toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13517 discussions

RE: Defraging the excahgne DB
by Waters, G Scott THE LOG.SEC TEAM 09 Jun '04

09 Jun '04

Don't forget there are BIG differences between a FILER 'WAFL SCAN REALLOCATE' and an "ESEUTIL /d". In general it is a good rule to offline defrag your Exchange databases on a regular basis - it reclaims unused space. I don't know about others, but for me it can reclaim 10GBs of disk space. It is just a nice coincidence that performing an ESEUTIL defrag lays down a new copy of the database on the FILER and the LAYOUT ratio by definition is low. My point is that (in my opinion) just doing a WAFL SCAN REALLOCATE (provided you can get it to work) isn't enough. Eventually you need to run an ESEUTIL. - Scott W. -----Original Message----- From: Borders, Rich [mailto:Rich.Borders@netapp.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 9:28 AM To: Mark Simmons; SKIP HOFMANN Cc: avarni(a)tech.cj.com; Waters, G Scott THE LOG.SEC TEAM; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Defraging the excahgne DB > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Simmons [mailto:mds@gbnet.net] > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 7:45 AM > To: SKIP HOFMANN > Cc: 'avarni(a)tech.cj.com'; Waters, G Scott THE LOG.SEC TEAM; > Borders, Rich; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Defraging the excahgne DB > > Turning the question around, why would it not be safe to > defragment a file on the filer? Filer defrag requires two things ( as a general rule ): 20 percent volume space free, and no snapshots. The rest is shuffling blocks into a more application friendly pattern. > From the point of view of the client nothing should change surely? If you do offline defrags and meet the above requirements, you will effectively have an offline application and a well organized 'efficient' database afterwards. > If it did, that would be a fairly significant problem with > all files, not just Exchange's database. Technically, you can defrag a file, or the volume. The wafl scan reallocate function is trying to get the blocks closer to their layer 0 and one pointers. Defrags are really only a problem if you don't get the first two pre-req's right. > > SKIP HOFMANN wrote: > > >If you use Waffle scan then this defrags the entire vol > right? See above. > And if so is > >it safe to use on your exchange DB? Yes. > >At least on 6.3.2 -- I've noticed that WAFL SCAN REALLOCATE will > >'pause' indefinately IFF you're over your snapshot reserve. It is usually a funciton of not finding any blocks that aren't in worst fragmented shape that what you are already in. A factor of 20% free volume space with NO snapshots all but ensures this will not happen. > Otherwise > >I've run this many times with no problems. Make sure you aren't > >over your snapshot reserve and your scan should 'continue'. You should have no snapshots. > > > >On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Waters, G Scott THE LOG.SEC TEAM wrote: > > > >] > >] WOW ... this is the exact opposite of what NetApp support told me. > >] > >] On a volume used for storing Exchange data, the WAFL SCAN > REALLOCATE > >command > >] will never complete. No one in NGS support should have told you it will never complete. In 6.3 and greater, it was more optimized and cleaned up, but that was a testamanet to the way block handling was done and some major efficiencies that were built into the OS of Data OnTap. > It goes for a while and then stalls. See above. > >] We monitor the layout ratios weekly and schedule down time > to perform an > >] offline DEFRAG every 4 - 6 weeks. The remarkable thing about an offline defrag is that it effectively copies the entire mailstore in application defrag back to the Filer. This means that the application is defraged as it is written. The wafl is defragged due to the nature of the blockmap and nvram/journaling. It is almost perfect. > >] This is all based on information received at the time ... > If NetApp has > >] fixed this then someone enlighten me. It is fixed, and getting better. Keep your eye open as there will be some new things to come also. I would also like to offer a thinking 'outside the box' and say that it is a cool idea to QSM the mail store from one volume to another since a QSM is a process that is going to defrag on WAFL ( not application though ) and then update on a scheduled basis. Once snapmirrored, you can stop and quiesce the application, then quiesce and break the QSM and that makes the destination read / writable. You point the exchange server to the destination, and voila, you have a reallocate and only a short downtime. > >] > >] - Scott W. That is all for now. /rich

3 2

our project(please reply
by Mr. Walter Taylor 08 Jun '04

08 Jun '04

Good Day, I wish to introduce myself to you. My name is Walter Taylor. I am the brother to the president of Liberia Mr. Charles Taylor.Due to the present war in my country Liberia, I wish to invest in real estate in your country. Myself, wife and children managed to get on a Red Cross airplane that was evacuating foreigners from the theatre of war in my country and presently,we are in a refugee camp in Wales the United Kingdom(UK). Your assistance and cooperation is required as regards this project. Please send an e-mail to me indicating your desire to help me and my family invest this funds. I await your positive response to my e-mail letter . God bless. Mr. Walter Taylor e-mail:waltertaylor1@web-mail.com.ar NB: Please you can go the New York Times Website below for fact about us http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/18/international/africa/18LIBE.html

1 0

NO MORE PAYING EXPENSIVE FOR SOFTWARES WITH US caffeinism
by Mimi Roberto 08 Jun '04

