toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

NetApp showing up as backup browser
by Geotina, Glenn 17 Oct '06

17 Oct '06

Hello all, I have a Windows user that has one our NetApps running 7.0.3 show up in his master browser list. He runs the following command: browstat status Is there a way to configure a NetApp to not participate in Windows browsing elections? Thanks, Glenn

2 1

NSO-151 - NetApp SAN Exam-Dumps
by sithesvaran thirumaran 17 Oct '06

17 Oct '06

Hi, How r u all. I need one help. I am planning to write NSO-151-SAN Exam, I need dumps for it. Can you please help me, if anyone have it? Thanks, Sithesvaran. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.

3 3

Re: Statistics and Forecasting
by Reinoud Reynders 12 Oct '06

12 Oct '06

We do almost the same. We pull every week the data from dfm in a sql 2005 database and use the report module of ms sql 2005 to make reports. We need an overview longer than 1 year and we need also to track data movements. This last thing (I move a qtree/volume to another filer) is very difficult to do in dfm. This is a new resource for dfm. We have create in dfm a lot of custom tags that we use to build our reports. Best regards, Reinoud Reynders UZ Leuven -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com <owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com> To: Carl Howell <chowell(a)uwf.edu>; toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Thu Oct 12 02:12:48 2006 Subject: RE: Statistics and Forecasting We used to dump DFM info into spreadsheets and then conduct analysis on each filer to come up with a simple traffic light report for management with another complex spreadsheet to justify what we were asking for next years disk spend (also based on DFM info and known other factors like upcoming projects). Since then we've moved to DFM 3.3 so I've been pointing management at a couple of existing reports for day to day stuff (the new multilevel menu is really handy for presenting the right dataset) and made a couple of custom reports for disk usage (another fix over previous DFM's was they changed how growth forecasts were calculated so I 90% believe them now). I do dump some DFM figures into a spreadsheet every 6 months or so, because I've been hit with a couple of the ever popular "we want growth figures going back to 2002" from various parties in the past. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Carl Howell Sent: Thursday, 12 October 2006 4:28 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Statistics and Forecasting What are you guys doing to provide storage statistics to your administrators for growth and budget forecasting? We run DFM, but I'm struggling to translate the statistics we get from it into something the administration can understand and act upon. Thanks in advance for the the help, Carl Howell Systems Engineer University of West Florida "This e-mail and any attachments to it (the "Communication") is, unless otherwise stated, confidential, may contain copyright material and is for the use only of the intended recipient. If you receive the Communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete the Communication and the return e-mail, and do not read, copy, retransmit or otherwise deal with it. Any views expressed in the Communication are those of the individual sender only, unless expressly stated to be those of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ABN 11 005 357 522, or any of its related entities including ANZ National Bank Limited (together "ANZ"). ANZ does not accept liability in connection with the integrity of or errors in the Communication, computer virus, data corruption, interference or delay arising from or in respect of the Communication."

1 0

RE: Statistics and Forecasting
by George, Andrew 12 Oct '06

12 Oct '06

We used to dump DFM info into spreadsheets and then conduct analysis on each filer to come up with a simple traffic light report for management with another complex spreadsheet to justify what we were asking for next years disk spend (also based on DFM info and known other factors like upcoming projects). Since then we've moved to DFM 3.3 so I've been pointing management at a couple of existing reports for day to day stuff (the new multilevel menu is really handy for presenting the right dataset) and made a couple of custom reports for disk usage (another fix over previous DFM's was they changed how growth forecasts were calculated so I 90% believe them now). I do dump some DFM figures into a spreadsheet every 6 months or so, because I've been hit with a couple of the ever popular "we want growth figures going back to 2002" from various parties in the past. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Carl Howell Sent: Thursday, 12 October 2006 4:28 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Statistics and Forecasting What are you guys doing to provide storage statistics to your administrators for growth and budget forecasting? We run DFM, but I'm struggling to translate the statistics we get from it into something the administration can understand and act upon. Thanks in advance for the the help, Carl Howell Systems Engineer University of West Florida "This e-mail and any attachments to it (the "Communication") is, unless otherwise stated, confidential, may contain copyright material and is for the use only of the intended recipient. If you receive the Communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete the Communication and the return e-mail, and do not read, copy, retransmit or otherwise deal with it. Any views expressed in the Communication are those of the individual sender only, unless expressly stated to be those of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ABN 11 005 357 522, or any of its related entities including ANZ National Bank Limited (together "ANZ"). ANZ does not accept liability in connection with the integrity of or errors in the Communication, computer virus, data corruption, interference or delay arising from or in respect of the Communication."

