentially a database re-write ) >>> #2 is it the filer that determines if the exchange DB is fragmented or not, and if it is how would I defrag the DB? <<<The Application can fragment ( very common and accounted for by an online and offline defrag funciton in Exchange ) and the Filer can fragment. I say that tounge in cheek because the fragmentation is really only identified when you access the data. Since the database is one large file the request for data in it is atypical, the data 'fragments' over time. The blocks of the filer rarely match up to the blocks of the database, so the issues becomes when you want to get a LOT of sequential data from a large file ( aka mail store verify ) you will be essentially asking the filer to scan through it's blocks at a super high rate of speed.>>> #3 what happens to all other data that is stored on the same vol as the exchange DB once I defrag this vol? ie snap shots <<<The Mail store can be reallocated or the volume can. I would recommend the snapshots be removed as you can really get yourself into a pickle by 'RE'-writing a database with an application defrag, or a WAFL reallocate. If you are short on space, you need to get the snapshots out of there. Snapshots are locked images and if the file system is 'fragmented' then it is unlikely that you are doing much more than spinning your wheels if you are trying to defragment into a fragemnted snapshot. >>> #4 I ran a waffle scan and I got a reading of 1.8 si this fragmented? That is basically a ratio of actual file size ( df essentially ) to block allocation. Ex. A one terabyte volume has a 500 gig database. If it's layout is 1 then the File is essentially using the exact number of blocks that a Filer of 500 gigs needs. If the layout were 1.8 then the 500 gig df would still be 500 but the block allocation would actually be closer to the 900 gig . This is usually not an issue until the ratio takes the block allocation higher then the volume size. A 2.1 layout would mean that a 500 gig df would be 1.05 TB. This means you are rescanning on a request of data on the last .05 TB. If the Filer were a 900 gig df, then a layout of 1.8 would be MUCH more impactful. It is not the end of the world, you just have to manage it. You are on the right track I can see, so good luck. Thanks a bunch Skip Rich Borders

1 0

RE: Defraging the excahgne DB
by Borders, Rich 03 Jun '04

03 Jun '04

<<< I am replying in-line >>> From: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 1:33 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Defraging the excahgne DB Howdy I have my exchange 5.5 DB pub and priv and my filler it's a FAS250 and I want to know a few things #1 can I run the eseutil utility if the DB is on my FAS 250 to defrag the DB? <<< This is doable as it is an offline defrag. The curious thing about doing this is that you are accomplishing the APPLICATION defrag, and at the same time getting a great by-product of a WAFL defrag. ( Essentially a database re-write ) >>> #2 is it the filer that determines if the exchange DB is fragmented or not, and if it is how would I defrag the DB? <<<The Application can fragment ( very common and accounted for by an online and offline defrag funciton in Exchange ) and the Filer can fragment. I say that tounge in cheek because the fragmentation is really only identified when you access the data. Since the database is one large file the request for data in it is atypical, the data 'fragments' over time. The blocks of the filer rarely match up to the blocks of the database, so the issues becomes when you want to get a LOT of sequential data from a large file ( aka mail store verify ) you will be essentially asking the filer to scan through it's blocks at a super high rate of speed.>>> #3 what happens to all other data that is stored on the same vol as the exchange DB once I defrag this vol? ie snap shots <<<The Mail store can be reallocated or the volume can. I would recommend the snapshots be removed as you can really get yourself into a pickle by 'RE'-writing a database with an application defrag, or a WAFL reallocate. If you are short on space, you need to get the snapshots out of there. Snapshots are locked images and if the file system is 'fragmented' then it is unlikely that you are doing much more than spinning your wheels if you are trying to defragment into a fragemnted snapshot. >>> #4 I ran a waffle scan and I got a reading of 1.8 si this fragmented? That is basically a ratio of actual file size ( df essentially ) to block allocation. Ex. A one terabyte volume has a 500 gig database. If it's layout is 1 then the File is essentially using the exact number of blocks that a Filer of 500 gigs needs. If the layout were 1.8 then the 500 gig df would still be 500 but the block allocation would actually be closer to the 900 gig . This is usually not an issue until the ratio takes the block allocation higher then the volume size. A 2.1 layout would mean that a 500 gig df would be 1.05 TB. This means you are rescanning on a request of data on the last .05 TB. If the Filer were a 900 gig df, then a layout of 1.8 would be MUCH more impactful. It is not the end of the world, you just have to manage it. You are on the right track I can see, so good luck. Thanks a bunch Skip Rich Borders

1 0

Defraging the excahgne DB
by SKIP HOFMANN 03 Jun '04

03 Jun '04

Howdy I have my exchange 5.5 DB pub and priv and my filler it's a FAS250 and I want to know a few things #1 can I run the eseutil utility if the DB is on my FAS 250 to defrag the DB? #2 is it the filer that determines if the exchange DB is fragmented or not, and if it is how would I defrag the DB? #3 what happens to all other data that is stored on the same vol as the exchange DB once I defrag this vol? ie snap shots #4 I ran a waffle scan and I got a reading of 1.8 si this fragmented? Thanks a bunch Skip