08 Jun '04

asin millennial carnelian cress indorse chewable lamp rumrunner soleless

1 0

RE: Defraging the excahgne DB
by Borders, Rich 08 Jun '04

08 Jun '04

> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Simmons [mailto:mds@gbnet.net] > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 7:45 AM > To: SKIP HOFMANN > Cc: 'avarni(a)tech.cj.com'; Waters, G Scott THE LOG.SEC TEAM; > Borders, Rich; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Defraging the excahgne DB > > Turning the question around, why would it not be safe to > defragment a file on the filer? Filer defrag requires two things ( as a general rule ): 20 percent volume space free, and no snapshots. The rest is shuffling blocks into a more application friendly pattern. > From the point of view of the client nothing should change surely? If you do offline defrags and meet the above requirements, you will effectively have an offline application and a well organized 'efficient' database afterwards. > If it did, that would be a fairly significant problem with > all files, not just Exchange's database. Technically, you can defrag a file, or the volume. The wafl scan reallocate function is trying to get the blocks closer to their layer 0 and one pointers. Defrags are really only a problem if you don't get the first two pre-req's right. > > SKIP HOFMANN wrote: > > >If you use Waffle scan then this defrags the entire vol > right? See above. > And if so is > >it safe to use on your exchange DB? Yes. > >At least on 6.3.2 -- I've noticed that WAFL SCAN REALLOCATE will > >'pause' indefinately IFF you're over your snapshot reserve. It is usually a funciton of not finding any blocks that aren't in worst fragmented shape that what you are already in. A factor of 20% free volume space with NO snapshots all but ensures this will not happen. > Otherwise > >I've run this many times with no problems. Make sure you aren't > >over your snapshot reserve and your scan should 'continue'. You should have no snapshots. > > > >On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Waters, G Scott THE LOG.SEC TEAM wrote: > > > >] > >] WOW ... this is the exact opposite of what NetApp support told me. > >] > >] On a volume used for storing Exchange data, the WAFL SCAN > REALLOCATE > >command > >] will never complete. No one in NGS support should have told you it will never complete. In 6.3 and greater, it was more optimized and cleaned up, but that was a testamanet to the way block handling was done and some major efficiencies that were built into the OS of Data OnTap. > It goes for a while and then stalls. See above. > >] We monitor the layout ratios weekly and schedule down time > to perform an > >] offline DEFRAG every 4 - 6 weeks. The remarkable thing about an offline defrag is that it effectively copies the entire mailstore in application defrag back to the Filer. This means that the application is defraged as it is written. The wafl is defragged due to the nature of the blockmap and nvram/journaling. It is almost perfect. > >] This is all based on information received at the time ... > If NetApp has > >] fixed this then someone enlighten me. It is fixed, and getting better. Keep your eye open as there will be some new things to come also. I would also like to offer a thinking 'outside the box' and say that it is a cool idea to QSM the mail store from one volume to another since a QSM is a process that is going to defrag on WAFL ( not application though ) and then update on a scheduled basis. Once snapmirrored, you can stop and quiesce the application, then quiesce and break the QSM and that makes the destination read / writable. You point the exchange server to the destination, and voila, you have a reallocate and only a short downtime. > >] > >] - Scott W. That is all for now. /rich

1 0

RE: Defraging the excahgne DB
by SKIP HOFMANN 08 Jun '04

08 Jun '04

If you use Waffle scan then this defrags the entire vol right? And if so is it safe to use on your exchange DB? If it is then that would be greate -----Original Message----- From: avarni(a)tech.cj.com [mailto:avarni@tech.cj.com] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 10:19 AM To: Waters, G Scott THE LOG.SEC TEAM Cc: SKIP HOFMANN; 'Borders, Rich'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Defraging the excahgne DB At least on 6.3.2 -- I've noticed that WAFL SCAN REALLOCATE will 'pause' indefinately IFF you're over your snapshot reserve. Otherwise I've run this many times with no problems. Make sure you aren't over your snapshot reserve and your scan should 'continue'. On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Waters, G Scott THE LOG.SEC TEAM wrote: ] ] WOW ... this is the exact opposite of what NetApp support told me. ] ] On a volume used for storing Exchange data, the WAFL SCAN REALLOCATE command ] will never complete. It goes for a while and then stalls. ] ] We monitor the layout ratios weekly and schedule down time to perform an ] offline DEFRAG every 4 - 6 weeks. ] ] This is all based on information received at the time ... If NetApp has ] fixed this then someone enlighten me. ] ] ] - Scott W. ] ] ] -----Original Message----- ] From: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com] ] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 2:31 PM ] To: 'Borders, Rich'; toasters(a)mathworks.com ] Subject: RE: Defraging the excahgne DB ] ] ] Hi ] ] I just got done talking with support at Netapp, and they told me that doing ] an offline defrag of my exchange DB using the esutil will have absolutely no ] impact on the exchange DB on the filer, and they also told me that in order ] to defrag the exchange DB I must use the fillers Waffle utility to do this ] and that this would also defragment everything on the vol. They said that ] it's the responsibility of the file system on the filer to determine if a ] vol is fragmented or not, this includes all data on the vol. So knowing this ] is it safe to defrag a vol that contains an exchange DB?? ] ] Thanks again for your help it is much appreciated ] ] Skip ] ] -----Original Message----- ] From: Borders, Rich [mailto:Rich.Borders@netapp.com] ] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 11:13 AM ] To: SKIP HOFMANN; toasters(a)mathworks.com ] Subject: RE: Defraging the excahgne DB ] ] <<>> ] ] ] From: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com] ] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 1:33 PM ] To: toasters(a)mathworks.com ] Subject: Defraging the excahgne DB ] ] ] ] Howdy ] ] ] ] I have my exchange 5.5 DB pub and priv and my filler it's a ] FAS250 and I want to know a few things ] ] ] ] #1 can I run the eseutil utility if the DB is on my FAS 250 to ] defrag the DB? ] ] ] ] ] ] <<< This is doable as it is an offline defrag. The curious thing about ] doing this is that you are accomplishing the APPLICATION defrag, and at ] the same time getting a great by-product of a WAFL defrag. ( Essentially ] a database re-write ) >>> ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] #2 is it the filer that determines if the exchange DB is ] fragmented or not, and if it is how would I defrag the DB? ] ] ] ] <<<The Application can fragment ( very common and accounted for by an ] online and offline defrag funciton in Exchange ) and the Filer can ] fragment. I say that tounge in cheek because the fragmentation is really ] only identified when you access the data. Since the database is one ] large file the request for data in it is atypical, the data 'fragments' ] over time. The blocks of the filer rarely match up to the blocks of the ] database, so the issues becomes when you want to get a LOT of sequential ] data from a large file ( aka mail store verify ) you will be essentially ] asking the filer to scan through it's blocks at a super high rate of ] speed.>>> ] ] ] ] ] ] #3 what happens to all other data that is stored on the same vol ] as the exchange DB once I defrag this vol? ie snap shots ] ] ] <<<The Mail store can be reallocated or the volume can. I would ] recommend the snapshots be removed as you can really get yourself into a ] pickle by 'RE'-writing a database with an application defrag, or a WAFL ] reallocate. If you are short on space, you need to get the snapshots out ] of there. Snapshots are locked images and if the file system is ] 'fragmented' then it is unlikely that you are doing much more than ] spinning your wheels if you are trying to defragment into a fragemnted ] snapshot. >>> ] ] ] ] #4 I ran a waffle scan and I got a reading of 1.8 si this ] fragmented? ] ] ] That is basically a ratio of actual file size ( df essentially ) to ] block allocation. Ex. A one terabyte volume has a 500 gig database. If ] it's layout is 1 then the File is essentially using the exact number of ] blocks that a Filer of 500 gigs needs. If the layout were 1.8 then the ] 500 gig df would still be 500 but the block allocation would actually be ] closer to the 900 gig . This is usually not an issue until the ratio ] takes the block allocation higher then the volume size. A 2.1 layout ] would mean that a 500 gig df would be 1.05 TB. This means you are ] rescanning on a request of data on the last .05 TB. If the Filer were a ] 900 gig df, then a layout of 1.8 would be MUCH more impactful. It is not ] the end of the world, you just have to manage it. You are on the right ] track I can see, so good luck. ] ] ] ] Thanks a bunch ] ] ] ] Skip ] ] Rich Borders ]