1 0

RE: Interesting FAS250 note on Tape connectivity
by Learmonth, Peter 11 Oct '06

11 Oct '06

Hi Guys Couple notes on ROHS v. non-ROHS FAS250/270. Yes, all the FC connections are now SFP sockets. ROHS FAS270 has two SFP ports: one for tape or FC SAN (with SFP installed) and one for disk expansion shelves (no SFP installed). ROHS FAS250 has one SFP port for tape (with SFP installed). You can tell in sysconfig -a or -v which one you have by the manufacturing part number (a.k.a. 3x5 number) FAS250 non-ROHS 110-00016 FAS250 ROHS 110-00052 FAS270 non-ROHS 110-00046 FAS270 ROHS 110-00051 Supposedly, all units shipped after a certain date (08 May 2006) are supposed to be ROHS versions. I haven't found that to be entirely reliable. As for what you get via RMA, "It depends (tm)". Basically, if you have ROHS, you should get ROHS. If it ships to a ROHS country and it's after the ROHS compliance date, you get ROHS even if you originally had non-ROHS. If it ships to a non-ROHS country and you have non-ROHS, you get a non-ROHS replacement, at least until they run out. In general, the only problems with getting a ROHS replacement for a non-ROHS is tape connection on FA250 and shelf connection on FAS270. For the non-ROHS FAS250 and tape, if you have an optical tape interface, you're probably using some kind of converter, like Tim Naple was talking about. Now you don't need it. If you have a copper connection to tape, you need a different cable with SFP instead of HSSDDC2. For FAS270 shelves, you'll need X6530 SFP-SFP shelf cables from each head (i.e. 2 in a cluster) to the first shelf. I don't know if the RMA procedure checks for that, but you can certainly tell from sysconfig (it lists both the head part numbers and the modules in the shelves). Personally, I think the change to SFP is a good thing since overall it greatly simplifies cabling. Share and enjoy! Peter --- "Oliver Bassett" <Oliver.Bassett(a)infinity.co.nz <mailto:Oliver.Bassett@infinity.co.nz> > wrote: > > Glenn, > > Yes I have seen a couple of these now. I have set one up with direct > connect to a tape library via optical FC using NDMP to control the > backups. It isn't acutally optical LC until you put the GBIC in, so yeah > it is a lot more flexible than before. > > As for the in the field replacement, I suspect you probably would end up > with one of the ROHS units but it isn't a definate thing. If you are > selecting the RMA part yourself select the one that has a part number > ending in R5 as this is the ROHS kit. > > Regards > Oliver > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com <mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com> [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] > On Behalf Of Glenn Dekhayser > Sent: Friday, 6 October 2006 8:07 a.m. > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com <mailto:toasters@mathworks.com> > Subject: Interesting FAS250 note on Tape connectivity > > >From the NOW Forums: > > "FAS250 units ordered after 8-May-2006 are now fitted with optical LC > (instead of copper HSSDC2) connector style. This change in connection > with ROHS compliance." > > This was a major pain in the keester before, as there were only a few > copper-FC tape devices available. Has anyone seen these newer units? > I didn't see any announcements made on this, and the online system > config guide still shows the copper HSSDC2 port, not fiber. > > Also, if there was a FAS250 in the field that needed a controller > replacement, would Netapp ship the new RoHS compliant controller, or the > older one? > > Glenn (the other one). > The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and > intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you > are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use > of its contents. If received in error you are asked to destroy this email > and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.

1 0

FAS960: backup speed vs simultaneous dumps...?
by Glascock, Donald 11 Oct '06

11 Oct '06

Hi, Toaster folks -- We're a small research group on our third Filer, which is a single FAS960 with five shelves on two cross-connected 2-Gb loops. We trigger flexVolume-level dumps of our one aggregate directly to 2-Gb-fibre-connected LTO-3 drives. When we dump two volumes simultaneously to two tape drives, the time taken to dump each volume increases by a third to a half again, compared to dumping each volume independently. For example, a stand-alone dump may take two hours, but if another dump of another volume to another drive is run simultaneously, then that two-hour dump becomes a three-hour dump. Adding a third simultaneous dump to a third drive causes an even greater increase in dump times. For diagnostic purposes, I've launched a conventional dump of one volume triggered via NDMP our backup software, waited for the dump to reach Phase-IV (the writing-data phase), and launched from the FAS960's console a dump of another volume to the FAS960's null device. Soon after this second dump starts, the write speed on the tape drive associated with the first dump falls off by quite a bit. This write speed picks up instantly when I kill the second dump. Since the second dump was only in Phase-I (inspecting files, but not writing them), and since this second dump was to the local null device anyway, I'm led to think that the performance issues lie somewhere within the Filer's head and Disk I/O subsystem. With one-at-a-time backups of our volumes, our full backup window is about eight hours (for about two terabytes). We were planning to buy two more shelves in early 2007. Should I expect a FAS960 to handle two or three simultaneous full dumps without a significant loss in dump speed? Are you getting nearly-linear performance out of your simultaneous dumps? Thanks for your time & have a great day! Don Glascock -- Donald S. Glascock Mailstop RO-SN-2-SPPDG Special Purpose Processor Development Group Mayo Foundation 4001 41st Street NW Rochester, MN 55901 Glascock.Donald(a)Mayo.EDU +1.507.538.5467 +1.507.284.9171 (fax) http://www.mayo.edu/sppdg/ "No matter where you go, there you are."

