toasters June 2004

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

76 participants
86 discussions

Excage databse
by SKIP HOFMANN 02 Jun '04

02 Jun '04

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

How to niggle about things on now.netapp.com
by Chris Thompson 02 Jun '04

02 Jun '04

Does anyone know the sensible way to provide feedback about small errors on the now.netapp.com web pages? In this particular case, I want to complain that on http://now.netapp.com/NOW/download/tools/diag/ the "Acrobat" link for "4.2 and later" does not refer (unlike the "HTML" links, and the "Acrobat" links for other releases). It seems awfully heavy-weight to open a "Technical Assistance Case" for something like this! Chris Thompson Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk

2 2

RE: raid drive reconstruction time
by Yarmas, Tom 01 Jun '04

01 Jun '04

Yes, but not in great detail. Rapid Raid Recovery (RRR) will occur when using the disk fail command (manually), it does not survive re-boots and it is smart enough to stop using RRR and start using stands re-construction if it cannot read the failed disk at all. -tom -----Original Message----- From: Mark Simmons [mailto:mds@gbnet.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 10:45 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: raid drive reconstruction time Yarmas, Tom wrote: >This is a feature of ONTAP 6.5.1+ It is called Rapid RAID Recovery (aka >- sick disk copy) > >Read the release notes on the NOW site. > > Two things: (1) I can't login to NOW for some reason. (2) Are the questions already asked in this thread covered in the release notes? I didn't think they were. >-tom > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Simmons [mailto:mds@gbnet.net] >Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 10:06 AM >To: Busick, Chris >Cc: Chris Thompson; toasters(a)mathworks.com; jbrigman(a)nc.rr.com >Subject: Re: raid drive reconstruction time > > >Busick, Chris wrote: > > > >>Here is a whitepaper link on Diagonal Parity if you haven't already >>found it. >> >>http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3298.html >> >> >> >> >> >Ah, but <jedi> this is not the feature we're looking for </jedi> it's >how DOT handles copying data off failing disks that's of interest today. > >The double parity stuff was done to death a few weeks back istr. > > > >>--Chris Busick >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] >>Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 6:52 AM >>To: toasters(a)mathworks.com >>Cc: mds(a)gbnet.net; jbrigman(a)nc.rr.com >>Subject: Re: raid drive reconstruction time >> >> >>Mark Simmons <mds(a)gbnet.net> writes; >> >> >> >> >>>James Brigman wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Steve; >>>> >>>>***************** >>>>Netapp recently modified their disk reconstruct procedure to copy as >>>>much valid data as possible from the failed disk and only >>>>reconstruct >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>blocks that cannot be read. Often a disk does not completely fail, >>>>so many blocks can be copied from it, which is much faster than >>>>reconstructing. >>>>***************** >>>> >>>>Can you please point us to a whitepaper on this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>[...] >> >> >> >> >>>I have to say that, if a disk is known to be failing, I'm not sure >>>I'd >>> >>> > > > >>>want to be trusting the data one would copy from it... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Well, there is the "horizontal" data validation provided by the zone >>or >> >> > > > >>block checksums to deal with that. >> >> >> >> >> >>> Also, if it's >>>failing in a way that makes it take a lot of time to serve a block of >>>data, does DOT adjust its strategy accordingly and work out at some >>>point that it should just started recreating the data from the other >>> >>> >>> >>> >>disks? >> >>That seems like a good question, and I would echo James' request for a >>whitepaper (or other form of technical detail). >> >>Is the same procedure used when a disk is failed by operator command >>as >> >> > > > >>well as when ONTAP decides to fail it on its own initiative? The case >>of failing a disc because its reported error rate is too high for >>comfort would seem to be one of the most likely scenarios when "many >>blocks can be copied from it". >> >>Also, if ONTAP is rebooted during the reconstruction, is the >>"half-failed" status of the disc preserved? >> >>Chris Thompson >>Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk >> >> >> >> > > >