2 1

I'm a new piano tuner to the area
by Doug Freeze 08 Jun '04

08 Jun '04

Hi, I hope you don't mind me writing you. I came across your e-mail address after looking around some websites local to my city and thought I'd ask if you're in need of a professional piano tuner or might know of someone you could forward this e-mail to. I moved into the area a few months ago and I'm tuning for donations until I build-up a customer base so payment is whatever you'd like it to be. I'll travel to the Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and the Orange County areas. Here's a map of where I live in case you'd like to know: http://home.wirelis.com (If this message went out of the area, I apologize. It's not meant to be spam and you'll never receive another message from me again.) You can visit my website or call me if you have any questions. Thanks and I'm sorry if I bothered you or if you don't need this service, Doug Freeze A new resident of Glendora CA. (626) 290-0908 http://dougfreeze.com/piano/index.html http://wirelis.com P.S. You'll never receive another message from me so there's no need to write me back and ask to be removed from my mailing list nor will your e-mail address ever be given away or sold to anyone. See http://dougfreeze.com/wirelis/spam.html to view my position on SPAM and learn how you can help stop it. http://spam.abuse.net

1 0

Tape positioning connected to the F720 filer.
by Harbhajan Julka 07 Jun '04

07 Jun '04

Hello everyone, I have been programming a client using the NetApp F720 server. The GetStateReply from the server returns the position of the media (usually tape) connected to the server. Two of the position structure members: Filemark and Blockno are something that i need to know about. The filemark and blockno respectively indicate the Partition and the BlockLow of the Position on the tape. I need to know if this is right or not. Also, how can i know what is the value of BlockHigh and offset from the server in the GetStateReply? I have tried a backup and then a restore from the tape. A complete restore is successful but fails to restore few files selected from the media. Please help. Any pointers and suggestions appreciated. Cheers, Sonia. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