3 4

Statistics and Forecasting
by Carl Howell 11 Oct '06

11 Oct '06

What are you guys doing to provide storage statistics to your administrators for growth and budget forecasting? We run DFM, but I'm struggling to translate the statistics we get from it into something the administration can understand and act upon. Thanks in advance for the the help, Carl Howell Systems Engineer University of West Florida

2 1

Statistics and Forecasting
by Carl Howell 11 Oct '06

11 Oct '06

What are you guys doing to provide storage statistics to your administrators for growth and budget forecasting? We run DFM, but I'm struggling to translate the statistics we get from it into something the administration can understand and act upon. Thanks in advance for the help, Carl Howell Systems Engineer University of West Florida

2 1

Re: Problem renewing maintenance
by Chris Thompson 10 Oct '06

10 Oct '06

You may recall that back in June I wrote: > We're having a problem renewing maintenance cover on our F810. > I wonder whether anyone else has had a similar experience. > > It's being done through a secondary supplier who had better remain > nameless for the moment (just in case it's their fault rather than > NetApp's...). We originally brought 3 years of cover: > > "Next Business Day Parts Delivery" for failed disks (which has > worked fine, incidentally); > > "4 hours onsite service" for the base unit and disk shelf. > > Now we are being told that we can't have such a combination: it has > to be all NBD Parts or all 4hrs Onsite. This doesn't make any sense > to us. Disk failures are non-critical, and only the ... (ahem) very > differently abled ... need someone to come and swap a disk for them! > OTOH, base unit & shelf failures would be critical for us. > > Please tell me that NetApp haven't _really_ made it this difficult > to buy the obviously appropriate combination of cover! which got a number of helpful responses, and I then wrote: > Stephen C Woods <scw(a)seas.ucla.edu> wrote > > > Yes they have. We got nailed whwn we renewed our support last > > November. OUCH! > > Michael A Schipp <mschipp(a)asi.com.au> wrote: > > > Stephen is correct, Netapp did change it! However if you get > > you supplier to talk to Netapp they should be able to request a PRV from > > Netapp to renew the maintenance (Should is up to Netapp to approve - so > > may or may not happen). > > Thanks for this information, and I'll certainly try and get that last > suggestion acted on by our supplier. Well, our secondary suppliers (Majenta Solutions, for the record, and they are totally blameless in all this as far as I can see) did finally manage to get us the following deal 4 hour onsite cover for the base filer Next Busness Day parts delivery for the shelf and disks (it proved impossible to distinguish the shelf from the disks) for about the mean of the all-4hr and all-NBD quotes. So we went for that. Or so we thought... We have had two disk failures since then [*] and on each occasion NetApp shipped a replacement disc to the 4-hour schedule. So they must think that is what we paid for. I suppose it ought to be flattering that NetApp think we require a replacement disk that fast, but actually it's a pain in the posterior, as we aren't set up to accept deliveries 7x24. I suppose next year we'll say To Hell With It, and go for NBD for everything. [*] an unusually high rate in a 14-disc system, on past experience: one of them was just after a reboot upgrading ONTAP, the other a few hours after a scheduled outage of our Uninterruptible Power Supply ... no, don't ask, you don't want to know :-( -- Chris Thompson Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk

1 0

Quotes?
by Grey Friday 10 Oct '06

10 Oct '06

Has it been anyone else's experience that IBM is beating the pants off of other resellers? I'm talking by 50%? I'd like to hear from you if you find this the case as well.

5 5

RE: Removing a disk from an aggregate
by Fox, Adam 10 Oct '06

10 Oct '06

This is generally not possible. The only disks that can be removed from an aggregate is the dparity disk by changing the RAID type from RAID-DP to RAID-4. And you can only do this if your current RG is not over the max size for RAID-4. Sorry. -- Adam Fox NGS Tools Developer adamfox(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Alan Biren [mailto:ABiren@asisystem.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 12:37 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Removing a disk from an aggregate Does anyone know of a way to permanently remove a disk from one a RAID Group in an Aggregate. One of my Administrators create an aggregate with raidsize of 14 disks and used all available disks to fill the raid group. There are now no spares in the system. The current aggregate already has a production volume on it so destroying the aggregate is really not an option. Thanks ************************************************************************ ***************************** Note: ASI System Integration Inc, is located at 48 West 37th Street, New York, NY 10018. The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. It is intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies. ** eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals or malicious content ** ************************************************************************ *****************************

