toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

Impact of adding disk to filer
by Frank Smith 15 Oct '99

15 Oct '99

What will happen if I add a disk to a volume (NetApp C720)? I learned the hard way that adding the drive to the shelf interrupted all NFS ops for 15 seconds, the docs said it would take that long to add it as a hot spare, but didn't mention that the filer would completely freeze while it did it. If I add a disk to a volume, what will it do to performance, and for how long? I don't mean long-range gains from having the data spread over more spindles, I mean what immediate impact will it have on current NFS clients. Will it just be a temporary increase in CPU as it spreads the data or will it freeze for some period of time, and if so for how long? Current sustained load on the filer is several hundred NFS ops/sec, and any pauses cause significant problems on the client systems, so I want to have a better understanding of what will happen when I give the vol add command before I actually do it. Thanks, Frank -- Frank Smith fsmith(a)hoovers.com Systems Administrator Voice: 512-374-4673 Hoover's Online Fax: 512-374-4501

4 3

RE: Forcing a halt/reboot without "halt -d"
by David Stack 12 Oct '99

12 Oct '99

We had this same problem in the past (coincidence that we both work for the same company?) and were told that it was bug 10186. We're now running version 5.2.3D1 and haven't had the problem in a month or so. Dave **************************************************************************** ************* EMail: dstack(a)nortelnetworks.com Phone: 403-232-4752 Fax: 781-8850 ESN:765 Addr : Nortel Networks; 2924 11 St. NE; Calgary, AB; T2E 7L7;Canada **************************************************************************** ************** > -----Original Message----- > From: Luke Mewburn [SMTP:lukem@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au] > Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 8:47 AM > To: Arden, Bruce [HAL02:8883:EXCH] > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Forcing a halt/reboot without "halt -d" > > "Bruce Arden" writes: > > I have just had to reboot our filer for the second time in about 3 > > months. Both times the reboot failed with the error: > > > > A CIFS I/O operation may be hung. Shutdown the system using halt > > -d > > and report this incident to NetApp. > > > > But I don't want to do a "halt -d". This causes a core dump which > > means that the filer may be down for about 10 mins. Is there a way > > of forcing a halt without using the -d switch (halt on its own just > > gives the CIFS error message again). I'm currently running 5.3.1D5. > > > > - Bruce > > > > PS The problem that caused me to reboot was that I was getting the > > error "Cannot find logon server" from PCs trying to connect to the > > filer. The reboot fixed this. Any ideas? > > A suggestion which won't solve your problems, but may help the boot > time: move savecore to the end of /etc/rc; it speeds up availability > after a boot at the potential expense of corrupting your coredump. > > PS: I have seen the ``can't halt because filer is wedged on CIFS > users'' problem on older 5.x releases (can't remember exact numbers), > but I think we've been OK since 5.3 (now running combination of > 5.3D19 and 5.3.2D4, with the latter on our more loaded systems). I > know this contradicts your experience (since you're running 5.3.1D5), > but you never know; 5.3.2Dx may have fixed something related to this. :-/

5 4

Re: Forcing a halt/reboot without "halt -d"
by Luke Mewburn 12 Oct '99

12 Oct '99

"Bruce Arden" writes: > I have just had to reboot our filer for the second time in about 3 > months. Both times the reboot failed with the error: > > A CIFS I/O operation may be hung. Shutdown the system using halt > -d > and report this incident to NetApp. > > But I don't want to do a "halt -d". This causes a core dump which > means that the filer may be down for about 10 mins. Is there a way > of forcing a halt without using the -d switch (halt on its own just > gives the CIFS error message again). I'm currently running 5.3.1D5. > > - Bruce > > PS The problem that caused me to reboot was that I was getting the > error "Cannot find logon server" from PCs trying to connect to the > filer. The reboot fixed this. Any ideas? A suggestion which won't solve your problems, but may help the boot time: move savecore to the end of /etc/rc; it speeds up availability after a boot at the potential expense of corrupting your coredump. PS: I have seen the ``can't halt because filer is wedged on CIFS users'' problem on older 5.x releases (can't remember exact numbers), but I think we've been OK since 5.3 (now running combination of 5.3D19 and 5.3.2D4, with the latter on our more loaded systems). I know this contradicts your experience (since you're running 5.3.1D5), but you never know; 5.3.2Dx may have fixed something related to this. :-/

