toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

RE: 1 disk shelf with 1 head....using just aggr0
by Fox, Adam 24 Jan '07

24 Jan '07

I would just grow out aggr0 and save the space. There are only a few corner cases where having a dedicated root aggr makes any sense and they are rare. So while it may be nice to have, I wouldn't bother on a system of that size. It would, indeed, be a horrible waster of space. With one shelf of disks, 99% of customers should set up a single RAID-DP aggregate with a single spare. There are exceptions, but without knowing anything else about your environment or future growth plans, that's what I'd do. -- Adam Fox adamfox(a)netapp.com _____ From: Linux Admin [mailto:sysadmin.linux@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 2:39 PM To: NetApp Toasters List Subject: 1 disk shelf with 1 head....using just aggr0 Would anyone recommend not using/growing aggr0 if I only have 1 disk shelf Currently I have 1 vol0 in agr0 (1 data disk + 2 paratiy) I would think that creating a second aggr would be just enormous wast of 300GB disks What is the best practice? Should I just grow the aggr0? Thanks

1 0

1 disk shelf with 1 head....using just aggr0
by Linux Admin 24 Jan '07

24 Jan '07

Would anyone recommend not using/growing aggr0 if I only have 1 disk shelf Currently I have 1 vol0 in agr0 (1 data disk + 2 paratiy) I would think that creating a second aggr would be just enormous wast of 300GB disks What is the best practice? Should I just grow the aggr0? Thanks

1 0

NFS equivalent of "cifs top"?
by Jeff Mery 24 Jan '07

24 Jan '07

Anyone know if this exists? "nfs stat -l" kind of give me what I want, but I'd really like it in the format of cifs top if possible. When the ops for CIFS look out of whack for some reason, it's really easy to find the culprit via cifs top. Would be great to have for nfs too. Jeff Mery - MCSE, MCP National Instruments ------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Allow me to extol the virtues of the Net Fairy, and of all the fantastic dorks that make the nice packets go from here to there. Amen." TB - Penny Arcade -------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

RE: netapp certified expert
by Herbert.Langenbach＠shell.com 23 Jan '07

23 Jan '07

if this day to day administration includes OSSV, MetroCluster, SnapLock and some other nice NetApp stuff your chances are better than zero. But if you get your hands on the official training material your chances are excellent. Herbert NACE -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]On Behalf Of Leeds, Daniel Sent: dinsdag 23 januari 2007 18:51 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: netapp certified expert has anyone completed the netapp certified expert exams? coming from a day to day administration level on filers for many years im interested in what sort of topics they cover and if they are geared towards the real world or more of a training course regurgitation. in so many other vendor/system certs the exams focus on trivial and unrealistic aspects of adminstration--for example, sun certs focusing on adding printers and users via the gui---puhlease. mostly im just trying to figure out if someone could reasonably take the tests on experience alone or do i need to shell out 15K plus on all the little courses to get the courseware and then cram that. thanks -- Daniel Leeds Senior Systems Administrator Edmunds.com

1 0

RE: Aggregate expansion
by Glenn Walker 23 Jan '07

23 Jan '07

There's also the 'schedule-able' command 'wafl reallocate' that does the same thing. It's very useful, though there is some debate on exactly what happens when snapshots are taken into consideration. Generally speaking, if there is adequate free space, and the data in question is deemed 'fragmented' by the scanner, then it will move it. Not that it much matters, but adding disks to an existing RG vs adding a new RG is about the same: when data is written within an RG, it is striped across the disks in such a fashion that each disk gets x number of contiguous blocks, then it writes to the next disk (64 or 128 depending on the version of ONTAP and disk type). Parity is calculated per stripe. When writing across multiple RGs, WAFL decides how much data per RG to write (tetris, but not the game) and breaks up the writes per RG in this manner. I believe this is in 64MB chunks. Either way, the data is written to the location where the best example of contiguous free space exists. Glenn ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Dekhayser Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 3:22 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Aggregate expansion All; It was my understanding that you can alleviate the pain caused by an uneven expansion of disks as mentioned below by performing a wafl scan reallocate, anyone have info to contrary? Glenn ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Fox, Adam Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 2:30 PM To: Suresh Rajagopalan; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Aggregate expansion That depends greatly on the values of N and n, as well as the RAID group size of the aggregate. Done according to best practices, there will be almost no difference. Done poorly, it can make all the difference in the world. My personal view (I'm in no position to speak officially for NetApp) on this to add disks to an aggregate in one of 2 multiples: 1) a whole RG at a time 2) half a RG at a time. This typically allows for a sufficient number of free disks such that you should not expect any noticable performance difference. I realize that not all sites can implement this, but let's look at a worst practice: N = n+1 Fill up the aggregate, then add 1 disk. Ouch! This hurts! So you've seen what I consider to be the best case for adding space, and you've seen the worst case. So how close you are to these extremes should give you can idea of what to expect. I know this isn't a simple answer, but I believe it to be accruate. -- Adam Fox adamfox(a)netapp.com ________________________________ From: Suresh Rajagopalan [mailto:SRajagopalan@williamoneil.com] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 12:46 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Aggregate expansion Is there any difference between creating an aggregate on a certain number of disks (say n) , and then later expanding the aggregate to N disks, as opposed to creating the initial aggregate on N disks? Suresh