1 0

RE: Estimating Aggregate IOPS
by Glenn Walker 05 Oct '06

05 Oct '06

Actually, That's a function of the ESH (6 shelves * 14 drives = 84 disks per loop). What I'm referring to is a bit different: as you ramp up the number of drives, the performance curve begins to increase - however, after you reach a certain number of drives, the sheer work behind laying the data out on them all (and retrieving it) begins to take it's toll and flatten the performance curve. (I would assume that contention on the loop would have something to do with this as well, not that it's saturated necessarily, but that there is a bit more latency as the disks take turns passing data). Glenn -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Rajagopalan [mailto:SRajagopalan@williamoneil.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 1:32 PM To: Glenn Walker Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Estimating Aggregate IOPS I see max drives per FC loop to be 84 on all filer models. Is this the limit you are alluding to? Thanks Suresh -----Original Message----- From: Glenn Walker [mailto:ggwalker@mindspring.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:57 PM To: Suresh Rajagopalan Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Estimating Aggregate IOPS There is a ceiling in performance gain after a certain number of disks - it's well below 112, but I'm pretty sure it's above 56 (though not much above it). At that point, the 'curve' starts to go back down again. However, RAID-DP and RAID-4 (it's poor, homely cousin) are very fast and the filer has always handled the XORs very well for the parity calculations. A better question\way to position this might be what type of workload\performance you expect\require. While the disks are capable of about 120 IOPS for 10k and 180 IOPS for 15K disks, the latencies begin to jump at the end of the scale - if you're workload requires lower latencies, it doesn't much matter what the disk is capable of (Exchange is a very good example of this - 80 IOPS for 10k drives is about the max you'd want to go). Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Suresh Rajagopalan Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:56 PM Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Estimating Aggregate IOPS Let's assume 4k IOPS. Disks are currently 10k rpm. Are you saying that NTAP's implementation of RAID4 (or RAID-DP) gives a linear performance increase with spindles, (almost like RAID-0) and no penalty for the RAID4 or RAID-DP? That is, aggregate IOPS is pretty much (N * disk-iops) and no penalty for RAID4 or RAID-DP? Thanks Suresh -----Original Message----- From: Blake Golliher [mailto:thelastman@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 12:41 PM To: Suresh Rajagopalan Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Estimating Aggregate IOPS How fast are the spindles, and what size is your iop? Generally, you can assume 110 per 10k RPM disk, and 180 for 15k RPM disk. This is also assuming a 10ms latency for each iop. And subtract 2 disks per raid group for raid dp (if doing writes, don't if you are doing pure reads). So with around 50 disks (after you subtract the raid dp overhead) you can expect around 5500 iops from that set of disks (assuming 10k rpm disks). For the 112 aggregate, you an expect 98 spindles and 10780 iops. I'm assuming 4k iops, and 10ms latency. Hope that helps, -Blake On 10/4/06, Suresh Rajagopalan <SRajagopalan(a)williamoneil.com> wrote: > Given a disk IOPS of 100, I'd like to estimate total aggregate IOPS for > the following cases: > > 1) 56 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 > 2) 112 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 > > I'm only interested in the total raw disk IOPS available in each case, > not including considering the filer head. For example, we know that > RAID-0 with 56 disks @100 would yield 5600 IOPS. > > I don't know how to do this calculation with Data ONTAP's implementation > of RAID4 or RAID-DP. > > Any assistance would help. > > Thanks > Suresh > > > > >

1 0

RE: Interesting FAS250 note on Tape connectivity
by Oliver Bassett 05 Oct '06

05 Oct '06

Glenn, Yes I have seen a couple of these now. I have set one up with direct connect to a tape library via optical FC using NDMP to control the backups. It isn't acutally optical LC until you put the GBIC in, so yeah it is a lot more flexible than before. As for the in the field replacement, I suspect you probably would end up with one of the ROHS units but it isn't a definate thing. If you are selecting the RMA part yourself select the one that has a part number ending in R5 as this is the ROHS kit. Regards Oliver -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Dekhayser Sent: Friday, 6 October 2006 8:07 a.m. To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Interesting FAS250 note on Tape connectivity From the NOW Forums: "FAS250 units ordered after 8-May-2006 are now fitted with optical LC (instead of copper HSSDC2) connector style. This change in connection with ROHS compliance." This was a major pain in the keester before, as there were only a few copper-FC tape devices available. Has anyone seen these newer units? I didn't see any announcements made on this, and the online system config guide still shows the copper HSSDC2 port, not fiber. Also, if there was a FAS250 in the field that needed a controller replacement, would Netapp ship the new RoHS compliant controller, or the older one? Glenn (the other one). The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents. If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.

1 0

Interesting FAS250 note on Tape connectivity
by Glenn Dekhayser 05 Oct '06

05 Oct '06

From the NOW Forums: "FAS250 units ordered after 8-May-2006 are now fitted with optical LC (instead of copper HSSDC2) connector style. This change in connection with ROHS compliance." This was a major pain in the keester before, as there were only a few copper-FC tape devices available. Has anyone seen these newer units? I didn't see any announcements made on this, and the online system config guide still shows the copper HSSDC2 port, not fiber. Also, if there was a FAS250 in the field that needed a controller replacement, would Netapp ship the new RoHS compliant controller, or the older one? Glenn (the other one).

