toasters February 2011

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

12 participants
8 discussions

Start a nNew thread

NFS Latency on VMware hosts
by Rob 16 Feb '11

16 Feb '11

Is there a way to measure the latency at the VMware host for an NFS mount? TIA -Rob

4 3

Moving FC ports to another SAN switch
by Steve Losen 15 Feb '11

15 Feb '11

Hello Toasters, We have a CF pair of fas6040s both connected to two SAN switches. We have migrated most of the clients off this SAN and now we have a need to connect the 6040s to a second (separate) SAN. Currently we have 2 SAN switches on the old SAN. Each 6040 head has two fc ports connected to each switch. So that is 4 fc ports per head or 8 ports total, which is complete overkill for this SAN (we plan to retire the few remaining clients.) I want to take one fc port from each head and move it to the other SAN, without any downtime. Can I do it like this (on each head): fcp config 0x down move the cable to the other switch fcp config 0x up We are using cfmode = single_image by the way. Is there anything else that we need to do on the netapp side? Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 434-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

1 0

cifs permissions doesnt match what i see in explorer
by Chaim Rieger 04 Feb '11

04 Feb '11

(last question for a while) in one of my cifs shares (and this applies to all of them) i have defined permissions as (example) domain/group1 Full Access domain/group2 Read Only however when i look at the security tab in windows explorer, it does not reflect as such. security style is the same across all the shares, (ntfs) and when i test the security by having various users access them they get access or denied based on what cifs shares state, not what is shown in explorer. i would like to have the explorer tab match, how can i accomplish this ?

4 3

Re: Growing an aggregate with different sized disks.
by joelk＠encs.concordia.ca 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

Maybe I should have been more explicit. Each raid group should be comprised of the same size/speed disks, and the number of disks in a raid group should be close to the recommended value for the type of drive and raid type. The only hiccup with building aggregates out of different size drives is when you want to replace the smaller older drives. You will have to migrate the whole aggregate (all the volumes) before you can destroy the aggregate and pull only the drives that you want to replace. joel Quoting Jeff Mohler <speedtoys.racing(a)gmail.com>: > Even so, different speeds can exist anywhere in the aggregate. > > The CP to disk is NOT complete until the last block is committed, no matter > where it is in the aggr...slow disks scattered across 4 RGs, or if all of > the slow ones are in one RG. Its a team effort. > > Raid stripes are only protection zones in disk failures, they are not > independent write zones where different disk speeds cause an explicit issue > when things are done correctly. > > > Now..if you create some small additional raid group at the end of an > existing aggregate, thats a different story, but not part of 'done > correctly' as stated above. > > > :) > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Joel Krajden <joelk(a)encs.concordia.ca>wrote: > >> You can specify the raid group size per raid group in an aggregate. As long >> as the speed of disks in the different raids groups are the same you should >> not see a performance issue for the aggregate. You should have at least one >> hot spare of each drive type and configure Ontap to use the same size drive >> when selecting a hot spare. Ontap should be at the latest revision if >> possible. >> >> >> Joel >> >> >> On 02/02/2011 05:24 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: >> >>> Have an aggregate comprised of 300GB disks and have two new shelves >>> with 450GB disks. >>> >>> I ran across this[1] which describes some concerns when dealing with >>> disks of mixed sizes. >>> >>> It sounds like I can't specify that 450GB disks and 300GB disks be >>> assigned to distinct raid groups (my raid size is 16), so if I add the >>> 450GB disks to my aggregate, I'll likely only be able to use 300GB of >>> them. >>> >>> Therefore I should create a new aggregate for the 450GB disks. >>> >>> Is my understanding of this correct? >>> >>> Also, the raid size seems to default to 16 -- I'm used to keeping >>> RAID-6 raid groups to 9 disks at most. Is 16 OK? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Ray >>> >>> [1] >>> http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/ontap/rel7261/html/ontap/smg/provi… >>> >> >> >> -- >> | Joel Krajden | Rm: EV-7105, Tel: 514 848-2424 3052 | >> | Core Technologies Mgr | | >> | Engineering & | Email: joelk(a)encs.concordia.ca | >> | Computer Science | | >> | Concordia University | In a circus, the clowns are supposed | >> | Montreal, Canada | to make you laugh, not cry. | >> > > > > -- > --- > Gustatus Similis Pullus >

1 0

maxdirsize question
by Chaim Rieger 02 Feb '11

02 Feb '11

is there a guideline for the maxdirsize setting based on the hardware ? or .... ?

2 1

Growing an aggregate with different sized disks.
by Ray Van Dolson 02 Feb '11

02 Feb '11

Have an aggregate comprised of 300GB disks and have two new shelves with 450GB disks. I ran across this[1] which describes some concerns when dealing with disks of mixed sizes. It sounds like I can't specify that 450GB disks and 300GB disks be assigned to distinct raid groups (my raid size is 16), so if I add the 450GB disks to my aggregate, I'll likely only be able to use 300GB of them. Therefore I should create a new aggregate for the 450GB disks. Is my understanding of this correct? Also, the raid size seems to default to 16 -- I'm used to keeping RAID-6 raid groups to 9 disks at most. Is 16 OK? Thanks, Ray [1] http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/ontap/rel7261/html/ontap/smg/provi…

2 1

Re: Growing an aggregate with different sized disks.
by Ray Van Dolson 02 Feb '11

02 Feb '11

Thanks Michael; So, sounds like it can be done, but based on the other responses I received, sounds like it's not really a good idea and can result in odd behavior... Ray On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 02:36:21PM -0800, Michael Colbert wrote: > You can add the larger disks to the same aggr, but specify that they be placed > in a new raid group, like so: > > aggr add aggr1 -n -g new 4@450 > > The "-g new" part is what specifies creating a new raid group, rather than > adding to the existing one with smaller disks. > > Hope that helps, > Michael Colbert > > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Ray Van Dolson <rvandolson(a)esri.com> wrote: > > Have an aggregate comprised of 300GB disks and have two new shelves > with 450GB disks. > > I ran across this[1] which describes some concerns when dealing with > disks of mixed sizes. > > It sounds like I can't specify that 450GB disks and 300GB disks be > assigned to distinct raid groups (my raid size is 16), so if I add the > 450GB disks to my aggregate, I'll likely only be able to use 300GB of > them. > > Therefore I should create a new aggregate for the 450GB disks. > > Is my understanding of this correct? > > Also, the raid size seems to default to 16 -- I'm used to keeping > RAID-6 raid groups to 9 disks at most. Is 16 OK? > > Thanks, > Ray > > [1] http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/ontap/rel7261/html/ontap/smg/ > provisioning/concept/c_oc_prov_raid-group-add-lrg.html > >

1 0

Varonis and NTP QFS on NetApp
by Milazzo Giacomo 02 Feb '11

02 Feb '11

Hi all, for the moment I've few details for this issue has been reported me from a collegue of mine working in another site. For what I can tell you now software is running on a FAS 3170C with DoT 7.3 It seems that there's an issue running both Varonis and NTP QFS on this system. As probably you know both product, NTP and Varonis, use separated NetApp "file policies" (fpolicy) that can interact with the external engine of reporter or that can act as source of control. Now it seems that under certain circumstances these two different but concurrent NetApp file policies cannot simultaneously run and the one or the other or both crash. I would for now know if you are aware of issues on running on the same NetApp system both products or if there are some particular workaround that can be applied. Thank you in advance, Regards

1 0

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 2011