toasters February 2006

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

129 participants
137 discussions

RE: Aggregate size question
by Willeke, Jochen 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

Hi William, we have the same drives as you have, those so called '144 GB' ones :-) When performing a sysconfig -r the filer showed me those 137 GB and i, young as i am, thought that the filer already made the conversion to binary for me. By rule of thumb this number seemed to be correct to me. Well with a drive capacity of 134 i really get close to what i am locking for! Thanks a lot and a nice weekend Jochen -----Original Message----- From: Holland, William L [mailto:hollandwl@state.gov] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:15 PM To: Willeke, Jochen; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Aggregate size question Are you sure they are 137GB? We have 144GB drives in our system and OnTap reports them as 133GB. The discrepancy is that drive manufacturers report capacity in base 10 rather than binary. Therefore, drive manufacturers report 144,000,000,000 as 144GB when in reality it is 144,000,000,000/1024^3 == 134GB. In the "real" world giga = 1 billion in the computing world gig = 1024^3 or 1,073,741,824 bytes. If you use 134 instead of 137 for your calculations you will come out pretty close to what the filer is showing you for results. Also, I don't think it is x .9 THEN x .95. If you use 1=34GB drives and x .85 (10% + 5%) you will only be off by 8GB. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 7:04 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Aggregate size question Hi everyboby, i have a little question about aggregate sizing. I have a aggregate called aggr1 consisting of 24 disks â 137 GB hosted on a FAS920c running Ontap 7.0.1R1. As i have 2 raidgroups 4 disks are parity. I took the 20 left disks and calculated the following: 20 (disks) x 137 GB (size) x 0,90 (10% WAFL) x 0,95 (5% Aggr Snapshot) = 2342,7 GB When i perform a 'df -Ahr' i only see this: df -Ahr Aggregate total used avail reserved aggr1 2270GB 1924GB 346GB 0GB aggr1/.snapshot 119GB 34GB 84GB 0GB So i have a difference of about 70 GB between my result and the total which Ontap shows me. Ok, 70 GB won't make the world turn faster :-) but i would like to understand why i am missing 70 GB. Thanks in advance Jochen

5 4

RE: maxing out the filesystem
by Glenn Dekhayser 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

I understand that Netapp support is very adamant about leaving them on. They can restore the entire system, in case of file system corruption (or so I've heard). Which of course raises the question, is the risk of file system corruption so great that they hold back 5% of the aggregate data space to protect against it? It's never happened to me.... .....so I turn it off too. :) Glenn Subject: Re: maxing out the filesystem Max wrote: > Does anyone here use aggregate snap reserves ? I was under the impression > that is was only useful for sync mirror setups... So I usually just shut > it off to take advantage of the extra space. We set aggr snap reserves to 0% as you said, I believe they are only needed for sync mirror and otherwise can be disabled. -skottie -- Scott Miller skottie(a)anim.DreamWorks.com

1 0

Don't ignore this.
by Toubies 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

Yo Paris, A lot of property owners are getting new house-lending programs and I believe it's time for the two of us to do the same. After reading all their info., I really want to commence the application right away . And I select this host-site at http://es.geocities.com/owen_ziegelbauer/ as the place to begin. They are truly efficient, which is the reason they can run over the entire process in merely 18-20 days. Hope this helps, Toubies

1 0

Jeanie Piper
by Joe Henley 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

Barton, %CUSTOM_LINK Joe Henley

1 0

RE: Aggregate size question
by Holland, William L 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

Are you sure they are 137GB? We have 144GB drives in our system and OnTap reports them as 133GB. The discrepancy is that drive manufacturers report capacity in base 10 rather than binary. Therefore, drive manufacturers report 144,000,000,000 as 144GB when in reality it is 144,000,000,000/1024^3 == 134GB. In the "real" world giga = 1 billion in the computing world gig = 1024^3 or 1,073,741,824 bytes. If you use 134 instead of 137 for your calculations you will come out pretty close to what the filer is showing you for results. Also, I don't think it is x .9 THEN x .95. If you use 1=34GB drives and x .85 (10% + 5%) you will only be off by 8GB. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 7:04 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Aggregate size question Hi everyboby, i have a little question about aggregate sizing. I have a aggregate called aggr1 consisting of 24 disks â 137 GB hosted on a FAS920c running Ontap 7.0.1R1. As i have 2 raidgroups 4 disks are parity. I took the 20 left disks and calculated the following: 20 (disks) x 137 GB (size) x 0,90 (10% WAFL) x 0,95 (5% Aggr Snapshot) = 2342,7 GB When i perform a 'df -Ahr' i only see this: df -Ahr Aggregate total used avail reserved aggr1 2270GB 1924GB 346GB 0GB aggr1/.snapshot 119GB 34GB 84GB 0GB So i have a difference of about 70 GB between my result and the total which Ontap shows me. Ok, 70 GB won't make the world turn faster :-) but i would like to understand why i am missing 70 GB. Thanks in advance Jochen

2 1

Aggregate size question
by Willeke, Jochen 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