1 0

RE: Aggregate expansion
by Ledbetter, Jason 22 Jan '07

22 Jan '07

Moving from 14->56, no. WAFL does not immediately go and lay out the original data again across all disks. As such, initially new writes should get spread across all of these disks. Thus, one might see a read difference in the near-term that would smooth out over time (IOW, reads from the 'old' 14 disks can only come from those 14 disks.. whereas new reads can come from all 56 disks). (To Rich's point, if you say, went from 56 to 60 disks, the possibility for new writes to go to just the 4 disks for a period of time exists as WAFL "levels" itself out over time.. that would be "hot" disks.) Hope this helps. -jbl -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Rajagopalan [mailto:SRajagopalan@williamoneil.com] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 2:29 PM To: Borders, Rich; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Aggregate expansion I mean with existing data on the aggregate. To clarify, say I first create an aggregate with 14 disks (and default raid size). Then this aggregate is populated with data. After a period of time the aggregate is expanded by adding disks, say to 56 disks. The question is, is there a difference (in performance, efficiency) between the aggregate as described above and an aggregate that was originally created from all 56 disks? Suresh -----Original Message----- From: Borders, Rich [mailto:Rich.Borders@netapp.com] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 11:25 AM To: Suresh Rajagopalan; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Aggregate expansion Yes... You can make hot disks happen. Do you mean without adding any data? Richard D Borders CPR Escalations Engineer RTP, North Carolina USA - Network Appliance, Inc. Email: rborders(a)netapp.com Phone:(919) 476-5236 Cell: (919) 606-5099 Fax: (919) 476-5608 > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Rajagopalan [mailto:SRajagopalan@williamoneil.com] > Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 12:46 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Aggregate expansion > > Is there any difference between creating an aggregate on a certain > number of disks (say n) , and then later expanding the aggregate to N > disks, as opposed to creating the initial aggregate on N disks? > > > > Suresh > >

1 0

RE: Aggregate expansion
by Fox, Adam 22 Jan '07

22 Jan '07

That depends greatly on the values of N and n, as well as the RAID group size of the aggregate. Done according to best practices, there will be almost no difference. Done poorly, it can make all the difference in the world. My personal view (I'm in no position to speak officially for NetApp) on this to add disks to an aggregate in one of 2 multiples: 1) a whole RG at a time 2) half a RG at a time. This typically allows for a sufficient number of free disks such that you should not expect any noticable performance difference. I realize that not all sites can implement this, but let's look at a worst practice: N = n+1 Fill up the aggregate, then add 1 disk. Ouch! This hurts! So you've seen what I consider to be the best case for adding space, and you've seen the worst case. So how close you are to these extremes should give you can idea of what to expect. I know this isn't a simple answer, but I believe it to be accruate. -- Adam Fox adamfox(a)netapp.com _____ From: Suresh Rajagopalan [mailto:SRajagopalan@williamoneil.com] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 12:46 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Aggregate expansion Is there any difference between creating an aggregate on a certain number of disks (say n) , and then later expanding the aggregate to N disks, as opposed to creating the initial aggregate on N disks? Suresh

2 1

RE: Aggregate expansion
by Suresh Rajagopalan 22 Jan '07

22 Jan '07

I mean with existing data on the aggregate. To clarify, say I first create an aggregate with 14 disks (and default raid size). Then this aggregate is populated with data. After a period of time the aggregate is expanded by adding disks, say to 56 disks. The question is, is there a difference (in performance, efficiency) between the aggregate as described above and an aggregate that was originally created from all 56 disks? Suresh -----Original Message----- From: Borders, Rich [mailto:Rich.Borders@netapp.com] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 11:25 AM To: Suresh Rajagopalan; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Aggregate expansion Yes... You can make hot disks happen. Do you mean without adding any data? Richard D Borders CPR Escalations Engineer RTP, North Carolina USA - Network Appliance, Inc. Email: rborders(a)netapp.com Phone:(919) 476-5236 Cell: (919) 606-5099 Fax: (919) 476-5608 > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Rajagopalan [mailto:SRajagopalan@williamoneil.com] > Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 12:46 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Aggregate expansion > > Is there any difference between creating an aggregate on a certain > number of disks (say n) , and then later expanding the aggregate to N > disks, as opposed to creating the initial aggregate on N disks? > > > > Suresh > >

2 1

Aggregate expansion
by Suresh Rajagopalan 22 Jan '07

22 Jan '07

Is there any difference between creating an aggregate on a certain number of disks (say n) , and then later expanding the aggregate to N disks, as opposed to creating the initial aggregate on N disks? Suresh

2 1

RE: Aggregate expansion
by Borders, Rich 22 Jan '07

22 Jan '07

Yes... You can make hot disks happen. Do you mean without adding any data? Richard D Borders CPR Escalations Engineer RTP, North Carolina USA - Network Appliance, Inc. Email: rborders(a)netapp.com Phone:(919) 476-5236 Cell: (919) 606-5099 Fax: (919) 476-5608 > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Rajagopalan [mailto:SRajagopalan@williamoneil.com] > Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 12:46 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Aggregate expansion > > Is there any difference between creating an aggregate on a certain > number of disks (say n) , and then later expanding the aggregate to N > disks, as opposed to creating the initial aggregate on N disks? > > > > Suresh > >

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