3 2

Forcing a halt/reboot without "halt -d"
by Bruce Arden 12 Oct '99

12 Oct '99

I have just had to reboot our filer for the second time in about 3 months. Both times the reboot failed with the error: A CIFS I/O operation may be hung. Shutdown the system using halt -d and report this incident to NetApp. But I don't want to do a "halt -d". This causes a core dump which means that the filer may be down for about 10 mins. Is there a way of forcing a halt without using the -d switch (halt on its own just gives the CIFS error message again). I'm currently running 5.3.1D5. - Bruce PS The problem that caused me to reboot was that I was getting the error "Cannot find logon server" from PCs trying to connect to the filer. The reboot fixed this. Any ideas? -- Bruce Arden arden(a)nortelnetworks.com Nortel, London Rd, Harlow, England +44 1279 40 2877

2 1

Re: Autosupport, 5.2.3 upgrade, diskscrub and wackz
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 12 Oct '99

12 Oct '99

On 10/11/99 07:41:30 you wrote: >The volume could be offline, that's for sure, but why the machine ? This is the result of a less-than-thorough multivolume implementation plan. Originally, there only *was* one volume, so taking the whole filer down wasn't an issue. Presumably when mutlivolume was to be implemented, Netapp decided it was more important to get that out the door than to spend more time and resources modifying a better wack interface to run on an offline volume while the system remained up. Note that this is also different from a request for a completely online wack on an active filesystem, or allowing a filesytem to remain online read-only while being wacked. I still question the utility of the latter, but it might be good as part of an automated process strategy (just as snapshots are created for dump). Anyway, these are all very different enhancements. Netapp will have to decide which ones to implement, and which ones to implement first. Bruce

2 1

Client pack fo NetApp - implementation ???
by Itzik (Itzhak) Meirson DSc 11 Oct '99

11 Oct '99

I wonder how is the backup performed by the new client for NetApp... 1. Is the backup done from a special snapshot or from the "live" files? 2. When defining the NetApp client what directive should be used? I might have missed this information from the docs I have seen. Thanks in advance, Itzik

1 0

Re: Autosupport, 5.2.3 upgrade, diskscrub and wackz
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 11 Oct '99

11 Oct '99

On 10/10/99 12:12:52 you wrote: > > "sirbruce" == sirbruce <sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com> writes: > > sirbruce> The problem is that with a changing filesystem, such > sirbruce> programs could easily report a problem when in fact > sirbruce> there is none. There are some ways around this. > >Huh? If the filesystem is made immutable, it isn't a changing >filesystem. e.g, on a Unix host, this _should_ be safe: > >unmount filesystem. >mount filesystem read-only. >run fsck on filesystem. >remount filesystem read-write. Sure, but for many environments, read-only is not an option. It may be for you, but for others it's still downtime. >Why should I expect downtime? A failed disk is a problem, but it >doesn't cause downtime. A failed power-supply is a problem, but it >also doesn't cause downtime. A failed head is a problem, but in a >cluster, no downtime (well, 60 seconds downtime). NA has designed the >filer to stay up in the face of these problems. So if NA has a check >list of problems and it is working its way down the check list to keep >filers up in the face of these problems, then "file-system >health-check and fix" needs to be added to that list. Sure, it isn't a >common occurance, but clearly it happens often enough for NA to have >written wack and constantly improved it over the years. I'm arguing >that the next improvement is to allow wack to be run on an on-line >filer. Upgrading your software/firmware/disk firmware is more common. So is adding new cards into the system. Yet you expect downtime on those. So if what was most common was the measure of importance, then these should be worked on before an on-line wack. I agree online wack is a good thing to have, but I guess I'm satisfied in seeing Netapp concentrate on other bugs and features first. I wasn't arguing that it shouldn't be done. Bruce

4 3

Re: Autosupport, 5.2.3 upgrade, diskscrub and wackz
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 11 Oct '99

