We're a relatively small shop just getting started with NetApp (1 2020
and 2 2040's all active/active, plus 3 4342's for the 2040's ).
Since committing a disk to a raid group via an aggregate is essentially
a permanent thing (you can't change your mind and later shrink an
aggregate to pull out a disk from a raid group to use with another
node), we'd prefer not to put all our (80) disks in aggregates just yet.
We might want more in some nodes and less in other nodes as future needs
come into clearer focus. In addition, it's clear that we can later
easily add in any disks we've held back as needed and use the reallocate
command with the -f option to re-optimize the layout to accommodate the
added disks efficiently. So it seems a bit short-sighted to configure
all 80 of our disks into aggregates among our 6 nodes right from the
get-go (minus the requisite hot spares, of course), as our vendor would
have us do.
But in deciding how small to start out with, we don't want to cripple
our performance too much. I've looked long and hard on the net to find
some data, any data, on DOT 7.x performance vs raid group size, but have
come up empty. I understand that performance should be awful and
unacceptable if you have a raid group of size 3. I also understand from
anecdotal evidence that performance improvements from higher raid group
sizes are apparently are not significant once you get to a raid group
size of 16 or so.
But what about in between? How does a graph of performance vs raid size
look from 3 to, say, 20? Just ballpark data on any type of remotely
typical workload would help a lot to start with. Has anyone ever seen or
tried to compile this kind of data? Using iometer, perhaps, or any other
benchmarking tool? RAID-DP data is preferable, but I'd take RAID-4 data
if that's all I can get.
Don't really have the time to do testing myself.
Thanks
Randall Cotton
University of Illinois Foundation