1 0

RE: Estimating Aggregate IOPS
by Suresh Rajagopalan 05 Oct '06

05 Oct '06

I see max drives per FC loop to be 84 on all filer models. Is this the limit you are alluding to? Thanks Suresh -----Original Message----- From: Glenn Walker [mailto:ggwalker@mindspring.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:57 PM To: Suresh Rajagopalan Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Estimating Aggregate IOPS There is a ceiling in performance gain after a certain number of disks - it's well below 112, but I'm pretty sure it's above 56 (though not much above it). At that point, the 'curve' starts to go back down again. However, RAID-DP and RAID-4 (it's poor, homely cousin) are very fast and the filer has always handled the XORs very well for the parity calculations. A better question\way to position this might be what type of workload\performance you expect\require. While the disks are capable of about 120 IOPS for 10k and 180 IOPS for 15K disks, the latencies begin to jump at the end of the scale - if you're workload requires lower latencies, it doesn't much matter what the disk is capable of (Exchange is a very good example of this - 80 IOPS for 10k drives is about the max you'd want to go). Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Suresh Rajagopalan Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:56 PM Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Estimating Aggregate IOPS Let's assume 4k IOPS. Disks are currently 10k rpm. Are you saying that NTAP's implementation of RAID4 (or RAID-DP) gives a linear performance increase with spindles, (almost like RAID-0) and no penalty for the RAID4 or RAID-DP? That is, aggregate IOPS is pretty much (N * disk-iops) and no penalty for RAID4 or RAID-DP? Thanks Suresh -----Original Message----- From: Blake Golliher [mailto:thelastman@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 12:41 PM To: Suresh Rajagopalan Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Estimating Aggregate IOPS How fast are the spindles, and what size is your iop? Generally, you can assume 110 per 10k RPM disk, and 180 for 15k RPM disk. This is also assuming a 10ms latency for each iop. And subtract 2 disks per raid group for raid dp (if doing writes, don't if you are doing pure reads). So with around 50 disks (after you subtract the raid dp overhead) you can expect around 5500 iops from that set of disks (assuming 10k rpm disks). For the 112 aggregate, you an expect 98 spindles and 10780 iops. I'm assuming 4k iops, and 10ms latency. Hope that helps, -Blake On 10/4/06, Suresh Rajagopalan <SRajagopalan(a)williamoneil.com> wrote: > Given a disk IOPS of 100, I'd like to estimate total aggregate IOPS for > the following cases: > > 1) 56 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 > 2) 112 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 > > I'm only interested in the total raw disk IOPS available in each case, > not including considering the filer head. For example, we know that > RAID-0 with 56 disks @100 would yield 5600 IOPS. > > I don't know how to do this calculation with Data ONTAP's implementation > of RAID4 or RAID-DP. > > Any assistance would help. > > Thanks > Suresh > > > > >

1 0

RE: Estimating Aggregate IOPS
by Glenn Walker 05 Oct '06

05 Oct '06

That's not just a NetApp thing... that's performance 101! There will ALWAYS be a bottleneck somewhere - if you want to 'fix' a performance problem, find the first bottleneck, and fix it. Then the next, and so on. Keep going until the performance is adequate... I've seen very few cases where the loop itself gets saturated before the head gives up, or the memory runs out... but it can happen. I expect that it will happen even more quickly with the new 6000 series given the sheer amount of memory\nvram\cpu. Then again, 500TB of disks is a LOT of loop too :) Glenn -----Original Message----- From: Brosseau, Paul [mailto:Paul.Brosseau@netapp.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 8:17 PM To: Glenn Walker; Suresh Rajagopalan Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Estimating Aggregate IOPS Good point Glenn on the number of disks. Once the number of IOPS on a loops generates enough throughput to saturate the loop there's not much point in adding more disks. Spreading the load across multiple loops helps. How does the adage go " go wide then go shallow then go deep ". Eventually you saturate something somewhere depending on the filer model . Paulb -----Original Message----- From: Glenn Walker [mailto:ggwalker@mindspring.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 6:57 PM To: Suresh Rajagopalan Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Estimating Aggregate IOPS There is a ceiling in performance gain after a certain number of disks - it's well below 112, but I'm pretty sure it's above 56 (though not much above it). At that point, the 'curve' starts to go back down again. However, RAID-DP and RAID-4 (it's poor, homely cousin) are very fast and the filer has always handled the XORs very well for the parity calculations. A better question\way to position this might be what type of workload\performance you expect\require. While the disks are capable of about 120 IOPS for 10k and 180 IOPS for 15K disks, the latencies begin to jump at the end of the scale - if you're workload requires lower latencies, it doesn't much matter what the disk is capable of (Exchange is a very good example of this - 80 IOPS for 10k drives is about the max you'd want to go). Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Suresh Rajagopalan Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:56 PM Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Estimating Aggregate IOPS Let's assume 4k IOPS. Disks are currently 10k rpm. Are you saying that NTAP's implementation of RAID4 (or RAID-DP) gives a linear performance increase with spindles, (almost like RAID-0) and no penalty for the RAID4 or RAID-DP? That is, aggregate IOPS is pretty much (N * disk-iops) and no penalty for RAID4 or RAID-DP? Thanks Suresh -----Original Message----- From: Blake Golliher [mailto:thelastman@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 12:41 PM To: Suresh Rajagopalan Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Estimating Aggregate IOPS How fast are the spindles, and what size is your iop? Generally, you can assume 110 per 10k RPM disk, and 180 for 15k RPM disk. This is also assuming a 10ms latency for each iop. And subtract 2 disks per raid group for raid dp (if doing writes, don't if you are doing pure reads). So with around 50 disks (after you subtract the raid dp overhead) you can expect around 5500 iops from that set of disks (assuming 10k rpm disks). For the 112 aggregate, you an expect 98 spindles and 10780 iops. I'm assuming 4k iops, and 10ms latency. Hope that helps, -Blake On 10/4/06, Suresh Rajagopalan <SRajagopalan(a)williamoneil.com> wrote: > Given a disk IOPS of 100, I'd like to estimate total aggregate IOPS for > the following cases: > > 1) 56 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 > 2) 112 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 > > I'm only interested in the total raw disk IOPS available in each case, > not including considering the filer head. For example, we know that > RAID-0 with 56 disks @100 would yield 5600 IOPS. > > I don't know how to do this calculation with Data ONTAP's implementation > of RAID4 or RAID-DP. > > Any assistance would help. > > Thanks > Suresh > > > > >