11 Oct '99

On 10/10/99 02:59:52 you wrote: > > "alexei" == alexei <alexei(a)mindspring.net> writes: > >> this rather distressing. The filer really needs a way to perform a >> filesystem health check w/o downtime. > > alexei> Like running fsck on a mounted filesystem? Some things are > alexei> better done in a quiesced state... > >The filer is not a Unix host serving NFS. I expect more out of it. I >didn't say it needed to correct errors while serving content, I said >it needed to be able to do a health-check. If you go back to my >original message, I mentioned that if it required an immutable >filesystem to do this, then you should be able to tag a filesystem >(not just an export) read only. The raid scrubbing is indeed meant to be such a check, although it is not filesystem-based. >You can btw, run fsck on a mounted filesystem. Solaris happily runs >'fsck -n' on a mounted file system (yes, I know, it will also happily >run 'rm -rf /' which doesn't mean you should do it - lot's of rope and >whatnot). Linux will run e2fsck after making some noise. I don't see >any reason why this would be dangerous on a filesystem mounted read >only. The problem is that with a changing filesystem, such programs could easily report a problem when in fact there is none. There are some ways around this. Personally, while I think this should be on Netapp's agenda, there are more important things as well. Wack has been improved and now runs much faster than before. You should expect some downtime to happen when problems occur; having parity inconsistencies is *not* a normal occurrance and should not happen often. Bruce

3 2

Releasing file locks on the Netapp
by Brian Tao 10 Oct '99

10 Oct '99

Is there a way to force the Netapp to forget about specific locks? I know how to get the Netapp to forget about *all* locks from a particular client, but I don't always want that. My specific problem is with the FrontPage extensions on Solaris (using Apache as the web server). Once in a while, the extensions think there is another instance running. It determines this by attempting to lock a file called vti_pvt/service.lck . I can run lock_dump on the Netapp and see the inode and client- side pid that was granted the lock, but in some cases that pid is no longer extant. All the FP documentation I've seen says "kill off the hung process", which doesn't apply here. I've been able to work around the problem each time simply by renaming/removing the service.lck file, but I thought I should at least investigate the possibility of removing entries from the Netapp's table of locks. -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

1 0

Re: Autosupport, 5.2.3 upgrade, diskscrub and wackz
by alexei＠mindspring.net 10 Oct '99

10 Oct '99

Jay Soffian <jay(a)cimedia.com> writes: > Do parity errors during a disk scrub necessarily indicate something is > wrong with the filesystem? Not neccessarily. > this rather distressing. The filer really needs a way to perform a > filesystem health check w/o downtime. Like running fsck on a mounted filesystem? Some things are better done in a quiesced state... >NA also needs to publish > accurate timing data on wack via NOW. The only document I can find has > ancient data. There are way too many variables to that equation. It depends on the version of the OS, the version of wack, etc. I have seen times when running the incorrect version of wack yielded 3 hour wack's (before someone mentioned this should not be the case; we restarted with the proper version). A similar table that would be nice is raid reconstruct speeds based on volume size, filer load and disk size. Now that would be interesting.. :) Alex

3 2

Re: nfs.tcp.enable option
by alexei＠mindspring.net 10 Oct '99

10 Oct '99

"Eyal Traitel" <r55789(a)email.sps.mot.com> writes: > It created a complete havoc for our site when we were with tcp (apps hangups > etc.) There were also some pretty substantial bugs with NFS over TCP. For a while NetApp shipped the filers with the option set to on, but after a while they set it to off by default. The problems I had experienced (a while ago; I have not needed to look into the tcp option again) was that after a while the client would not be able to talk to the filer. Something about the sequence numbers not being quite right. At any rate, thorough testing with your client sets would be a good thing to do before going live with it. Alex

1 0

Re: downgrading from 5.3.1 to 5.2.3
by Mike Smith 10 Oct '99

10 Oct '99

> > "Puneet" == Puneet Anand <puneet(a)netapp.com> writes: > > > > Puneet> Jay, This might help > > > > Puneet> http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/contents/TIP/TIP_502.shtml > > > > Excellent. FYI - A search on "Downgrading" from NOW with all options > > checked didn't return that document. > > > > j. > > Hi Jay, > downgrading would not return the document but "revert" > would. Hope that helps. > > No, not really. The issue is that I wasn't able to find this document > using the search engine. The process I was looking for is called > downgrading, not reverting. The title of the document is "Downgrading > the Filer from Data ONTAP 5.3 through 3.1.6". I would therefor expect > a search on "downgrading" to return this document. While the filer > command is "revert_to", I didn't know this (if I did, I probably > wouldn't have needed this document in the first place). Ok. The point of sending the info was simply to give you the term to search on if you should ever need the document/procedure again. Sorry for any mis-communication. Just trying to be helpful. Indeed you are correct the process is downgrading. I guess the term revert is a Network Appliance term. I will cc the now-admin(a)netapp.com and have them include the meta-tag downgrade and downgrading to the document so that a search on those terms returns the document you had hoped to find. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Smith mikesmit(a)netapp.com http://now.netapp.com 408-822-4755 Technical Support Engineer ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Thanks. > > j. > -- > Jay Soffian <jay(a)cimedia.com> UNIX Systems Engineer > 404.572.1941 Cox Interactive Media