Hi everyboby, i have a little question about aggregate sizing. I have a aggregate called aggr1 consisting of 24 disks â 137 GB hosted on a FAS920c running Ontap 7.0.1R1. As i have 2 raidgroups 4 disks are parity. I took the 20 left disks and calculated the following: 20 (disks) x 137 GB (size) x 0,90 (10% WAFL) x 0,95 (5% Aggr Snapshot) = 2342,7 GB When i perform a 'df -Ahr' i only see this: df -Ahr Aggregate total used avail reserved aggr1 2270GB 1924GB 346GB 0GB aggr1/.snapshot 119GB 34GB 84GB 0GB So i have a difference of about 70 GB between my result and the total which Ontap shows me. Ok, 70 GB won't make the world turn faster :-) but i would like to understand why i am missing 70 GB. Thanks in advance Jochen

1 0

I would like to browse this speedily.
by Kereem 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

Good morning Godfrey, Just read, I saw in the Oprah that the market for my home has steadily been decreasing. even though it seems like its been a record couple wks, everything looks like it's been so overvauled now. Gladly, rates are still low enough for me to take advantage of the value in my place. I came across this place, http://au.geocities.com/leopoldo_sitar/, last week and they assisted me get the value of my house out. They're great b/c there is no annonying people and they don't try to sell you anything. Hope this is what u were looking for, Kereem

1 0

Re[1]:
by Jacklyn Baez 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

Hey toasters(a)mathworks.com, Simple, Quick and affordab1e. Pri_vate 0n1_!ne 0rd_er!ng. -------------------------------- copy the address below and paste in u your web browser: aplastic.herownpc.com -------------------------------- vali d for 24 hurs. Swim the delicate brothers, the Pleiades.. Believe in the right, let none push you back.=20. While ravening clouds, the burial clouds, in black masses spreading,. I am the woman who worked in the field=20. With these kisses let me remove your tears;=20. See you later, Vance Schulz

1 0

We pay for your opinion!
by recruiting-support＠brandinstitute.com 23 Feb '06

23 Feb '06

Greetings from Brand Institute, Inc.! Would you like to help create the most popular brands in the market while getting paid for your opinion? Brand Institute, a leading consulting firm needs your help. We conduct live and online market research surveys/brainstorming sessions to help our customers develop new and exciting names for their products. We need your ideas and opinions to come up with the best possible names. We will pay you for your contribution according to the difficulty of the assignment; we only ask for a few minutes of your time and a lot of your creativity! If you think you have what it takes to name the next hit television network or the newest household product, please sign up at our website: http://www.brandinst.com/survey/ <https://www.brandinst.com/MEMBERSERVICES/cg_reg.asp?RefId=E1257391&lang uage=English> . We will not use your information for anything except the surveys, and of course.to mail you your check! We will not sell your information to any lists or use it for illicit advertising. Please feel free to pass this message along to anyone you think would enjoy making extra money while getting involved in the creation of tomorrow's products. Thank you very much; we appreciate your help! Soon, your ideas may be part of a national marketing campaign! Kind regards, The Brand Institute Team recruiting-support(a)brandinstitute.com

1 0

Re: maxing out the filesystem
by Chris Thompson 23 Feb '06

23 Feb '06

"Glenn Dekhayser" <gdekhayser(a)voyantinc.com> writes: > Netapp recommends that you keep the fileysystems at 80% or less. Otherwise, > WAFL starts to work very hard finding places to put data, and you'll > see CPU spikes, High disk utilization, and degraded performance. while Jeff Burton <jburto1(a)yahoo.com> writes: > We have a FAS940C that has 2 trad volumes (5TB & 3TB, 144GB/FC drives) that are > always around 95%+ full because of funding and timing issues. Only when we run > out of space do we start deleting snapshots, otherwise there are always a few > hundred GB of snapshots. We've been running over 90% for the past year and > have never had an outage or major hiccup...just a few disk failures. We > typically have 4k-5k active CIFS connections and around 100 NFS connections. > Clients have never noticed a performance problem, and our CPU utilization > hovers between 30% and 50%. So maybe we do not notice a problem because there > is more than enough CPU cycles left over for DOT/WAFL to deal with the full > file system. which seems a clear case of YMMV ! It's worth remembering that ONTAP already imposes a 10% reserve on the filing system size (including snapshot reserve); or on the sum of sizes, for flexible volumes in an aggregate. A "100% full" tradvol/aggregate is actually only using 90% of the blocks on the discs. Or looked at another way, the difference in congestion between "90% full" and "100% full" is 2:1, not infinity:1. "Blake Golliher" <thelastman(a)gmail.com> writes: > A filer can be written to over 100% space utilization, it'll just keep > growing. I've seen filers go up tot 107% space utilization before. and "George, Andrew" <georgea(a)anz.com> replies: > Interesting > We run a fair few filers in the 97%-99% arena, mainly as CIFS NAS devices. > Every time I've seen it hit 100% 0 bytes available CIFS has refused to > save anything. That's my experience, with NFS. I would be interested (from a theoretical point of view!) to know how Blake gets the space utilisation that high. (Snapshot usage vs reserve as shown by "df" can go over 100%, of course.) -- Chris Thompson Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

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 February 2006