1 0

RE: Defraging the excahgne DB
by SKIP HOFMANN 07 Jun '04

07 Jun '04

In that case how do you defrag your exchange DB copy the DB to another server with double or triple the amount of the exchange DB size and then run esentuil? Skip _____ From: Waters, George S Mr. [mailto:george.scott.waters@us.army.mil] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 10:28 AM To: avarni(a)tech.cj.com Cc: SKIP HOFMANN; 'Borders, Rich'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Defraging the excahgne DB I've had it "pause" indefinitely even when I am not over my SnapShot Reserve. NetApp support told me it was a "known issue". I have never been able to get a "WAFL SCAN REALLOCATE" to work on my Exchange Volumes. - Scott W. _____ From: avarni(a)tech.cj.com Sent: Mon 6/7/2004 1:18 PM To: Waters, G Scott THE LOG.SEC TEAM Cc: 'SKIP HOFMANN'; 'Borders, Rich'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Defraging the excahgne DB At least on 6.3.2 -- I've noticed that WAFL SCAN REALLOCATE will 'pause' indefinately IFF you're over your snapshot reserve. Otherwise I've run this many times with no problems. Make sure you aren't over your snapshot reserve and your scan should 'continue'. On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Waters, G Scott THE LOG.SEC TEAM wrote: ] ] WOW ... this is the exact opposite of what NetApp support told me. ] ] On a volume used for storing Exchange data, the WAFL SCAN REALLOCATE command ] will never complete. It goes for a while and then stalls. ] ] We monitor the layout ratios weekly and schedule down time to perform an ] offline DEFRAG every 4 - 6 weeks. ] ] This is all based on information received at the time ... If NetApp has ] fixed this then someone enlighten me. ] ] ] - Scott W. ] ] ] -----Original Message----- ] From: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com] ] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 2:31 PM ] To: 'Borders, Rich'; toasters(a)mathworks.com ] Subject: RE: Defraging the excahgne DB ] ] ] Hi ] ] I just got done talking with support at Netapp, and they told me that doing ] an offline defrag of my exchange DB using the esutil will have absolutely no ] impact on the exchange DB on the filer, and they also told me that in order ] to defrag the exchange DB I must use the fillers Waffle utility to do this ] and that this would also defragment everything on the vol. They said that ] it's the responsibility of the file system on the filer to determine if a ] vol is fragmented or not, this includes all data on the vol. So knowing this ] is it safe to defrag a vol that contains an exchange DB?? ] ] Thanks again for your help it is much appreciated ] ] Skip ] ] -----Original Message----- ] From: Borders, Rich [mailto:Rich.Borders@netapp.com] ] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 11:13 AM ] To: SKIP HOFMANN; toasters(a)mathworks.com ] Subject: RE: Defraging the excahgne DB ] ] <<>> ] ] ] From: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com] ] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 1:33 PM ] To: toasters(a)mathworks.com ] Subject: Defraging the excahgne DB ] ] ] ] Howdy ] ] ] ] I have my exchange 5.5 DB pub and priv and my filler it's a ] FAS250 and I want to know a few things ] ] ] ] #1 can I run the eseutil utility if the DB is on my FAS 250 to ] defrag the DB? ] ] ] ] ] ] <<< This is doable as it is an offline defrag. The curious thing about ] doing this is that you are accomplishing the APPLICATION defrag, and at ] the same time getting a great by-product of a WAFL defrag. ( Essentially ] a database re-write ) >>> ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] #2 is it the filer that determines if the exchange DB is ] fragmented or not, and if it is how would I defrag the DB? ] ] ] ] <<<The Application can fragment ( very common and accounted for by an ] online and offline defrag funciton in Exchange ) and the Filer can ] fragment. I say that tounge in cheek because the fragmentation is really ] only identified when you access the data. Since the database is one ] large file the request for data in it is atypical, the data 'fragments' ] over time. The blocks of the filer rarely match up to the blocks of the ] database, so the issues becomes when you want to get a LOT of sequential ] data from a large file ( aka mail store verify ) you will be essentially ] asking the filer to scan through it's blocks at a super high rate of ] speed.>>> ] ] ] ] ] ] #3 what happens to all other data that is stored on the same vol ] as the exchange DB once I defrag this vol? ie snap shots ] ] ] <<<The Mail store can be reallocated or the volume can. I would ] recommend the snapshots be removed as you can really get yourself into a ] pickle by 'RE'-writing a database with an application defrag, or a WAFL ] reallocate. If you are short on space, you need to get the snapshots out ] of there. Snapshots are locked images and if the file system is ] 'fragmented' then it is unlikely that you are doing much more than ] spinning your wheels if you are trying to defragment into a fragemnted ] snapshot. >>> ] ] ] ] #4 I ran a waffle scan and I got a reading of 1.8 si this ] fragmented? ] ] ] That is basically a ratio of actual file size ( df essentially ) to ] block allocation. Ex. A one terabyte volume has a 500 gig database. If ] it's layout is 1 then the File is essentially using the exact number of ] blocks that a Filer of 500 gigs needs. If the layout were 1.8 then the ] 500 gig df would still be 500 but the block allocation would actually be ] closer to the 900 gig . This is usually not an issue until the ratio ] takes the block allocation higher then the volume size. A 2.1 layout ] would mean that a 500 gig df would be 1.05 TB. This means you are ] rescanning on a request of data on the last .05 TB. If the Filer were a ] 900 gig df, then a layout of 1.8 would be MUCH more impactful. It is not ] the end of the world, you just have to manage it. You are on the right ] track I can see, so good luck. ] ] ] ] Thanks a bunch ] ] ] ] Skip ] ] Rich Borders ]