2 1

nfs.tcp.enable option
by Graham Knight 09 Oct '99

09 Oct '99

All our filers do NFS using UDP. If i turn the nfs.tcp.enable option to on, does it *add* that capability, or does it do it one way or the other? Thanks, Graham

3 2

Re: open bugs / closed bugs
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 09 Oct '99

09 Oct '99

On 10/08/99 10:59:26 you wrote: >In searching for a bug on NOW, I've noticed that a majority of bugs >are still in the open state. Does this mean these bugs have not been >fixed? I always assumed open bugs were the ones that have not been fixed in a current release, yes. Note that NOW doesn't list all bugs, either, so there are probably a lot of bugs that are fixed that never make it on there. Customers probably want to know more about known bugs with workarounds than those without workarounds or have been fixed. >What does the 'release fix' column refer to? Does this mean the bug >applies only to that specific release, or that the bug was fixed in >that release, or that the bug was first noticed in that release? I always thought it meant the bug is (believed to be) fixed in that release (and all future ones based from it). >Are bugs numbered in a strictly sequential order? They used to be. >If so, how is it >that bug #289 applies to release 5.3? I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you surprised than a bug discovered years ago may have not yet been fixed? That's not unusual if the bug is rare or difficult to replicate, or requires some new features to resolve the problem. >It would be nice to see the bug tracking system be setup more clearly, >perhaps with the following fields: > >Date bug opened. >Date bug closed. >First release bug noticed. >Releases which contain bug. >First release which fixed bug. >State: (opened, analyzed, solved, fix incorporated into release). I thought NOW did contain that information (other than the dates), or was at least supposed to in the ideal world. Note it is a non-trivial problem to list all releases wich contain a bug, especially before the relevant code has been analyzed (which is generally very close to the time it would be fixed). So for an open bug, it is often going to be hard to trust that the bug isn't in your release as well, be it younger or older than the one in which the problem was first spotted. >I'd have to guess that the NOW bug system is not the same system used >internally by NA engineers. It used to be based of/integrated with it. Perhaps that has changed. Bruce

1 0

downgrading from 5.3.1 to 5.2.3
by Jay Soffian 08 Oct '99

08 Oct '99

How would one go about downgrading an F540 from 5.3.1 to 5.2.3? This is not a production filer. Couldn't find anything on NOW. j.