1 0

RE: Estimating Aggregate IOPS
by Brosseau, Paul 05 Oct '06

05 Oct '06

Good point Glenn on the number of disks. Once the number of IOPS on a loops generates enough throughput to saturate the loop there's not much point in adding more disks. Spreading the load across multiple loops helps. How does the adage go " go wide then go shallow then go deep ". Eventually you saturate something somewhere depending on the filer model . Paulb -----Original Message----- From: Glenn Walker [mailto:ggwalker@mindspring.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 6:57 PM To: Suresh Rajagopalan Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Estimating Aggregate IOPS There is a ceiling in performance gain after a certain number of disks - it's well below 112, but I'm pretty sure it's above 56 (though not much above it). At that point, the 'curve' starts to go back down again. However, RAID-DP and RAID-4 (it's poor, homely cousin) are very fast and the filer has always handled the XORs very well for the parity calculations. A better question\way to position this might be what type of workload\performance you expect\require. While the disks are capable of about 120 IOPS for 10k and 180 IOPS for 15K disks, the latencies begin to jump at the end of the scale - if you're workload requires lower latencies, it doesn't much matter what the disk is capable of (Exchange is a very good example of this - 80 IOPS for 10k drives is about the max you'd want to go). Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Suresh Rajagopalan Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:56 PM Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Estimating Aggregate IOPS Let's assume 4k IOPS. Disks are currently 10k rpm. Are you saying that NTAP's implementation of RAID4 (or RAID-DP) gives a linear performance increase with spindles, (almost like RAID-0) and no penalty for the RAID4 or RAID-DP? That is, aggregate IOPS is pretty much (N * disk-iops) and no penalty for RAID4 or RAID-DP? Thanks Suresh -----Original Message----- From: Blake Golliher [mailto:thelastman@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 12:41 PM To: Suresh Rajagopalan Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Estimating Aggregate IOPS How fast are the spindles, and what size is your iop? Generally, you can assume 110 per 10k RPM disk, and 180 for 15k RPM disk. This is also assuming a 10ms latency for each iop. And subtract 2 disks per raid group for raid dp (if doing writes, don't if you are doing pure reads). So with around 50 disks (after you subtract the raid dp overhead) you can expect around 5500 iops from that set of disks (assuming 10k rpm disks). For the 112 aggregate, you an expect 98 spindles and 10780 iops. I'm assuming 4k iops, and 10ms latency. Hope that helps, -Blake On 10/4/06, Suresh Rajagopalan <SRajagopalan(a)williamoneil.com> wrote: > Given a disk IOPS of 100, I'd like to estimate total aggregate IOPS for > the following cases: > > 1) 56 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 > 2) 112 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 > > I'm only interested in the total raw disk IOPS available in each case, > not including considering the filer head. For example, we know that > RAID-0 with 56 disks @100 would yield 5600 IOPS. > > I don't know how to do this calculation with Data ONTAP's implementation > of RAID4 or RAID-DP. > > Any assistance would help. > > Thanks > Suresh > > > > >

1 0

Re: Estimating Aggregate IOPS
by Blake Golliher 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