1 0

RE: Defraging the excahgne DB
by Waters, G Scott THE LOG.SEC TEAM 07 Jun '04

07 Jun '04

WOW ... this is the exact opposite of what NetApp support told me. On a volume used for storing Exchange data, the WAFL SCAN REALLOCATE command will never complete. It goes for a while and then stalls. We monitor the layout ratios weekly and schedule down time to perform an offline DEFRAG every 4 - 6 weeks. This is all based on information received at the time ... If NetApp has fixed this then someone enlighten me. - Scott W. -----Original Message----- From: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 2:31 PM To: 'Borders, Rich'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Defraging the excahgne DB Hi I just got done talking with support at Netapp, and they told me that doing an offline defrag of my exchange DB using the esutil will have absolutely no impact on the exchange DB on the filer, and they also told me that in order to defrag the exchange DB I must use the fillers Waffle utility to do this and that this would also defragment everything on the vol. They said that it's the responsibility of the file system on the filer to determine if a vol is fragmented or not, this includes all data on the vol. So knowing this is it safe to defrag a vol that contains an exchange DB?? Thanks again for your help it is much appreciated Skip -----Original Message----- From: Borders, Rich [mailto:Rich.Borders@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 11:13 AM To: SKIP HOFMANN; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Defraging the excahgne DB <<>> From: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 1:33 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Defraging the excahgne DB Howdy I have my exchange 5.5 DB pub and priv and my filler it's a FAS250 and I want to know a few things #1 can I run the eseutil utility if the DB is on my FAS 250 to defrag the DB? <<< This is doable as it is an offline defrag. The curious thing about doing this is that you are accomplishing the APPLICATION defrag, and at the same time getting a great by-product of a WAFL defrag. ( Essentially a database re-write ) >>> #2 is it the filer that determines if the exchange DB is fragmented or not, and if it is how would I defrag the DB? <<<The Application can fragment ( very common and accounted for by an online and offline defrag funciton in Exchange ) and the Filer can fragment. I say that tounge in cheek because the fragmentation is really only identified when you access the data. Since the database is one large file the request for data in it is atypical, the data 'fragments' over time. The blocks of the filer rarely match up to the blocks of the database, so the issues becomes when you want to get a LOT of sequential data from a large file ( aka mail store verify ) you will be essentially asking the filer to scan through it's blocks at a super high rate of speed.>>> #3 what happens to all other data that is stored on the same vol as the exchange DB once I defrag this vol? ie snap shots <<<The Mail store can be reallocated or the volume can. I would recommend the snapshots be removed as you can really get yourself into a pickle by 'RE'-writing a database with an application defrag, or a WAFL reallocate. If you are short on space, you need to get the snapshots out of there. Snapshots are locked images and if the file system is 'fragmented' then it is unlikely that you are doing much more than spinning your wheels if you are trying to defragment into a fragemnted snapshot. >>> #4 I ran a waffle scan and I got a reading of 1.8 si this fragmented? That is basically a ratio of actual file size ( df essentially ) to block allocation. Ex. A one terabyte volume has a 500 gig database. If it's layout is 1 then the File is essentially using the exact number of blocks that a Filer of 500 gigs needs. If the layout were 1.8 then the 500 gig df would still be 500 but the block allocation would actually be closer to the 900 gig . This is usually not an issue until the ratio takes the block allocation higher then the volume size. A 2.1 layout would mean that a 500 gig df would be 1.05 TB. This means you are rescanning on a request of data on the last .05 TB. If the Filer were a 900 gig df, then a layout of 1.8 would be MUCH more impactful. It is not the end of the world, you just have to manage it. You are on the right track I can see, so good luck. Thanks a bunch Skip Rich Borders

3 2

RE: Defraging the excahgne DB
by SKIP HOFMANN 07 Jun '04

07 Jun '04

It seems that Netapp is very confused about this issue and or topic, as I have called into tech support on three separate occasions about this issue and I'm always left feeling more confused than when I called in. Netapp needs to figure this out and give an answer to this question, which I think should be a YES or NO answer. Can the waffle scan safely defrag an exchange DB, if so what are the steps? If a waffle scan cannot defrag an exchange DB then can running eseutil and pointing eseutil to the exchange DB on the filler run, and will it defrag the DB? Thanks Skip _____ From: Waters, G Scott THE LOG.SEC TEAM [mailto:george.scott.waters@us.army.mil] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 7:33 AM To: SKIP HOFMANN; 'Borders, Rich'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Defraging the excahgne DB Importance: High WOW ... this is the exact opposite of what NetApp support told me. On a volume used for storing Exchange data, the WAFL SCAN REALLOCATE command will never complete. It goes for a while and then stalls. We monitor the layout ratios weekly and schedule down time to perform an offline DEFRAG every 4 - 6 weeks. This is all based on information received at the time ... If NetApp has fixed this then someone enlighten me. - Scott W. -----Original Message----- From: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com <mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com> ] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 2:31 PM To: 'Borders, Rich'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Defraging the excahgne DB Hi I just got done talking with support at Netapp, and they told me that doing an offline defrag of my exchange DB using the esutil will have absolutely no impact on the exchange DB on the filer, and they also told me that in order to defrag the exchange DB I must use the fillers Waffle utility to do this and that this would also defragment everything on the vol. They said that it's the responsibility of the file system on the filer to determine if a vol is fragmented or not, this includes all data on the vol. So knowing this is it safe to defrag a vol that contains an exchange DB?? Thanks again for your help it is much appreciated Skip -----Original Message----- From: Borders, Rich [mailto:Rich.Borders@netapp.com <mailto:Rich.Borders@netapp.com> ] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 11:13 AM To: SKIP HOFMANN; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Defraging the excahgne DB <<>> From: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com <mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com> ] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 1:33 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Defraging the excahgne DB Howdy I have my exchange 5.5 DB pub and priv and my filler it's a FAS250 and I want to know a few things #1 can I run the eseutil utility if the DB is on my FAS 250 to defrag the DB? <<< This is doable as it is an offline defrag. The curious thing about doing this is that you are accomplishing the APPLICATION defrag, and at the same time getting a great by-product of a WAFL defrag. ( Essentially a database re-write ) >>> #2 is it the filer that determines if the exchange DB is fragmented or not, and if it is how would I defrag the DB? <<<The Application can fragment ( very common and accounted for by an online and offline defrag funciton in Exchange ) and the Filer can fragment. I say that tounge in cheek because the fragmentation is really only identified when you access the data. Since the database is one large file the request for data in it is atypical, the data 'fragments' over time. The blocks of the filer rarely match up to the blocks of the database, so the issues becomes when you want to get a LOT of sequential data from a large file ( aka mail store verify ) you will be essentially asking the filer to scan through it's blocks at a super high rate of speed.>>> #3 what happens to all other data that is stored on the same vol as the exchange DB once I defrag this vol? ie snap shots <<<The Mail store can be reallocated or the volume can. I would recommend the snapshots be removed as you can really get yourself into a pickle by 'RE'-writing a database with an application defrag, or a WAFL reallocate. If you are short on space, you need to get the snapshots out of there. Snapshots are locked images and if the file system is 'fragmented' then it is unlikely that you are doing much more than spinning your wheels if you are trying to defragment into a fragemnted snapshot. >>> #4 I ran a waffle scan and I got a reading of 1.8 si this fragmented? That is basically a ratio of actual file size ( df essentially ) to block allocation. Ex. A one terabyte volume has a 500 gig database. If it's layout is 1 then the File is essentially using the exact number of blocks that a Filer of 500 gigs needs. If the layout were 1.8 then the 500 gig df would still be 500 but the block allocation would actually be closer to the 900 gig . This is usually not an issue until the ratio takes the block allocation higher then the volume size. A 2.1 layout would mean that a 500 gig df would be 1.05 TB. This means you are rescanning on a request of data on the last .05 TB. If the Filer were a 900 gig df, then a layout of 1.8 would be MUCH more impactful. It is not the end of the world, you just have to manage it. You are on the right track I can see, so good luck. Thanks a bunch Skip Rich Borders