2 2

Autosupport, 5.2.3 upgrade, diskscrub and wackz
by Jay Soffian 08 Oct '99

08 Oct '99

We recently upgraded our clustered F740 pair to 5.2.3 from 5.2.2. This necessitated an upgrade of the firmware from 2.1_a2 to 2.2_a2, as well as a disk firmware upgrade from FB37 to FB59. On one of our filers, the first disk scrub that ran after the upgrade (6 days after the upgrade) found a bunch on parity inconsistencies: Sun Oct 3 02:50:39 EDT [viking: consumer]: Scrub found 212 parity inconsistencies Sun Oct 3 02:50:39 EDT [viking: consumer]: Scrub found 0 media errors Sun Oct 3 02:50:39 EDT [viking: consumer]: Disk scrubbing finished... Apparently, with 5.2.3 the filer now generates autosupport mail on disk scrubs, so a couple days after this scrub, I received email from NetApp that they had noticed the error. (This is two anomalous autosupport emails in a row that NetApp has opened cases on, so I'd like to acknowledge NA on that.) NA's recommendation was to re-run a disk scrub (which I did, and it completed w/o finding any errors) and then to run wackz (which I haven't done). Unforunately, I cannot find _any_ documentation on wackz on NOW. I've also searched the toasters archive for wackz and didn't find much. In particular, I'd like to know how much downtime I'm going to be saddled with. NA claims that wackz can process 25 million inodes/hour. Given: viking> df -i Filesystem iused ifree %iused Mounted on /vol/cim0a/ 1057771 2593665 29% /vol/cim0a/ that means the wackz should complete in < 10 minutes. From what I've heard about wack, I find this hard to believe (I've heard stories of wack running for 8+ hours). Or I'm missing something? I'm interested in hearing from anyone who has run wackz on a similar configuration and how long it took to complete. This filer has 21 9GB disks. The cim0a volume is composed of 3 raid groups (5+1, 5+1, 4+1). The vol0 volume is composed of a single raid group (1+1). BTW - I'm still not clear on the difference between wack and wackz. The previous explanation to toasters (wackz runs faster, does things in an optimized fashion) wasn't very enlightening. wack must do something above and beyond wackz (or the other way around), otherwise why would both still be included in DOT? RFE: It would be nice if the filer could run a wack (read-only) and report inconsistencies so that I could check the file system w/o downtime. If the filer requires an immutable filesystem to run wack, then DOT should allow you to tag a whole volume as read-only. I'd like to thank Ron Thibault of NA for his assistance so far. j. -- Jay Soffian <jay(a)cimedia.com> UNIX Systems Engineer 404.572.1941 Cox Interactive Media

3 3

RE: Max number of drives.
by Alvarado, Michael 08 Oct '99

08 Oct '99

This also applies to the F630. It is 1.39 TB to be exact. -----Original Message----- From: tkaczma(a)gryf.net [mailto:tkaczma@gryf.net] Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 5:13 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Max number of drives. On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Alvarado, Michael wrote: > Yes you look at the maximum storage capacity the OS supports. In the case of > the F760, it is 1.4TB. What about an F630 running the same OS? Tom

1 0

Re: File locking, sendmail and toasters
by alexei＠mindspring.net 08 Oct '99

08 Oct '99

Nick Hilliard <nick(a)iol.ie> writes: > If you need to have text-based NFS-mounted client mailboxes, the only > reliable option is to use a mailbox format which doesn't require locking, > such as Maildir. Depending on what access is provided to the mail spool, yes, maildir is a safer, viable format. Check procmail for to use as an LDA for this or look a qmail for some other thoughts on how this is done. But not all instances can work with this. If you have shell users that do funky stuff based on the mbox format, this can be a problem. There are plenty of other cases where maildir is not a viable alternative to mbox. I hope you find what you need. Alex

3 2

What Radius servers are recommended to work with the Netcache Appliance?
by Mike Ball 08 Oct '99

08 Oct '99

What Radius servers are recommended or have been tested with the Netcache appliance? Mike Ball Open System Solutions, Inc. 3124 Spring Forest Rd Raleigh, NC 27616 Fax: 919-871-6308 Vmail: 919-871-6301 ext. 311 Email: mball(a)opensystems.com Http: www.opensystems.com

1 0

open bugs / closed bugs
by Jay Soffian 08 Oct '99

08 Oct '99

In searching for a bug on NOW, I've noticed that a majority of bugs are still in the open state. Does this mean these bugs have not been fixed? What does the 'release fix' column refer to? Does this mean the bug applies only to that specific release, or that the bug was fixed in that release, or that the bug was first noticed in that release? Are bugs numbered in a strictly sequential order? If so, how is it that bug #289 applies to release 5.3? It would be nice to see the bug tracking system be setup more clearly, perhaps with the following fields: Date bug opened. Date bug closed. First release bug noticed. Releases which contain bug. First release which fixed bug. State: (opened, analyzed, solved, fix incorporated into release). I'd have to guess that the NOW bug system is not the same system used internally by NA engineers. j. -- Jay Soffian <jay(a)cimedia.com> UNIX Systems Engineer 404.572.1941 Cox Interactive Media

