toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

RE: Storage space overheads!
by Holland, William L 27 Jul '06

27 Jul '06

In a typical solution you lose 10% for WAFL overhead (disk serialization, mbr, etc). You then lose 5% for aggregate snap reserve and 20% for volume snap reserve. Actually, you don't lose the snap reserve space - this space is reserved to ensure enough space for typical snapshots (think of them as online backups). The snap reserve space can be changed. For instance, I always set the aggregate snap reserve to 0% -- I cannot foresee any situation where I would want to snap restore an entire aggregate. These numbers are for NAS. If you are using SAN (iSCSI or FCP LUNs) then you lose 50% of available space to be able to accommodate at least one full snapshot of the LUNs. To someone first starting out with NetApp solutions, these numbers sound horrible, I know I did. However, now that I've been using them for a few years I love it. The flexibility you get in disaster recovery, transferring data to other filers, etc is very much worth the tradeoff. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of margesimpson(a)hushmail.com Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:38 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Storage space overheads! Hi all: Can anyone please give me total NetApp overheads including, file systems, aggr reserve, snap reserve, wafl overhead, parity disks (raid_dp), etc, etc. say, 10 x 100GB = 1000GB total. what usable space should i finally get after all those overheads. Can anyone give me proper figures/ math and proper break up of above figure? I heard NetApp solution has lot of disk overheads! Thank you in advance. Marge. Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485

2 1

thank you very much
by robert KOWALSKI 27 Jul '06

27 Jul '06

thank you very much ---------------------------------------------------- Zadbaj o bezpieczne wakacje nad wodą! Zobacz jak jest Bezpiecznie z NIVEA i WOPR - Kliknij: http://klik.wp.pl/?adr=www.sport.wp.pl%2Fnivea-wopr.html&sid=828

1 0

FRIEND
by DE MEL HIRANYA 27 Jul '06

27 Jul '06

I have a new email address!You can now email me at: dddmeeel098(a)yahoo.com I WANT YOU TO DISTRIBUTE MY FUND TO CHARITY ON MY BEHALF,REPLY WITH DETAILS - DE MEL HIRANYA

1 0

failure notice
by MAILER-DAEMON＠bouncehost 27 Jul '06

27 Jul '06

Hi. This is the qmail-send program at bouncehost. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. <269elias(a)absolutemotion.com>: 140.99.53.7 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 550 sorry, no mailbox here by that name (#5.1.1) Giving up on 140.99.53.7. --- Enclosed are the original headers of the message.

1 0

Storage space overheads!
by margesimpson＠hushmail.com 27 Jul '06

27 Jul '06

Hi all: Can anyone please give me total NetApp overheads including, file systems, aggr reserve, snap reserve, wafl overhead, parity disks (raid_dp), etc, etc. say, 10 x 100GB = 1000GB total. what usable space should i finally get after all those overheads. Can anyone give me proper figures/ math and proper break up of above figure? I heard NetApp solution has lot of disk overheads! Thank you in advance. Marge. Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485

3 2

RE: Storage space overheads!
by George, Andrew 27 Jul '06

27 Jul '06

Also...if your using aggregates take another 5% off the top for Agg snapshot _____ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Walker Sent: Thursday, 27 July 2006 1:52 PM To: Glenn Dekhayser; margesimpson(a)hushmail.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Storage space overheads! 10% overhead for WAFL, FYI. As to what Glenn says, I agree - start with storage space needed, then figure performance. Don't fill the remaining volume beyond 90% if possible (unless it's all archive-type data). As for your question before: If you use RaidDP, you'll lose 2 disks for every raid group (typically 16 disks total, or 14D+2P) The disks are right-sized (to ensure that every manufacturer has disks with the same size, start to end - ie, Hitachi and Seagate drives are NOT the same size in # blocks) You're left with # data disks * disk size, MINUS 10% WAFL overhead. After that, factor in snapshot reserve (20% by default) and space reservations if needed. In the case of 320GB ATA disks, the right size is actually 274400 MB (the 320GB is a raw or unformatted capacity - you can thank the ATA drive manufacturers for that misleading info). A RG of size 16 would net you 3457440MB after 10% overhead. If you don't need snapshots, that's your usable space - if you do need snapshot reserve, just subtract that from the total. Using LUNs (especially with snapdrive) changes the rules because of the 2x overhead it enforces. This is actually changed in with something called fractional reserve (snapdrive supports fractional reserve with SD 4.0 and ONTAP 7.1) The reason for all of the overhead: data protection. Netapp doesn't sell space - they sell insurance. They sell protection from data loss FIRST, then performance\manageability, and lastly space. I would say that NetApp has no more overhead than any other vendor that has snapshot like capabilities (and probably less given that everyone else is a copy-on-write implementation thusfar). Glenn _____ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Dekhayser Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:11 PM To: margesimpson(a)hushmail.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Storage space overheads! The most overused sentence: "It depends". When I design Netapp solutions, I work backwards from how much usable storage I'm going to need for the next 12-18 months. Then I also determine what kind of aggregate IOPS I'm going to need from my disks. From that, it's a fairly simple calculation. OK, so it's not; I have a complicated excel spreadsheet that I worked on for about a month before I was confident the answers were close enough to use in designs; but before you start putting everything together capacity wise you should have a good idea of how many disks you're going to need to satisfy your performance requirements. There's the obvious parity or dual-parity overhead, and the hot spare (or multiple hot spares, depending on how many disks you've got in the system). There's the snapshot reserve for NAS volumes (20% by default, you may need more or less)- but that reserve depends highly upon the amount of changes and deletes you have in a given volume. If you are using LUNs with snapshots, you need to multiple the size of the LUNs by 2.2 (2x for the overwrite reserve and another 20% for the internal data change rates inside a given lun, again change for your own environment). There's the WAFL RAID overhead; I've never gotten a real good feel for that but let's call it 5%- (anyone care to amend that?) Now also keep in mind that WAFL volumes don't really like to be more than 90% full because of the way they lay down data; I like to keep mine at 80% or lower. That's about all the overheads I can think of. Sound like a lot? Any vendor with snapshot technology is going to have the same issue of reserving loads of space for it, and they will use raid-5, which requires a net loss of one disk every 5-8 disks (and be slow under write load). Netapp goes 14 disks per parity (in either raid4 or dp). And everyone with a hardware raid has some raid overhead. Unless you're using raid 10, but then you're buying twice the disk, aren't you? Bottom line is that Netapp does require you to invest some of your disk in data and physical availability. It's well worth it, and it's comparable to every other enterprise system out there. If all you need is dumb disk with no overhead and no avanced features, there are plenty of RAID-0 solutions out there that will FC connect. Glenn (the other one) _____ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of margesimpson(a)hushmail.com Sent: Wed 7/26/2006 9:38 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Storage space overheads! Hi all: Can anyone please give me total NetApp overheads including, file systems, aggr reserve, snap reserve, wafl overhead, parity disks (raid_dp), etc, etc. say, 10 x 100GB = 1000GB total. what usable space should i finally get after all those overheads. Can anyone give me proper figures/ math and proper break up of above figure? I heard NetApp solution has lot of disk overheads! Thank you in advance. Marge. Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485

1 0

RE: Storage space overheads!
by Glenn Walker 27 Jul '06

27 Jul '06

10% overhead for WAFL, FYI. As to what Glenn says, I agree - start with storage space needed, then figure performance. Don't fill the remaining volume beyond 90% if possible (unless it's all archive-type data). As for your question before: If you use RaidDP, you'll lose 2 disks for every raid group (typically 16 disks total, or 14D+2P) The disks are right-sized (to ensure that every manufacturer has disks with the same size, start to end - ie, Hitachi and Seagate drives are NOT the same size in # blocks) You're left with # data disks * disk size, MINUS 10% WAFL overhead. After that, factor in snapshot reserve (20% by default) and space reservations if needed. In the case of 320GB ATA disks, the right size is actually 274400 MB (the 320GB is a raw or unformatted capacity - you can thank the ATA drive manufacturers for that misleading info). A RG of size 16 would net you 3457440MB after 10% overhead. If you don't need snapshots, that's your usable space - if you do need snapshot reserve, just subtract that from the total. Using LUNs (especially with snapdrive) changes the rules because of the 2x overhead it enforces. This is actually changed in with something called fractional reserve (snapdrive supports fractional reserve with SD 4.0 and ONTAP 7.1) The reason for all of the overhead: data protection. Netapp doesn't sell space - they sell insurance. They sell protection from data loss FIRST, then performance\manageability, and lastly space. I would say that NetApp has no more overhead than any other vendor that has snapshot like capabilities (and probably less given that everyone else is a copy-on-write implementation thusfar). Glenn ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Dekhayser Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:11 PM To: margesimpson(a)hushmail.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Storage space overheads! The most overused sentence: "It depends". When I design Netapp solutions, I work backwards from how much usable storage I'm going to need for the next 12-18 months. Then I also determine what kind of aggregate IOPS I'm going to need from my disks. From that, it's a fairly simple calculation. OK, so it's not; I have a complicated excel spreadsheet that I worked on for about a month before I was confident the answers were close enough to use in designs; but before you start putting everything together capacity wise you should have a good idea of how many disks you're going to need to satisfy your performance requirements. There's the obvious parity or dual-parity overhead, and the hot spare (or multiple hot spares, depending on how many disks you've got in the system). There's the snapshot reserve for NAS volumes (20% by default, you may need more or less)- but that reserve depends highly upon the amount of changes and deletes you have in a given volume. If you are using LUNs with snapshots, you need to multiple the size of the LUNs by 2.2 (2x for the overwrite reserve and another 20% for the internal data change rates inside a given lun, again change for your own environment). There's the WAFL RAID overhead; I've never gotten a real good feel for that but let's call it 5%- (anyone care to amend that?) Now also keep in mind that WAFL volumes don't really like to be more than 90% full because of the way they lay down data; I like to keep mine at 80% or lower. That's about all the overheads I can think of. Sound like a lot? Any vendor with snapshot technology is going to have the same issue of reserving loads of space for it, and they will use raid-5, which requires a net loss of one disk every 5-8 disks (and be slow under write load). Netapp goes 14 disks per parity (in either raid4 or dp). And everyone with a hardware raid has some raid overhead. Unless you're using raid 10, but then you're buying twice the disk, aren't you? Bottom line is that Netapp does require you to invest some of your disk in data and physical availability. It's well worth it, and it's comparable to every other enterprise system out there. If all you need is dumb disk with no overhead and no avanced features, there are plenty of RAID-0 solutions out there that will FC connect. Glenn (the other one) ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of margesimpson(a)hushmail.com Sent: Wed 7/26/2006 9:38 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Storage space overheads! Hi all: Can anyone please give me total NetApp overheads including, file systems, aggr reserve, snap reserve, wafl overhead, parity disks (raid_dp), etc, etc. say, 10 x 100GB = 1000GB total. what usable space should i finally get after all those overheads. Can anyone give me proper figures/ math and proper break up of above figure? I heard NetApp solution has lot of disk overheads! Thank you in advance. Marge. Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485

1 0

ROUTING NOTIFICATION
by alan reeves 27 Jul '06

27 Jul '06

¡Tengo nueva dirección de correo!Ahora puedes escribirme a: alanreeves1960(a)yahoo.com.mx I am Alan reeves,I work with a bank,i have a proposal for you,get back to me if you are intrested - alan reeves

1 0

Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed
by Internet Mail Delivery 27 Jul '06

27 Jul '06

This report relates to a message you sent with the following header fields: Message-id: <4rsu26$nn7191(a)ip01.eastlink.ca> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:29:36 -0300 From: toasters(a)mathworks.com To: comment-dnso(a)icann.org Subject: [WARNING: VIRUS REMOVED]Returned mail: Data format error Your message cannot be delivered to the following recipients: Recipient address: comment-dnso(a)icann.org Reason: Remote SMTP server has rejected address Diagnostic code: smtp;550 5.1.1 <comment-dnso(a)icann.org>... User unknown Remote system: dns;pechora.icann.org (TCP|10.10.10.81|12475|192.0.34.39|25) UmVwb3J0aW5nLU1UQTogZG5zO210YTAxLmVhc3RsaW5rLmNhICh0Y3AtZGFlbW9u KQoKT3JpZ2luYWwtcmVjaXBpZW50OiByZmM4MjI7Y29tbWVudC1kbnNvQGljYW5u Lm9yZwpGaW5hbC1yZWNpcGllbnQ6IHJmYzgyMjtjb21tZW50LWRuc29AaWNhbm4u b3JnCkFjdGlvbjogZmFpbGVkClN0YXR1czogNS4xLjEgKFJlbW90ZSBTTVRQIHNl cnZlciBoYXMgcmVqZWN0ZWQgYWRkcmVzcykKUmVtb3RlLU1UQTogZG5zO3BlY2hv cmEuaWNhbm4ub3JnIChUQ1B8MTAuMTAuMTAuODF8MTI0NzV8MTkyLjAuMzQuMzl8 MjUpCkRpYWdub3N0aWMtY29kZTogc210cDs1NTAgNS4xLjEgPGNvbW1lbnQtZG5z b0BpY2Fubi5vcmc+Li4uIFVzZXIgdW5rbm93bgoK

1 0

FROM COSMICHAMBERS
by cosmichambers＠corral.org 27 Jul '06

27 Jul '06

Good Day My Friend, I'm happy to inform you about my success in getting those funds transferred under the cooperation of a new partner from Japan. Presently I am in Japan for an investment projects with my own share of the total sum. Meanwhile, I didn't forget your past efforts and attempts in getting the fund transfer into your Bank Account but it failed us some how, Now contact my account officer with the ECOBANK PLC,Cotonou,Benin Republic, his name is Mr.REAZOAX LOPEZ via E-mail Address;(reazoax(a)yahoo.fr) or call his Direct Phone Line +229 936 908 03 ask him to send you the total sum of $1.500,000.00 Bank Cashier Check, which I kept for your compensation for all your past efforts and attempts in this matter. I appreciated your efforts at that time very much, so feel free and get in touch with my ACCOUNT OFFICER (Mr REAZOAX LOPEZ) and tell him where to send your Bank Cashier Check of the said amount to you. Please do let me know immediately you receive it so that we can share the joy after all the suffer ness at that time. In the moment, Im very busy here in Japan because of the investment projects which I and the new partner are having at hand, finally, remember that I have forwarded instructions to my account officer on your behalf to receive the Bank Cashier check. So feel free to get in touch with him, he will send the Bank Cashier Check amount to you without any delay. Take care of yourself I hope to meet you soon. With Best Regards. cosmichambers Barr.Cosmic franklux.

1 0

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