1 0

RE: Best practices for new RAID group
by Yarmas, Tom 04 Jun '04

04 Jun '04

The paper you reference is a little dated unless you are still running 5.x of Data ONTAP. Data ONTAP version 6.x included some significant changes to the WAFL and ONTAP RAID. The number of RAID groups is much less relevant than the total number of data drives in the volume. However, adding 1 or two drives to a volume (or RAID Group) is still not the best approach. Your best bet is to add a new RAID group of 6 disks to the volume. You will be adding the disks anyway (over time), and you are using qtrees to divvy up the space, so just add them all at one time and not worry about it. As Chris Thompson pointed out you can use RAID-DP (assuming you are running DOT 6.5), and add 2 disks to the existing RAID group. But that would likely not be optimal because you would still have a small number of "empty" disks in the RAID group and they will be utilized more than the other "more full" disks until space gets more evenly distributed across all of the drives. -tom -----Original Message----- From: Stewart, John [mailto:johns@artesyncp.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 5:44 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Cc: IT Technical Services Subject: Best practices for new RAID group We've got an F740 with three shelves of 36GB disks (the 3rd recently added). We've only got one volume, vol0, with 14 disks in it now (13 data and one parity). We use both CIFS and NFS. We have 7 spare disks (6 of which we'd like to eventually use for data, with one spare of course). I just went to add one of the spare disks to vol0 (running low on space) and got the error: vol add: starting a new RAID group; at least two disks are needed So, as I (now) understand it, we've got to either: - Override the 14 disk limit for a RAID group or - Add a new RAID group to the current volume or - Add a new volume The 3rd choice is unattractive because we like the idea of One Huge Filesystem, that we can divvy up as needed into different qtrees. The 2nd choice sounds like a Bad Idea in that according to this document, section 3.4: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3027.html, that the filer will try to distribute writes evenly between the old and new RAID group... if the new RAID group only contains two disks (we don't want to add more disk space than is needed now), this could be disatrous to performance So is the 1st choice, increasing the size of the RAID group, a viable option? What is the downsize? Only increased risk of a double disk failure taking out the whole system? Is it possible to add a second parity disk to the same RAID group? Am I missing something here? Any clue-by-fours quite welcome. thanks johnS

1 0

RE: Best practices for new RAID group
by Derek Lai 04 Jun '04

04 Jun '04

The first option is not good either because the moment you increase the size of the raid group and add only 1 drive, all the new writes are going to that one drive until it catches up in space utilization as the rest of the drives in that raid group. Performance will come to a screeching halt. So NetApp definitely will let you do it but at the risk of really bad performance. The only way I would do this is to back up everything, blow the volume away, create the volume again with all the drives and then restore the data. NetApp typically suggest you add at least a few drives at a time. Sorry. Derek -----Original Message----- From: Stewart, John [mailto:johns@artesyncp.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 2:44 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Cc: IT Technical Services Subject: Best practices for new RAID group We've got an F740 with three shelves of 36GB disks (the 3rd recently added). We've only got one volume, vol0, with 14 disks in it now (13 data and one parity). We use both CIFS and NFS. We have 7 spare disks (6 of which we'd like to eventually use for data, with one spare of course). I just went to add one of the spare disks to vol0 (running low on space) and got the error: vol add: starting a new RAID group; at least two disks are needed So, as I (now) understand it, we've got to either: - Override the 14 disk limit for a RAID group or - Add a new RAID group to the current volume or - Add a new volume The 3rd choice is unattractive because we like the idea of One Huge Filesystem, that we can divvy up as needed into different qtrees. The 2nd choice sounds like a Bad Idea in that according to this document, section 3.4: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3027.html, that the filer will try to distribute writes evenly between the old and new RAID group... if the new RAID group only contains two disks (we don't want to add more disk space than is needed now), this could be disatrous to performance So is the 1st choice, increasing the size of the RAID group, a viable option? What is the downsize? Only increased risk of a double disk failure taking out the whole system? Is it possible to add a second parity disk to the same RAID group? Am I missing something here? Any clue-by-fours quite welcome. thanks johnS

