toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

RE: Aggregate expansion
by Suresh Rajagopalan 30 Jan '07

30 Jan '07

Thanks for all the responses. This is to meet an IOPS objective. I've run reallocate scans on the LUN's before, but it is not clear if that has done anything. Does a reallocate scan force the data to spread out on more spindles? Suresh -----Original Message----- From: Blake Golliher [mailto:thelastman@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 12:06 PM To: Suresh Rajagopalan Cc: Borders, Rich; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Aggregate expansion That sounds fair. The thing you'll need to keep in mind is that all your data written to the 14 disks that you first created. After you add on the other set of disks, the data you write will likely be put there, since that's where the most free contiguous space is. So if you are adding spindles for the space you need, and not to meet an IOP objective, you should be ok. If you are adding more disks, in an attempt to give more disk iop resources to the already existing data set, then it's a bit harder. If you have enough space, you can use reallocate to re spread out the data across the spindles. Hope that helps, -Blake On 1/22/07, Suresh Rajagopalan <SRajagopalan(a)williamoneil.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > >

3 3

RE: wafliron output -- is wafl OK?
by Glenn Walker 27 Jan '07

27 Jan '07

I assume you mean aggregate vs volume snapshots? WAFL creates snapshots at the volume level, not the qtree level. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Christian Mikovits Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 7:34 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: wafliron output -- is wafl OK? Hi. I guess you're running a 7.2 version of ONTAP. I've got the same problems using snapshots with 7.2. You should upgrade to 7.2.1p1 as soon as possible; and for safety avoid volume snapshots on the filer --> use qtree snapshots instead at the moment 7.2 is a piece of crab, just my 2cents. cool features but really buggy. useless ha for lots of money :( On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:56:29 +0100 "Willeke, Jochen" <Jochen.Willeke(a)wincor-nixdorf.com> wrote: > Hi, > > first thanks a lot for your answers. We had an issue with the an > inconsistency in a snapshot. First we set the regarding volume offline > and used a snapmirror dest to recover the data. Now we copied the data > onto a testfiler and currently i am trying to "repair" wafl. Wafliron > runs and constantly finds problems (mostly with atime) and corects > them. So of course i can have a look at the messagelog lateron, but i > was looking for an command or an output of wafliron which summarizes > the results. > > Like this > > > [14:22:10] wafliron finished : analyzed 100 blocks, 20 erros found, > > 18 > errors corrected, 2 errors left > > But it seems that i must dig in the messagelog. Thanks anyway. > > Regards > > Jochen > > ________________________________ > > From: Reinoud Reynders [mailto:reinoud.reynders@uz.kuleuven.ac.be] > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 7:43 PM > To: Willeke, Jochen; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: wafliron output -- is wafl OK? > > > > On the console, he will give information when there are unrecoverable > blocks. > I'm not sure that he gives info when it's finished. But you can > monitor the process (wafl scan status). Depending on the size of the > volume, it can take a long time. You can speed up. This (give the > process more priority, if you want). > > Best regards, > > Reinoud Reynders > University Hospitals Leuven > Belgium > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com <owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com> > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> > Sent: Tue Jan 16 17:36:48 2007 > Subject: wafliron output -- is wafl OK? > > Hi toasters... > > currently i am running a wafliron. My question now is, do i get any > kind of output after wafliron has finished?? > Do i see if there where any wrong blocks and if Ontap was able to > solve the problem or not?? > > Or is there any extra command to assure that there is no problem in > wafl left?? > > Regards and thanks for your help > > Jochen > >

1 0

SNMP Question
by Carl Howell 25 Jan '07

25 Jan '07

What would be the correct way to calculate the total size of an aggregate with the following SNMP information: dfHighTotalKBytes = 2 dfLowTotalKBytes = -1834563852 I thought it would be 2*4294967295 + 1834563852 = 10,424,498,442 But this comes out 625,839,594 short of the df -rk output: Aggregate total = 11,050,338,036 The MIB is at version 1.17.3. Thanks, --Carl