Glenn is very much correct here. The application will dictate what your upper limit will be. A highly sequential Oracle workload will different greatly from a 5000 user exchange cluster. That curve in raid groups is around 20 disks in my experience. Eventually you'll run out of head room for the number of disks you've attached. -Blake On 10/4/06, Glenn Walker <ggwalker(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > There is a ceiling in performance gain after a certain number of disks > it's well below 112, but I'm pretty sure it's above 56 (though not much > above it). At that point, the 'curve' starts to go back down again. > > However, RAID-DP and RAID-4 (it's poor, homely cousin) are very fast and > the filer has always handled the XORs very well for the parity > calculations. > > A better question\way to position this might be what type of > workload\performance you expect\require. While the disks are capable of > about 120 IOPS for 10k and 180 IOPS for 15K disks, the latencies begin > to jump at the end of the scale - if you're workload requires lower > latencies, it doesn't much matter what the disk is capable of (Exchange > is a very good example of this - 80 IOPS for 10k drives is about the max > you'd want to go). > > Glenn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] > On Behalf Of Suresh Rajagopalan > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:56 PM > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Estimating Aggregate IOPS > > Let's assume 4k IOPS. Disks are currently 10k rpm. > > Are you saying that NTAP's implementation of RAID4 (or RAID-DP) gives a > linear performance increase with spindles, (almost like RAID-0) and no > penalty for the RAID4 or RAID-DP? > > That is, aggregate IOPS is pretty much (N * disk-iops) and no penalty > for RAID4 or RAID-DP? > > Thanks > Suresh > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Blake Golliher [mailto:thelastman@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 12:41 PM > To: Suresh Rajagopalan > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Estimating Aggregate IOPS > > How fast are the spindles, and what size is your iop? Generally, you > can assume 110 per 10k RPM disk, and 180 for 15k RPM disk. This is > also assuming a 10ms latency for each iop. And subtract 2 disks per > raid group for raid dp (if doing writes, don't if you are doing pure > reads). So with around 50 disks (after you subtract the raid dp > overhead) you can expect around 5500 iops from that set of disks > (assuming 10k rpm disks). For the 112 aggregate, you an expect 98 > spindles > and 10780 iops. I'm assuming 4k iops, and 10ms latency. > > Hope that helps, > -Blake > > > On 10/4/06, Suresh Rajagopalan <SRajagopalan(a)williamoneil.com> wrote: > > Given a disk IOPS of 100, I'd like to estimate total aggregate IOPS > for > > the following cases: > > > > 1) 56 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 > > 2) 112 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 > > > > I'm only interested in the total raw disk IOPS available in each case, > > not including considering the filer head. For example, we know > that > > RAID-0 with 56 disks @100 would yield 5600 IOPS. > > > > I don't know how to do this calculation with Data ONTAP's > implementation > > of RAID4 or RAID-DP. > > > > Any assistance would help. > > > > Thanks > > Suresh > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

RE: Maximum throughput of a FAS270c
by Glenn Walker 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

Yup... Pretty capable machine for 500 users or so. Depends on workload, as Blake said, it's OPS\CPU limited. 940 is a beast by comparison - probably about 2-2.5 times as fast. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: Blake Golliher [mailto:thelastman@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:44 PM To: John Stoffel Cc: Grey Friday; Glenn Walker; Brian Pascal; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Maximum throughput of a FAS270c I'd say an F840 (I think that's what Glenn was suggesting). The 270 is an op limited machine. Dual core 650Mhz processor, and a gig of ram (subtract 256 for NVMEM) and you get a pretty limited box in terms of performance. A 940 has a 1.8 ghz proc 4 or so gigs of memory, and a dedicated nvram card. Much better performance box. But a 270 wasn't marketed as a very fast box, but a very small, cheap box for small & remote offices. -Blake On 10/4/06, John Stoffel <john.stoffel(a)taec.toshiba.com> wrote: > >>>>> "Grey" == Grey Friday <grey.friday(a)gmail.com> writes: > > Grey> http://www.spec.org/sfs97r1/results/res2004q2/sfs97r1-20040525-00186.htm l > Grey> On 10/3/06, Glenn Walker <ggwalker(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > Grey> Brian, > >> > >> Those numbers are deemed NetApp Internal Only - though I believe that > >> Sales can share some info with you. > >> > >> However this might help: a FAS270c is equivalent to a NetApp F840 > >> system with respect to throughputhorsepower. Maybe just a tad faster > >> even. > > Glenn, > > Just to be sure, you're talking about an F840 is roughtly equivilent > to an FAS270, right? Not an F940? > > John > PM disk. This is also assuming a 10ms latency for each iop. And subtract 2 disks per raid group for raid dp (if doing writes, don't if you are doing pure reads). So with around 50 disks (after you subtract the raid dp overhead) you can expect around 5500 iops from that set of disks (assuming 10k rpm disks). For the 112 aggregate, you an expect 98 spindles and 10780 iops. I'm assuming 4k iops, and 10ms latency. Hope that helps, -Blake On 10/4/06, Suresh Rajagopalan <SRajagopalan(a)williamoneil.com> wrote: > Given a disk IOPS of 100, I'd like to estimate total aggregate IOPS for > the following cases: > > 1) 56 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 > 2) 112 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 > > I'm only interested in the total raw disk IOPS available in each case, > not including considering the filer head. For example, we know that > RAID-0 with 56 disks @100 would yield 5600 IOPS. > > I don't know how to do this calculation with Data ONTAP's implementation > of RAID4 or RAID-DP. > > Any assistance would help. > > Thanks > Suresh > > > > >

1 0

RE: Estimating Aggregate IOPS
by Suresh Rajagopalan 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

Let's assume 4k IOPS. Disks are currently 10k rpm. Are you saying that NTAP's implementation of RAID4 (or RAID-DP) gives a linear performance increase with spindles, (almost like RAID-0) and no penalty for the RAID4 or RAID-DP? That is, aggregate IOPS is pretty much (N * disk-iops) and no penalty for RAID4 or RAID-DP? Thanks Suresh -----Original Message----- From: Blake Golliher [mailto:thelastman@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 12:41 PM To: Suresh Rajagopalan Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Estimating Aggregate IOPS How fast are the spindles, and what size is your iop? Generally, you can assume 110 per 10k RPM disk, and 180 for 15k RPM disk. This is also assuming a 10ms latency for each iop. And subtract 2 disks per raid group for raid dp (if doing writes, don't if you are doing pure reads). So with around 50 disks (after you subtract the raid dp overhead) you can expect around 5500 iops from that set of disks (assuming 10k rpm disks). For the 112 aggregate, you an expect 98 spindles and 10780 iops. I'm assuming 4k iops, and 10ms latency. Hope that helps, -Blake On 10/4/06, Suresh Rajagopalan <SRajagopalan(a)williamoneil.com> wrote: > Given a disk IOPS of 100, I'd like to estimate total aggregate IOPS for > the following cases: > > 1) 56 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 > 2) 112 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 > > I'm only interested in the total raw disk IOPS available in each case, > not including considering the filer head. For example, we know that > RAID-0 with 56 disks @100 would yield 5600 IOPS. > > I don't know how to do this calculation with Data ONTAP's implementation > of RAID4 or RAID-DP. > > Any assistance would help. > > Thanks > Suresh > > > > >