1 0

Best practices for new RAID group
by Stewart, John 04 Jun '04

04 Jun '04

We've got an F740 with three shelves of 36GB disks (the 3rd recently added). We've only got one volume, vol0, with 14 disks in it now (13 data and one parity). We use both CIFS and NFS. We have 7 spare disks (6 of which we'd like to eventually use for data, with one spare of course). I just went to add one of the spare disks to vol0 (running low on space) and got the error: vol add: starting a new RAID group; at least two disks are needed So, as I (now) understand it, we've got to either: - Override the 14 disk limit for a RAID group or - Add a new RAID group to the current volume or - Add a new volume The 3rd choice is unattractive because we like the idea of One Huge Filesystem, that we can divvy up as needed into different qtrees. The 2nd choice sounds like a Bad Idea in that according to this document, section 3.4: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3027.html, that the filer will try to distribute writes evenly between the old and new RAID group... if the new RAID group only contains two disks (we don't want to add more disk space than is needed now), this could be disatrous to performance So is the 1st choice, increasing the size of the RAID group, a viable option? What is the downsize? Only increased risk of a double disk failure taking out the whole system? Is it possible to add a second parity disk to the same RAID group? Am I missing something here? Any clue-by-fours quite welcome. thanks johnS

2 1

RE: Defraging the excahgne DB
by SKIP HOFMANN 03 Jun '04

03 Jun '04

Hi I just got done talking with support at Netapp, and they told me that doing an offline defrag of my exchange DB using the esutil will have absolutely no impact on the exchange DB on the filer, and they also told me that in order to defrag the exchange DB I must use the fillers Waffle utility to do this and that this would also defragment everything on the vol. They said that it's the responsibility of the file system on the filer to determine if a vol is fragmented or not, this includes all data on the vol. So knowing this is it safe to defrag a vol that contains an exchange DB?? Thanks again for your help it is much appreciated Skip -----Original Message----- From: Borders, Rich [mailto:Rich.Borders@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 11:13 AM To: SKIP HOFMANN; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Defraging the excahgne DB <<>> From: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 1:33 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Defraging the excahgne DB Howdy I have my exchange 5.5 DB pub and priv and my filler it's a FAS250 and I want to know a few things #1 can I run the eseutil utility if the DB is on my FAS 250 to defrag the DB? <<< This is doable as it is an offline defrag. The curious thing about doing this is that you are accomplishing the APPLICATION defrag, and at the same time getting a great by-product of a WAFL defrag. ( Essentially a database re-write ) >>> #2 is it the filer that determines if the exchange DB is fragmented or not, and if it is how would I defrag the DB? <<<The Application can fragment ( very common and accounted for by an online and offline defrag funciton in Exchange ) and the Filer can fragment. I say that tounge in cheek because the fragmentation is really only identified when you access the data. Since the database is one large file the request for data in it is atypical, the data 'fragments' over time. The blocks of the filer rarely match up to the blocks of the database, so the issues becomes when you want to get a LOT of sequential data from a large file ( aka mail store verify ) you will be essentially asking the filer to scan through it's blocks at a super high rate of speed.>>> #3 what happens to all other data that is stored on the same vol as the exchange DB once I defrag this vol? ie snap shots <<<The Mail store can be reallocated or the volume can. I would recommend the snapshots be removed as you can really get yourself into a pickle by 'RE'-writing a database with an application defrag, or a WAFL reallocate. If you are short on space, you need to get the snapshots out of there. Snapshots are locked images and if the file system is 'fragmented' then it is unlikely that you are doing much more than spinning your wheels if you are trying to defragment into a fragemnted snapshot. >>> #4 I ran a waffle scan and I got a reading of 1.8 si this fragmented? That is basically a ratio of actual file size ( df essentially ) to block allocation. Ex. A one terabyte volume has a 500 gig database. If it's layout is 1 then the File is essentially using the exact number of blocks that a Filer of 500 gigs needs. If the layout were 1.8 then the 500 gig df would still be 500 but the block allocation would actually be closer to the 900 gig . This is usually not an issue until the ratio takes the block allocation higher then the volume size. A 2.1 layout would mean that a 500 gig df would be 1.05 TB. This means you are rescanning on a request of data on the last .05 TB. If the Filer were a 900 gig df, then a layout of 1.8 would be MUCH more impactful. It is not the end of the world, you just have to manage it. You are on the right track I can see, so good luck. Thanks a bunch Skip Rich Borders

1 0

RE: Defraging the excahgne DB
by Borders, Rich 03 Jun '04

03 Jun '04

<<>> From: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 1:33 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Defraging the excahgne DB Howdy I have my exchange 5.5 DB pub and priv and my filler it's a FAS250 and I want to know a few things #1 can I run the eseutil utility if the DB is on my FAS 250 to defrag the DB? <<< This is doable as it is an offline defrag. The curious thing about doing this is that you are accomplishing the APPLICATION defrag, and at the same time getting a great by-product of a WAFL defrag. ( Essentially a database re-write ) >>> #2 is it the filer that determines if the exchange DB is fragmented or not, and if it is how would I defrag the DB? <<<The Application can fragment ( very common and accounted for by an online and offline defrag funciton in Exchange ) and the Filer can fragment. I say that tounge in cheek because the fragmentation is really only identified when you access the data. Since the database is one large file the request for data in it is atypical, the data 'fragments' over time. The blocks of the filer rarely match up to the blocks of the database, so the issues becomes when you want to get a LOT of sequential data from a large file ( aka mail store verify ) you will be essentially asking the filer to scan through it's blocks at a super high rate of speed.>>> #3 what happens to all other data that is stored on the same vol as the exchange DB once I defrag this vol? ie snap shots <<<The Mail store can be reallocated or the volume can. I would recommend the snapshots be removed as you can really get yourself into a pickle by 'RE'-writing a database with an application defrag, or a WAFL reallocate. If you are short on space, you need to get the snapshots out of there. Snapshots are locked images and if the file system is 'fragmented' then it is unlikely that you are doing much more than spinning your wheels if you are trying to defragment into a fragemnted snapshot. >>> #4 I ran a waffle scan and I got a reading of 1.8 si this fragmented? That is basically a ratio of actual file size ( df essentially ) to block allocation. Ex. A one terabyte volume has a 500 gig database. If it's layout is 1 then the File is essentially using the exact number of blocks that a Filer of 500 gigs needs. If the layout were 1.8 then the 500 gig df would still be 500 but the block allocation would actually be closer to the 900 gig . This is usually not an issue until the ratio takes the block allocation higher then the volume size. A 2.1 layout would mean that a 500 gig df would be 1.05 TB. This means you are rescanning on a request of data on the last .05 TB. If the Filer were a 900 gig df, then a layout of 1.8 would be MUCH more impactful. It is not the end of the world, you just have to manage it. You are on the right track I can see, so good luck. Thanks a bunch Skip Rich Borders