1 0

RE: raid drive reconstruction time
by Yarmas, Tom 01 Jun '04

01 Jun '04

This is a feature of ONTAP 6.5.1+ It is called Rapid RAID Recovery (aka - sick disk copy) Read the release notes on the NOW site. -tom -----Original Message----- From: Mark Simmons [mailto:mds@gbnet.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 10:06 AM To: Busick, Chris Cc: Chris Thompson; toasters(a)mathworks.com; jbrigman(a)nc.rr.com Subject: Re: raid drive reconstruction time Busick, Chris wrote: >Here is a whitepaper link on Diagonal Parity if you haven't already >found it. > >http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3298.html > > > Ah, but <jedi> this is not the feature we're looking for </jedi> it's how DOT handles copying data off failing disks that's of interest today. The double parity stuff was done to death a few weeks back istr. >--Chris Busick > >-----Original Message----- >From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] >Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 6:52 AM >To: toasters(a)mathworks.com >Cc: mds(a)gbnet.net; jbrigman(a)nc.rr.com >Subject: Re: raid drive reconstruction time > > >Mark Simmons <mds(a)gbnet.net> writes; > > >>James Brigman wrote: >> >> >> >>>Steve; >>> >>>***************** >>>Netapp recently modified their disk reconstruct procedure to copy as >>>much valid data as possible from the failed disk and only reconstruct >>> >>> > > > >>>blocks that cannot be read. Often a disk does not completely fail, >>>so many blocks can be copied from it, which is much faster than >>>reconstructing. >>>***************** >>> >>>Can you please point us to a whitepaper on this? >>> >>> >[...] > > >>I have to say that, if a disk is known to be failing, I'm not sure I'd >>want to be trusting the data one would copy from it... >> >> > >Well, there is the "horizontal" data validation provided by the zone or >block checksums to deal with that. > > > >> Also, if it's >>failing in a way that makes it take a lot of time to serve a block of >>data, does DOT adjust its strategy accordingly and work out at some >>point that it should just started recreating the data from the other >> >> >disks? > >That seems like a good question, and I would echo James' request for a >whitepaper (or other form of technical detail). > >Is the same procedure used when a disk is failed by operator command as >well as when ONTAP decides to fail it on its own initiative? The case >of failing a disc because its reported error rate is too high for >comfort would seem to be one of the most likely scenarios when "many >blocks can be copied from it". > >Also, if ONTAP is rebooted during the reconstruction, is the >"half-failed" status of the disc preserved? > >Chris Thompson >Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk > >

2 1

RE: raid drive reconstruction time
by Busick, Chris 01 Jun '04

01 Jun '04

Here is a whitepaper link on Diagonal Parity if you haven't already found it. http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3298.html --Chris Busick -----Original Message----- From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 6:52 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: mds(a)gbnet.net; jbrigman(a)nc.rr.com Subject: Re: raid drive reconstruction time Mark Simmons <mds(a)gbnet.net> writes; > > James Brigman wrote: > > >Steve; > > > >***************** > >Netapp recently modified their disk reconstruct procedure to copy as > >much valid data as possible from the failed disk and only reconstruct > >blocks that cannot be read. Often a disk does not completely fail, > >so many blocks can be copied from it, which is much faster than > >reconstructing. > >***************** > > > >Can you please point us to a whitepaper on this? [...] > I have to say that, if a disk is known to be failing, I'm not sure I'd > want to be trusting the data one would copy from it... Well, there is the "horizontal" data validation provided by the zone or block checksums to deal with that. > Also, if it's > failing in a way that makes it take a lot of time to serve a block of > data, does DOT adjust its strategy accordingly and work out at some > point that it should just started recreating the data from the other disks? That seems like a good question, and I would echo James' request for a whitepaper (or other form of technical detail). Is the same procedure used when a disk is failed by operator command as well as when ONTAP decides to fail it on its own initiative? The case of failing a disc because its reported error rate is too high for comfort would seem to be one of the most likely scenarios when "many blocks can be copied from it". Also, if ONTAP is rebooted during the reconstruction, is the "half-failed" status of the disc preserved? Chris Thompson Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk

2 1

raid drive reconstruction time
by Aditya 01 Jun '04

01 Jun '04

Does anyone have ballpark numbers (for any filer model) how long a drive would take to reconstruct on a filer on the default raid reconstruct_speed setting? ie. on an F85: options raid.reconstruct_speed 4 I'm trying a ballpark compare against a Sun 3310 array with 73Gig drives, where it took almost excatly 5 hours. I realize it depends on filer load, but if the speed is linear with load and drive size then it is easy to extrapolate. I couldn't find a table or any other sort of indication on NOW about this... Adi

5 6

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