1 0

RE: Max number of drives.
by Alvarado, Michael 08 Oct '99

08 Oct '99

Yes you look at the maximum storage capacity the OS supports. In the case of the F760, it is 1.4TB. -----Original Message----- From: Jason Middlebrooks [mailto:Jason_Middlebrooks@datalink.com] Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 1:37 PM To: Thompson, Arnold Cc: Mohler, Jeff; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Max number of drives. I am not concerned about mixing the drives in the volume because like drive will be in there own raidgroup. I am just wondering about the max number of drives. All the docs say 28 18Gig drives and 56 9Gig drives in a loop. But what if you have 21 18Gig drives and 14 9Gig drives? Do you look at the maximum Storage Capacity to determine how many total drive you can have when you mix them? Thanks Jason "Thompson, Arnold" <arnold.thompson(a)netapp.com> on 10/07/99 03:46:34 PM To: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler(a)netapp.com>, Jason Middlebrooks/Datalink, toasters(a)mathworks.com cc: Subject: RE: Max number of drives. I recall from mixing 9s and 18s at a customer site that you *can* add the 18s to an existing volume of 9s and still get 18G worth (minus filesystem overhead, snaps, etc.) from each 18G drive. The first 18G drive becomes parity and the 9G parity becomes a data drive (so you get 9G additional capacity from the first 18G drive), but after that you should get 18 and not 9. Historically, you've been able to mix and match with the filer doing the right thing. It is true that if a 9G drive fails and there is no 9G spare, it will rebuild on an 18G drive but you will only get 9G on that rebuilt drive. So be sure to have a spare of each size available. If anybody has tested this with different results I could be completely nuts, so please educate us! It is important to make the 9G shelves the lowest order shelves for FCAL loop initialization purposes, so make the 9G shelves numbers 0 and 1. Regards, Arnie > -----Original Message----- > From: Mohler, Jeff [mailto:jeff.mohler@netapp.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 11:38 AM > To: 'Jason Middlebrooks'; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Max number of drives. > > > Sure, no problem. > > But when you add them to a volume (if you are not creating a > new one) make sure > you add them to the volume made up of 18G drives. (That is, > if the 18G drives > are a separate volume from the 9G ones). > > If you mix/max drive sizes in a volume, the larger drives > will appear only to be > the size of the smallest drive in the array. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Middlebrooks [mailto:Jason_Middlebrooks@datalink.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 12:01 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Max number of drives. > > > Question. > > I have 14 9Gig drives and 14 18Gig drives. So a total of 28 > drives. Can I > add 7 more 18Gig drives on the same loop? > > The filer is a F760 > > Thanks in advance > Jason Middlebrooks >

2 1

RE: Max number of drives.
by Palinckx, Gregory 08 Oct '99

08 Oct '99

Hi Jason, There is a 56 drive hardware limit per FC-AL loop. There is also a total capacity software restriction. I believe this is a F760, so the software restriction will be about 1.4TB. Greg > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Middlebrooks [mailto:Jason_Middlebrooks@datalink.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 2:37 PM > To: Thompson, Arnold > Cc: Mohler, Jeff; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Max number of drives. > > > I am not concerned about mixing the drives in the volume > because like drive > will be in there own raidgroup. I am just wondering about > the max number > of drives. All the docs say 28 18Gig drives and 56 9Gig > drives in a loop. > But what if you have 21 18Gig drives and 14 9Gig drives? Do > you look at > the maximum Storage Capacity to determine how many total > drive you can have > when you mix them? > > Thanks > Jason > > > > > > "Thompson, Arnold" <arnold.thompson(a)netapp.com> on 10/07/99 > 03:46:34 PM > > To: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler(a)netapp.com>, Jason > Middlebrooks/Datalink, > toasters(a)mathworks.com > cc: > Subject: RE: Max number of drives. > > > > > I recall from mixing 9s and 18s at a customer site that you > *can* add the > 18s to > an existing volume of 9s and still get 18G worth (minus filesystem > overhead, > snaps, etc.) from each 18G drive. The first 18G drive > becomes parity and > the 9G > parity becomes a data drive (so you get 9G additional > capacity from the > first > 18G drive), but after that you should get 18 and not 9. Historically, > you've > been able to mix and match with the filer doing the right > thing. It is > true > that if a 9G drive fails and there is no 9G spare, it will > rebuild on an > 18G > drive but you will only get 9G on that rebuilt drive. So be > sure to have a > spare of each size available. If anybody has tested this > with different > results > I could be completely nuts, so please educate us! > > It is important to make the 9G shelves the lowest order > shelves for FCAL > loop > initialization purposes, so make the 9G shelves numbers 0 and 1. > > Regards, > Arnie > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mohler, Jeff [mailto:jeff.mohler@netapp.com] > > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 11:38 AM > > To: 'Jason Middlebrooks'; toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: RE: Max number of drives. > > > > > > Sure, no problem. > > > > But when you add them to a volume (if you are not creating a > > new one) make sure > > you add them to the volume made up of 18G drives. (That is, > > if the 18G drives > > are a separate volume from the 9G ones). > > > > If you mix/max drive sizes in a volume, the larger drives > > will appear only to be > > the size of the smallest drive in the array. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jason Middlebrooks [mailto:Jason_Middlebrooks@datalink.com] > > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 12:01 PM > > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: Max number of drives. > > > > > > Question. > > > > I have 14 9Gig drives and 14 18Gig drives. So a total of 28 > > drives. Can I > > add 7 more 18Gig drives on the same loop? > > > > The filer is a F760 > > > > Thanks in advance > > Jason Middlebrooks > > > > >