2 1

RE: SNMP Question
by Flank, Joshua 25 Jan '07

25 Jan '07

Carl, There's a public report for a similar issue in now: http://now.netapp.com/NOW/cgi-bin/bol?Type=Detail <http://now.netapp.com/NOW/cgi-bin/bol?Type=Detail&Display=80268> &Display=80268 The equation to combine these is: if (Low >= 0) x = High * 2^32 + Low if (Low < 0) x = (High + 1) * 2^32 + Low In this instance: High = 2 Low = -1834563852 since Low < 0, use the second equation: x = (2+1) * 2^32 + (-1834563852) = 12884901888 - 1834563852 = 11050338036 Good luck, -Joshua -----Original Message----- From: Carl Howell [mailto:chowell@uwf.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:20 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: SNMP Question What would be the correct way to calculate the total size of an aggregate with the following SNMP information: dfHighTotalKBytes = 2 dfLowTotalKBytes = -1834563852 I thought it would be 2*4294967295 + 1834563852 = 10,424,498,442 But this comes out 625,839,594 short of the df -rk output: Aggregate total = 11,050,338,036 The MIB is at version 1.17.3. Thanks, --Carl

1 0

RE: 1 disk shelf with 1 head....using just aggr0
by Fox, Adam 25 Jan '07

25 Jan '07

Yes, that is one of the rare cases where it could be useful to have a dedicated root volume/aggr. However, running wafl_iron should be a very rare event, and in the case of a single shelf system, it's my opinion that not consuming the space outweighs this possibility. But each site needs to make their own determination on this. -- Adam Fox adamfox(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Eino Tuominen [mailto:eino@utu.fi] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:58 PM To: Glenn Walker Cc: Fox, Adam; Linux Admin; NetApp Toasters List Subject: Re: 1 disk shelf with 1 head....using just aggr0 Glenn Walker wrote: > > Between the two above arguments, there aren't a lot of reasons not to > put it all together. One other reason I came up with: you cannot run wafl iron on rootvol or on an aggregate containing the rootvol on a live system. I once had to run wafl iron on a 4 shelf single aggr R200, and it was a _long_ downtime. -- Eino Tuominen

1 0

RE: 1 disk shelf with 1 head....using just aggr0
by Glenn Walker 25 Jan '07

25 Jan '07

Good advice - forgot about that one... To make matters worse, the wafl check in question (when root vol is involved) must first run on the underlying aggr, THEN on each volume contained within it. That is indeed serious down time, as the point of an aggr is large number of disks (which means lots of empty space to fill with data). Glenn -----Original Message----- From: Eino Tuominen [mailto:eino@utu.fi] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:58 PM To: Glenn Walker Cc: Fox, Adam; Linux Admin; NetApp Toasters List Subject: Re: 1 disk shelf with 1 head....using just aggr0 Glenn Walker wrote: > > Between the two above arguments, there aren't a lot of reasons not to > put it all together. One other reason I came up with: you cannot run wafl iron on rootvol or on an aggregate containing the rootvol on a live system. I once had to run wafl iron on a 4 shelf single aggr R200, and it was a _long_ downtime. -- Eino Tuominen

1 0

RE: 1 disk shelf with 1 head....using just aggr0
by Glenn Walker 25 Jan '07

25 Jan '07

We currently have both sides of this particular scenario: systems with only one massive aggr with the root vol contained within, and systems with a separate aggr\root vol and other aggrs dedicated to data. It depends on the system: FAS250, or FAS270 (especially the single-shelf variety), it is a WASTE of a system to have a separate aggr for root. With some of the larger sized systems, it typically doesn't matter if you suddenly lose 3 disks out of 50+. The traditional reason to keep the data sets separate is recovery: losing both the root vol and data would be a terrible shame. However, the chance of losing 3 disks across a single RG is almost NIL. Even then, I'd rather lose my root than my data. The other reason is performance: having a heavy I/O load on data access could cause problems for filer performance if the root vol were to be co-located within the same physical disks. Again, the chance of having that type of issue with an extremely large aggregate isn't very high. Between the two above arguments, there aren't a lot of reasons not to put it all together. Glenn ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Fox, Adam Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:34 PM To: Linux Admin; NetApp Toasters List Subject: RE: 1 disk shelf with 1 head....using just aggr0 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

2 1

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

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters