toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

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

03 Oct '06

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

1 0

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

29 Sep '06

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

3 4

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

28 Sep '06

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

1 0

Can we use clearcase with FAS6xxx Ontap 7.2?
by G SW 28 Sep '06

28 Sep '06

Halo.. We are using FAS960 with Clearcase, thinking of upgrading to FAS6xxx series, but get to know that 7.2 is the only version supported on FAS6xxx series, but currently Clearcase supported version is on 7.1.x latest. Appreciate feedback on FAS6xxx with clearcase.. BR SW

1 0

Troubleshooting http access
by JacekN 27 Sep '06

27 Sep '06

I would like to restrict access to files accessed via http. I am using DOT 7.2. First I configured standard http services - everything is running smoothly. My settings: httpd.access legacy httpd.admin.access legacy httpd.admin.enable off httpd.admin.hostsequiv.enable off httpd.admin.max_connections 1023 httpd.admin.ssl.enable on httpd.autoindex.enable off httpd.enable on httpd.log.format common httpd.method.trace.enable off httpd.rootdir /vol/docs httpd.timeout 300 httpd.timewait.enable off /vol/docs is dedicated for http access FlexVol with ntfs access rights filer is configured also for CIFS in workgroup mode). Now I try to limit access to the services - one dedicated user and standard authentication is enough. In accordance to documentation I have prepared the following files: /etc/httpd.passwd psuser:_J9..PYJ.MWfkaOhMiFc /etc/httpd.group psgroup:psuser /etc/httpd.access <Directory /vol/docs/> AuthName Dokumentacja PS <Limit GET> require user psuser </Limit> </Directory> <Directory /vol/docs/telco> AuthName Dokumentacja PS <Limit GET> require user psuser </Limit> </Directory> But it does not work: anyone can access the files without any authentication. What am I missing? How can I troubleshoot http access? (httpd.log file does not contain anything helpful). Best regards, Jacek --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0638-0, 2006-09-19 Tested on: 2006-09-19 23:18:41 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com

3 4

RE: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate
by Fox, Adam 25 Sep '06

25 Sep '06

The -g option works when an RG already exists and you want to back-fill it. It doesn't create a new RG. To create a new RG, reduce the RG size and add drives, then up it to what you want. -- Adam Fox adamfox(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: George, Andrew [mailto:georgea@anz.com] Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 9:02 PM To: Sto RageC ; Brosseau, Paul Cc: Jeff Mery; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate That should work, I'd be more inclined to go aggr add aggr0 -g rg2 -d <disk list> (Then again, I've always been distrustful of adding disks without naming them explicitly) -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Sto Rage(c) Sent: Saturday, 23 September 2006 2:53 AM To: Brosseau, Paul Cc: Jeff Mery; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate On 9/20/06, Brosseau, Paul <Paul.Brosseau(a)netapp.com> wrote: > > > Mixing disk sizes in an aggregate is not a problem as long as you > create RAID groups for each kind of disk. WAFL creates stripes at the > RAID group level. For best results create complete RAID groups each > time you add disks to an aggregate. > > Paulb Paul and others, Is there way to force an aggregate to start a new RAID group when an existing RAID group is not completely full. Here's a situation FAS270 with 2 shelves with 144GB FC drives. RG size is set to 16 for a single aggregate with 26 disks (2 spares). This resulted in 2 RAID groups, 1 with 16 disks and the other with 10. Now we plan to add a 3rd shelf with 300GB FC drives. If we do the regular "aggr add" it will first add the 2 spare 144GB drives, then add 4 new 300GB drives by right sizing them to match the 144GB ones. In order to maximize the capacity on this aggregate, I'd prefer to add 12 of the new drives to a new RAID group but within the same aggregate. Is something like this possible? Haven't tried this as we don't have the new shelf yet, but can I reduce the raidsize option for the aggregate from 16 to 12, then add the 2 existing spares such that that the 2nd raid-group is now full based on raidsize=12 option. Now add the new shelf and run "aggr add aggr0 12" to add 12 new 300GB drive leaving 2 spares? RAID group /aggr0/plex0/rg0 - 16 disks (144GB each) RAID group /aggr0/plex0/rg1 - 12 disks (144GB each) <-- add the existing 2 spares RAID group /aggr0/plex0/rg2 - 12 disks (300GB each) Spares - two new 300GB drives. I think it would work, any comments? -G "This e-mail and any attachments to it (the "Communication") is, unless otherwise stated, confidential, may contain copyright material and is for the use only of the intended recipient. If you receive the Communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete the Communication and the return e-mail, and do not read, copy, retransmit or otherwise deal with it. Any views expressed in the Communication are those of the individual sender only, unless expressly stated to be those of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ABN 11 005 357 522, or any of its related entities including ANZ National Bank Limited (together "ANZ"). ANZ does not accept liability in connection with the integrity of or errors in the Communication, computer virus, data corruption, interference or delay arising from or in respect of the Communication."