1 0

Respone
by ngomaj＠telstra.com 03 Jun '04

03 Jun '04

JULIANA NGOMA [MISS] EMAIL: infojuliana(a)netscape.net Greetings, How are you? And hope all is well? You might be surprise to receive this mail but I will like you to go through it carefully before responding, I hope at the end it will find you and your business in the best of interest. Let me quickly introduce myself and the reason why contacting you is very important. I am Juliana Ngoma; I am a senior staff at the Office of the Minister of Petroleum Affairs Angola. I have traveled along side with the Minister Jose Botelho de Vasconcelos to your country in search of investors that will come and invest on our Petroleum Sector, it was in one of this trip that I was opportune to realize that the trips been made by the Minister is not for the search for an investor but for the search for what he will invest part of the Money made from Angolan petroleum Export that he has diverted to be his own. I was shocked at this discovery, but I later realized that I was the only one among other staffs that was not aware of these happenings, investigation into this matter made me to know that even the president is involved. I suddenly realized that the BBC news achieve below is true. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2546281.stm I arrived from the trip I made with the minister and went straight to confront my Head of Department, and he told me that he is aware of the whole situation, he went further to show me some documents that was used to bank some millions of American Dollars in a security firm, he explained to me that the amount was realised from the assistance he rendered to Foreign oil Contractors that are in Angola, he said I should assist him in the search for a reputable and trust worthy business man that can assist us in transfering the funds to a safe place where it will be used for Future Investment, this is because he cannot be able to carry out the process of investing the amount alone. I am therefore asking for your opinion on this issue, will you be able to assist us in the process of transfering, claiming and investing the money of which some percentage of the total amount involved will be granted to you for assisting us and for the time you spent on the transaction. If you are willing to assist us kindly provide us with details of how we can reach you by phone or by fax so that we can proceed to conclude this transaction. You can contact me on my email infojuliana(a)netscape.com Yours Truly, JULIANA NGOMA [MISS] infojuliana(a)netscape.com

1 0

RE: Excage databse
by SKIP HOFMANN 03 Jun '04

03 Jun '04

This is true, but cant I restore a single mailbox Evan though I have data stored on the same vol as my exchange DB using ontrack or will this too cause the same results as restoring the entire exchange DB? Thanks again _____ From: Benn, Paul [mailto:paul.benn@netapp.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 5:09 PM To: SKIP HOFMANN; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Excage databse Hi Skip, The product in question is SnapManager for Exchange 5.5. This version of SME uses a volume based snaprestore to recover the databases (assuming you have the logs and databases on different volumes). What will happen is that when you perform a SME restore you will revert the ENTIRE volume back to that point in time, including your 100GB. This is probably something that you do NOT want to do, unless perhaps, the 100GB of data never changes. In addition to that, the snapshots you create outside of SME will not be usable to restore Exchange. You have two choices: 1) Create a new volume and move all user data that is not part of the Exchange database to that new volume. This is your best option. 2) Configure SME to use one volume for both the databases and the logs. The downside to this is that your restore times will increase significantly because the restore will NOT be using a volume snaprestore. Please let us know if you have any further questions. Happy snappin' Regards, Paul Benn NetApp Engineering SnapManager Team -----Original Message----- From: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 4:43 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Excage databse Hi all I am currently using snap manager for exchange version 1.1.1 and I am reading the documentation over at http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/SnapManager/relsme111r2/pdfs/smesag .pdf <http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/SnapManager/relsme111r2/pdfs/smesa g.pdf> and it says that I should not put any data on the same volume as the exchange database. Can some please explain why this is? I already have 100 gigs of data on the same vol as my exchange DB please advice Caution Do not put any other files or data (including transaction logs) on the same volumes with the Exchange databases if you are going to make use of SnapManager Restore using SnapRestore. This type of recovery performs a volume recovery using the snapshot of the Exchange databases and all other files and data on the volume. Therefore, the other files and data are recovered to the time of the snapshot along with the Exchange databases. This result might not be acceptable when performing a SnapManager Restore with SnapRestore recovery. Thanks for any help

1 0

RE: Excage databse
by Benn, Paul 03 Jun '04

03 Jun '04

Hi Skip, The product in question is SnapManager for Exchange 5.5. This version of SME uses a volume based snaprestore to recover the databases (assuming you have the logs and databases on different volumes). What will happen is that when you perform a SME restore you will revert the ENTIRE volume back to that point in time, including your 100GB. This is probably something that you do NOT want to do, unless perhaps, the 100GB of data never changes. In addition to that, the snapshots you create outside of SME will not be usable to restore Exchange. You have two choices: 1) Create a new volume and move all user data that is not part of the Exchange database to that new volume. This is your best option. 2) Configure SME to use one volume for both the databases and the logs. The downside to this is that your restore times will increase significantly because the restore will NOT be using a volume snaprestore. Please let us know if you have any further questions. Happy snappin' Regards, Paul Benn NetApp Engineering SnapManager Team -----Original Message----- From: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 4:43 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Excage databse Hi all I am currently using snap manager for exchange version 1.1.1 and I am reading the documentation over at http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/SnapManager/relsme111r2/pdfs/sm esag.pdf and it says that I should not put any data on the same volume as the exchange database. Can some please explain why this is? I already have 100 gigs of data on the same vol as my exchange DB please advice Caution Do not put any other files or data (including transaction logs) on the same volumes with the Exchange databases if you are going to make use of SnapManager Restore using SnapRestore. This type of recovery performs a volume recovery using the snapshot of the Exchange databases and all other files and data on the volume. Therefore, the other files and data are recovered to the time of the snapshot along with the Exchange databases. This result might not be acceptable when performing a SnapManager Restore with SnapRestore recovery. Thanks for any help

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters June 2004