1 0

Defraging the excahgne DB
by SKIP HOFMANN 03 Jun '04

03 Jun '04

Howdy I have my exchange 5.5 DB pub and priv and my filler it's a FAS250 and I want to know a few things #1 can I run the eseutil utility if the DB is on my FAS 250 to defrag the DB? #2 is it the filer that determines if the exchange DB is fragmented or not, and if it is how would I defrag the DB? #3 what happens to all other data that is stored on the same vol as the exchange DB once I defrag this vol? ie snap shots #4 I ran a waffle scan and I got a reading of 1.8 si this fragmented? Thanks a bunch Skip

1 0

Respone
by ngomaj＠telstra.com 03 Jun '04

03 Jun '04

JULIANA NGOMA [MISS] EMAIL: infojuliana(a)netscape.net Greetings, How are you? And hope all is well? You might be surprise to receive this mail but I will like you to go through it carefully before responding, I hope at the end it will find you and your business in the best of interest. Let me quickly introduce myself and the reason why contacting you is very important. I am Juliana Ngoma; I am a senior staff at the Office of the Minister of Petroleum Affairs Angola. I have traveled along side with the Minister Jose Botelho de Vasconcelos to your country in search of investors that will come and invest on our Petroleum Sector, it was in one of this trip that I was opportune to realize that the trips been made by the Minister is not for the search for an investor but for the search for what he will invest part of the Money made from Angolan petroleum Export that he has diverted to be his own. I was shocked at this discovery, but I later realized that I was the only one among other staffs that was not aware of these happenings, investigation into this matter made me to know that even the president is involved. I suddenly realized that the BBC news achieve below is true. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2546281.stm I arrived from the trip I made with the minister and went straight to confront my Head of Department, and he told me that he is aware of the whole situation, he went further to show me some documents that was used to bank some millions of American Dollars in a security firm, he explained to me that the amount was realised from the assistance he rendered to Foreign oil Contractors that are in Angola, he said I should assist him in the search for a reputable and trust worthy business man that can assist us in transfering the funds to a safe place where it will be used for Future Investment, this is because he cannot be able to carry out the process of investing the amount alone. I am therefore asking for your opinion on this issue, will you be able to assist us in the process of transfering, claiming and investing the money of which some percentage of the total amount involved will be granted to you for assisting us and for the time you spent on the transaction. If you are willing to assist us kindly provide us with details of how we can reach you by phone or by fax so that we can proceed to conclude this transaction. You can contact me on my email infojuliana(a)netscape.com Yours Truly, JULIANA NGOMA [MISS] infojuliana(a)netscape.com

1 0

RE: Excage databse
by SKIP HOFMANN 03 Jun '04

03 Jun '04

This is true, but cant I restore a single mailbox Evan though I have data stored on the same vol as my exchange DB using ontrack or will this too cause the same results as restoring the entire exchange DB? Thanks again _____ From: Benn, Paul [mailto:paul.benn@netapp.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 5:09 PM To: SKIP HOFMANN; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Excage databse Hi Skip, The product in question is SnapManager for Exchange 5.5. This version of SME uses a volume based snaprestore to recover the databases (assuming you have the logs and databases on different volumes). What will happen is that when you perform a SME restore you will revert the ENTIRE volume back to that point in time, including your 100GB. This is probably something that you do NOT want to do, unless perhaps, the 100GB of data never changes. In addition to that, the snapshots you create outside of SME will not be usable to restore Exchange. You have two choices: 1) Create a new volume and move all user data that is not part of the Exchange database to that new volume. This is your best option. 2) Configure SME to use one volume for both the databases and the logs. The downside to this is that your restore times will increase significantly because the restore will NOT be using a volume snaprestore. Please let us know if you have any further questions. Happy snappin' Regards, Paul Benn NetApp Engineering SnapManager Team -----Original Message----- From: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 4:43 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Excage databse 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

RE: Excage databse
by Benn, Paul 03 Jun '04

03 Jun '04

Hi Skip, The product in question is SnapManager for Exchange 5.5. This version of SME uses a volume based snaprestore to recover the databases (assuming you have the logs and databases on different volumes). What will happen is that when you perform a SME restore you will revert the ENTIRE volume back to that point in time, including your 100GB. This is probably something that you do NOT want to do, unless perhaps, the 100GB of data never changes. In addition to that, the snapshots you create outside of SME will not be usable to restore Exchange. You have two choices: 1) Create a new volume and move all user data that is not part of the Exchange database to that new volume. This is your best option. 2) Configure SME to use one volume for both the databases and the logs. The downside to this is that your restore times will increase significantly because the restore will NOT be using a volume snaprestore. Please let us know if you have any further questions. Happy snappin' Regards, Paul Benn NetApp Engineering SnapManager Team -----Original Message----- From: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 4:43 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Excage databse 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/sm esag.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

Excage databse
by SKIP HOFMANN 03 Jun '04

03 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 03 Jun '04

03 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

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