2 1

RE: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate
by Glenn Walker 25 Sep '06

25 Sep '06

Been a while since I checked, but I'm pretty sure that aggr add is the command he's looking for. You can set the raidgroup size down to the number of disks you currently have, then add a new RG - but it will be the same size as the current setting. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of John Stoffel Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 3:16 PM To: Sto Rage(c) Cc: Brosseau, Paul; Jeff Mery; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate >>>>> "Sto" == Sto Rage(c) <" <netbacker(a)gmail.com>> writes: Sto> Paul and others, Sto> Is there way to force an aggregate to start a new RAID group Sto> when an existing RAID group is not completely full. Certainly, just specify explicity which disks you want in the aggregate: aggr create aggr300gb -d 12@300 See the output of 'aggr create<return>' John

2 1

RE: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate
by George, Andrew 25 Sep '06

25 Sep '06

That should work, I'd be more inclined to go aggr add aggr0 -g rg2 -d <disk list> (Then again, I've always been distrustful of adding disks without naming them explicitly) -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Sto Rage(c) Sent: Saturday, 23 September 2006 2:53 AM To: Brosseau, Paul Cc: Jeff Mery; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate On 9/20/06, Brosseau, Paul <Paul.Brosseau(a)netapp.com> wrote: > > > Mixing disk sizes in an aggregate is not a problem as long as you > create RAID groups for each kind of disk. WAFL creates stripes at the > RAID group level. For best results create complete RAID groups each > time you add disks to an aggregate. > > Paulb Paul and others, Is there way to force an aggregate to start a new RAID group when an existing RAID group is not completely full. Here's a situation FAS270 with 2 shelves with 144GB FC drives. RG size is set to 16 for a single aggregate with 26 disks (2 spares). This resulted in 2 RAID groups, 1 with 16 disks and the other with 10. Now we plan to add a 3rd shelf with 300GB FC drives. If we do the regular "aggr add" it will first add the 2 spare 144GB drives, then add 4 new 300GB drives by right sizing them to match the 144GB ones. In order to maximize the capacity on this aggregate, I'd prefer to add 12 of the new drives to a new RAID group but within the same aggregate. Is something like this possible? Haven't tried this as we don't have the new shelf yet, but can I reduce the raidsize option for the aggregate from 16 to 12, then add the 2 existing spares such that that the 2nd raid-group is now full based on raidsize=12 option. Now add the new shelf and run "aggr add aggr0 12" to add 12 new 300GB drive leaving 2 spares? RAID group /aggr0/plex0/rg0 - 16 disks (144GB each) RAID group /aggr0/plex0/rg1 - 12 disks (144GB each) <-- add the existing 2 spares RAID group /aggr0/plex0/rg2 - 12 disks (300GB each) Spares - two new 300GB drives. I think it would work, any comments? -G "This e-mail and any attachments to it (the "Communication") is, unless otherwise stated, confidential, may contain copyright material and is for the use only of the intended recipient. If you receive the Communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete the Communication and the return e-mail, and do not read, copy, retransmit or otherwise deal with it. Any views expressed in the Communication are those of the individual sender only, unless expressly stated to be those of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ABN 11 005 357 522, or any of its related entities including ANZ National Bank Limited (together "ANZ"). ANZ does not accept liability in connection with the integrity of or errors in the Communication, computer virus, data corruption, interference or delay arising from or in respect of the Communication."

1 0

RE: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate
by Brosseau, Paul 22 Sep '06

22 Sep '06

Mixing disk sizes in an aggregate is not a problem as long as you create RAID groups for each kind of disk. WAFL creates stripes at the RAID group level. For best results create complete RAID groups each time you add disks to an aggregate. Paulb ________________________________ From: Jeff Mery [mailto:jeff.mery@ni.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:30 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate Greetings fellow toasters! <Background> We're looking at moving our 2 FAS940 systems from tradtional volumes to flexvols + aggregates. </Background> It would seem to me that the same rules and guidelines for creating traditional volumes now apply directly to the aggregate level (for the most part). By rules and guidelines I mean things like trying not to mix disk sizes, try to avoid volumes (now aggregates?) that span FC adapters, etc. Are any of these things still a concern on modern versions of ONTAP (7+)? Does anyone have any best practices they'd be willing to share in regards to aggregate creation? NOW says "make them as big as possible using as many spindles as possible", but that doesn't really help much. We use our filers for unstructured data only; cifs + nfs but no databases, no snapmirror, no snapvault, etc.. TIA, 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -

5 4

Response time measurement
by Willeke, Jochen 22 Sep '06

22 Sep '06

Hi folks, i am still thinking about some figures which help me considering different fileservers. After doing some research i think one point is the response time given by the system. I did a lot of testing with sio and but the results i got are some kind of strange. A test with SIO e.g. brings following result: ./sio_ntap_linux 100 0 8k 100m 10 1 /mnt/test15 Version: 3.00 SIO_NTAP: Inputs Read %: 100 Random %: 0 Block Size: 8192 File Size: 104857600 Secs: 10 Threads: 1 File(s): /mnt/test15 Outputs IOPS: 114578 KB/s: 916626 IOs: 1145782 Terminating threads ...Killed First there are the KB/S. Much to fast even for a 1Gbit network. And the second is the response time. I calculated the following: 1s / 114578 (IOPS) = 0,00872 ms (response time) This cannot be true at all :-) Does SIO read the same block all the time (due to 0%random read), or do i have any kind of mistake in my test?!? Perhaps someone can help. Best Regards and a nice weekend Jochen

4 3

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