1 0

RE: Maximum throughput of a FAS270c
by Glenn Walker 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

Brian, Those numbers are deemed NetApp Internal Only - though I believe that Sales can share some info with you. However this might help: a FAS270c is equivalent to a NetApp F840 system with respect to throughput\horsepower. Maybe just a tad faster even. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Brian Pascal Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 1:37 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Maximum throughput of a FAS270c Does any one has an idea of what is the maximum throughput of a FAS270c system? (Sustained system bandwidth & IOPS) Thanks, Brian. This Mail Has Been Scanned For Virus By Scanmail For Lotus Notes Enterprise/Kbsl

5 5

Estimating Aggregate IOPS
by Suresh Rajagopalan 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

Given a disk IOPS of 100, I'd like to estimate total aggregate IOPS for the following cases: 1) 56 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 2) 112 disks, 1 aggregate, RAID-DP size 16 I'm only interested in the total raw disk IOPS available in each case, not including considering the filer head. For example, we know that RAID-0 with 56 disks @100 would yield 5600 IOPS. I don't know how to do this calculation with Data ONTAP's implementation of RAID4 or RAID-DP. Any assistance would help. Thanks Suresh

3 2

Maximum throughput of a FAS270c
by Brian Pascal 03 Oct '06

03 Oct '06

Does any one has an idea of what is the maximum throughput of a FAS270c system? (Sustained system bandwidth & IOPS) Thanks, Brian. This Mail Has Been Scanned For Virus By Scanmail For Lotus Notes Enterprise/Kbsl

1 0

RE: Response time measurement
by Willeke, Jochen 29 Sep '06

29 Sep '06

Hi, its me again thinking about measurement of response time. I have a new idea and just wanted to hear from you what you think about it. I am running a dd with a bs of 8k/4k against a fileserver for a couple of minutes and during different daytimes. While the dd is running i do capture the networkstream and create a statistic for NFSv3-ops tetherreal -i eth0 -z rpc,100003,3 This gives me an overview of the RTT's during this run of dd. What do you think about this method? I can use sio as well for generating random IO but the method will remain the same. Best Regards and thanks in advance for any opinions on that Jochen ________________________________ From: Miller, James [mailto:James.Miller@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 7:27 PM To: Willeke, Jochen Subject: Re: Response time measurement Isn't it 8.72ms or .00872secs ... Jim Miller sent from blackberry -----Original Message----- From: Willeke, Jochen <Jochen.Willeke(a)wincor-nixdorf.com> To: NetApp Toasters List <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Fri Sep 22 08:13:05 2006 Subject: Response time measurement Hi folks, i am still thinking about some figures which help me considering different fileservers. After doing some research i think one point is the response time given by the system. I did a lot of testing with sio and but the results i got are some kind of strange. A test with SIO e.g. brings following result: ./sio_ntap_linux 100 0 8k 100m 10 1 /mnt/test15 Version: 3.00 SIO_NTAP: Inputs Read %: 100 Random %: 0 Block Size: 8192 File Size: 104857600 Secs: 10 Threads: 1 File(s): /mnt/test15 Outputs IOPS: 114578 KB/s: 916626 IOs: 1145782 Terminating threads ...Killed First there are the KB/S. Much to fast even for a 1Gbit network. And the second is the response time. I calculated the following: 1s / 114578 (IOPS) = 0,00872 ms (response time) This cannot be true at all :-) Does SIO read the same block all the time (due to 0%random read), or do i have any kind of mistake in my test?!? Perhaps someone can help. Best Regards and a nice weekend Jochen

3 4

RE: Can we use clearcase with FAS6xxx Ontap 7.2?
by Glenn Walker 28 Sep '06

28 Sep '06

SW, if 7.1.x is supported with Clearcase, then I'm sure 7.2 is as well. It just hasn't been officially 'tested'. That said, while 7.2 has some major feature enhancements, ONTAP still functions pretty much the same with respect to client connectivity for all protocols. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of G SW Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:22 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Can we use clearcase with FAS6xxx Ontap 7.2? Halo.. We are using FAS960 with Clearcase, thinking of upgrading to FAS6xxx series, but get to know that 7.2 is the only version supported on FAS6xxx series, but currently Clearcase supported version is on 7.1.x latest. Appreciate feedback on FAS6xxx with clearcase.. BR SW

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

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