2 1

RE: Max number of drives.
by Jason Middlebrooks 07 Oct '99

07 Oct '99

I am not concerned about mixing the drives in the volume because like drive will be in there own raidgroup. I am just wondering about the max number of drives. All the docs say 28 18Gig drives and 56 9Gig drives in a loop. But what if you have 21 18Gig drives and 14 9Gig drives? Do you look at the maximum Storage Capacity to determine how many total drive you can have when you mix them? Thanks Jason "Thompson, Arnold" <arnold.thompson(a)netapp.com> on 10/07/99 03:46:34 PM To: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler(a)netapp.com>, Jason Middlebrooks/Datalink, toasters(a)mathworks.com cc: Subject: RE: Max number of drives. I recall from mixing 9s and 18s at a customer site that you *can* add the 18s to an existing volume of 9s and still get 18G worth (minus filesystem overhead, snaps, etc.) from each 18G drive. The first 18G drive becomes parity and the 9G parity becomes a data drive (so you get 9G additional capacity from the first 18G drive), but after that you should get 18 and not 9. Historically, you've been able to mix and match with the filer doing the right thing. It is true that if a 9G drive fails and there is no 9G spare, it will rebuild on an 18G drive but you will only get 9G on that rebuilt drive. So be sure to have a spare of each size available. If anybody has tested this with different results I could be completely nuts, so please educate us! It is important to make the 9G shelves the lowest order shelves for FCAL loop initialization purposes, so make the 9G shelves numbers 0 and 1. Regards, Arnie > -----Original Message----- > From: Mohler, Jeff [mailto:jeff.mohler@netapp.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 11:38 AM > To: 'Jason Middlebrooks'; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Max number of drives. > > > Sure, no problem. > > But when you add them to a volume (if you are not creating a > new one) make sure > you add them to the volume made up of 18G drives. (That is, > if the 18G drives > are a separate volume from the 9G ones). > > If you mix/max drive sizes in a volume, the larger drives > will appear only to be > the size of the smallest drive in the array. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Middlebrooks [mailto:Jason_Middlebrooks@datalink.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 12:01 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Max number of drives. > > > Question. > > I have 14 9Gig drives and 14 18Gig drives. So a total of 28 > drives. Can I > add 7 more 18Gig drives on the same loop? > > The filer is a F760 > > Thanks in advance > Jason Middlebrooks >

1 0

RE: Max number of drives.
by Palinckx, Gregory 07 Oct '99

07 Oct '99

Hi All - Unless something has changed in the 5.3 days, Arnie is correct - you can add 18s to a 9GB group and get 18(17)GB. Here is a sysconfig from a customer out here - RAID group 0 RAID Disk HA.ID HA SHELF BAY CHAN Used (MB/blks) Phys (MB/blks) --------- ----- ------------ ---- -------------- -------------- parity 0a.11 0a 1 3 FC:A 17000/34816000 17366/35566480 data 0a.5 0a 0 5 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 0a.1 0a 0 1 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 0a.2 0a 0 2 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 0a.3 0a 0 3 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 0a.6 0a 0 6 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 0a.4 0a 0 4 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 0a.13 0a 1 5 FC:A 17000/34816000 17366/35566480 data 0a.12 0a 1 4 FC:A 17000/34816000 17366/35566480 data 0a.9 0a 1 1 FC:A 17000/34816000 17366/35566480 I would just be sure that you have enough 18s to get a decent stripe.... Greg SE - Rockies > -----Original Message----- > From: Mohler, Jeff [mailto:jeff.mohler@netapp.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 1:50 PM > To: Thompson, Arnold; 'Jason Middlebrooks'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: RE: Max number of drives. > > > Im scratching some documents here.. > > I could have swore the last time I asked that I was told the > larger drives would > be counted as the smaller capacity drives after the parity drive. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thompson, Arnold > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 12:47 PM > To: Mohler, Jeff; 'Jason Middlebrooks'; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Max number of drives. > > > I recall from mixing 9s and 18s at a customer site that you > *can* add the 18s to > an existing volume of 9s and still get 18G worth (minus > filesystem overhead, > snaps, etc.) from each 18G drive. The first 18G drive > becomes parity and the 9G > parity becomes a data drive (so you get 9G additional > capacity from the first > 18G drive), but after that you should get 18 and not 9. > Historically, you've > been able to mix and match with the filer doing the right > thing. It is true > that if a 9G drive fails and there is no 9G spare, it will > rebuild on an 18G > drive but you will only get 9G on that rebuilt drive. So be > sure to have a > spare of each size available. If anybody has tested this > with different results > I could be completely nuts, so please educate us! > > It is important to make the 9G shelves the lowest order > shelves for FCAL loop > initialization purposes, so make the 9G shelves numbers 0 and 1. > > Regards, > Arnie > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mohler, Jeff [mailto:jeff.mohler@netapp.com] > > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 11:38 AM > > To: 'Jason Middlebrooks'; toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: RE: Max number of drives. > > > > > > Sure, no problem. > > > > But when you add them to a volume (if you are not creating a > > new one) make sure > > you add them to the volume made up of 18G drives. (That is, > > if the 18G drives > > are a separate volume from the 9G ones). > > > > If you mix/max drive sizes in a volume, the larger drives > > will appear only to be > > the size of the smallest drive in the array. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jason Middlebrooks [mailto:Jason_Middlebrooks@datalink.com] > > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 12:01 PM > > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: Max number of drives. > > > > > > Question. > > > > I have 14 9Gig drives and 14 18Gig drives. So a total of 28 > > drives. Can I > > add 7 more 18Gig drives on the same loop? > > > > The filer is a F760 > > > > Thanks in advance > > Jason Middlebrooks > > >

1 0

RE: Max number of drives.
by Mohler, Jeff 07 Oct '99

07 Oct '99

Im scratching some documents here.. I could have swore the last time I asked that I was told the larger drives would be counted as the smaller capacity drives after the parity drive. -----Original Message----- From: Thompson, Arnold Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 12:47 PM To: Mohler, Jeff; 'Jason Middlebrooks'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Max number of drives. I recall from mixing 9s and 18s at a customer site that you *can* add the 18s to an existing volume of 9s and still get 18G worth (minus filesystem overhead, snaps, etc.) from each 18G drive. The first 18G drive becomes parity and the 9G parity becomes a data drive (so you get 9G additional capacity from the first 18G drive), but after that you should get 18 and not 9. Historically, you've been able to mix and match with the filer doing the right thing. It is true that if a 9G drive fails and there is no 9G spare, it will rebuild on an 18G drive but you will only get 9G on that rebuilt drive. So be sure to have a spare of each size available. If anybody has tested this with different results I could be completely nuts, so please educate us! It is important to make the 9G shelves the lowest order shelves for FCAL loop initialization purposes, so make the 9G shelves numbers 0 and 1. Regards, Arnie > -----Original Message----- > From: Mohler, Jeff [mailto:jeff.mohler@netapp.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 11:38 AM > To: 'Jason Middlebrooks'; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Max number of drives. > > > Sure, no problem. > > But when you add them to a volume (if you are not creating a > new one) make sure > you add them to the volume made up of 18G drives. (That is, > if the 18G drives > are a separate volume from the 9G ones). > > If you mix/max drive sizes in a volume, the larger drives > will appear only to be > the size of the smallest drive in the array. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Middlebrooks [mailto:Jason_Middlebrooks@datalink.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 12:01 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Max number of drives. > > > Question. > > I have 14 9Gig drives and 14 18Gig drives. So a total of 28 > drives. Can I > add 7 more 18Gig drives on the same loop? > > The filer is a F760 > > Thanks in advance > Jason Middlebrooks >

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters