toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

I/O errors on FAS250
by Michael D Steeves 27 Feb '06

27 Feb '06

Hi. We've got a pair of FAS250 filers, and are running into a strange problem with one of them. In the past month and a half (or thereabouts), we migrated all the user home directories into a series of qtrees (splitting them across the two filers). Since then, on the older filer (running ONTAP 6.5.2R1) we see sporadically errors like this: mv: failed to preserve ownership for `/tufts/grad/fmoore03/.adobe/ AdobeFnt06.lst .lab118k': Input/output error mv: preserving times for `/tufts/grad/fmoore03/.gconf/apps/nautilus/ preferences' : Input/output error mv: failed to preserve ownership for `/tufts/grad/fmoore03/.microsoft/ ie5/Cookie s/fmoore03(a)dcs8ir0f010000oyioyaka1kl_8j7n(2).txt': Input/output error mv: preserving times for `/tufts/grad/fmoore03/.microsoft/ie5/ TempInternetFiles/ Content.IE5/GDQVAF2N/header-bg(1).gif': Input/output error We've gotten reports coming from people running on RedHat 9.0, RHEL WS 4 (Nahant Update 1) and Solaris 9. In all cases, it seems that if the user waits for 5 - 10 minutes, and then tries again, the problem has gone away. I've opened a call with Netapp's support department, but figured I'd see if anyone could shed any light on this. The messages file doesn't have anything unusual in it, nor does the weekly autosupport notifications. Given the intermittent nature of the problem, I'm not really sure where to start looking on this one. -Mike -- Michael Steeves | Unix Network Administrator mds(a)eecs.tufts.edu | Tufts University Department of ECE and CS Phone: 617-627-2601 | 161 College Avenue FAX: 617-627-3220 (Dept. Fax)| Medford, MA 02155 PGP Fingerprint: 2296 491B 594F D5F9 F405 150A 4BD5 6529 8E6F FDC6

1 0

RE: maxing out the filesystem
by Glenn Walker 26 Feb '06

26 Feb '06

The disk size and aggr snap reserve questions always seem to come up (a lot). My rule of thumb (and I think NetApp sales is getting better at positioning the product this way) is that NetApp doesn't sell space... at least not at first. They sell Disaster Recovery... Snapshots, snapmirror, clustering. THAT is what NetApp is about - protecting your data from failure... Next, it's performance. Lastly, actual space for data. Protecting the data is what the aggr snap reserves are for (along with snapmirror) but they do have their limits. While filesystem corruption does occasionally happen (on EVERY platform), NetApp is protecting us from it without our needing to think about it. I personally like that approach. The other part of their approach that I like is the fact that they don't hide what they are doing like some other vendors... Just my .02... -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Chris Thompson Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 7:28 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: gdekhayser(a)voyantinc.com; slinkywizard(a)integraonline.com Subject: Re: maxing out the filesystem "Glenn Dekhayser" <gdekhayser(a)voyantinc.com> writes: > Actually, the aggregate snap reserve is by default only 5%, not 10%. ... which is nothing to do with the 10% "reserve" I was talking about, which is at a lower level. See below. "Max" <slinkywizard(a)integraonline.com> adds: > Somewhat tangental: > > Does anyone here use aggregate snap reserves ? I was under the impression > that is was only useful for sync mirror setups... So I usually just shut > it off to take advantage of the extra space. Whatever NetApp say, I've never seen the point of reserving space for aggregate snapshots if you don't _use_ aggregate snapshots for anything. We don't, so snap reserve -A [aggrname] 0 snap sched -A [aggrname] 0 However, for pedagogic purposes, I've set it back to 5% temporarily for the example below. :-) carina> df -A main Aggregate kbytes used avail capacity main 595174120 575814948 19359172 97% main/.snapshot 31324952 0 31324952 0% That's a total of 626499072 KB, _including_ the snapshot reserve. carina> aggr status main -r Aggregate main (online, raid_dp) (block checksums) Plex /main/plex0 (online, normal, active) RAID group /main/plex0/rg0 (normal) RAID Disk Device HA SHELF BAY CHAN Pool Type RPM Used (MB/blks) Phys (MB/blks) --------- ------ ------------- ---- ---- ---- ----- -------------- -------------- dparity 8b.24 8b 1 8 FC:A - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 parity 8a.27 8a 1 11 FC:B - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 data 8b.28 8b 1 12 FC:A - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 data 8a.29 8a 1 13 FC:B - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 data 8a.25 8a 1 9 FC:B - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 data 8b.22 8b 1 6 FC:A - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 data 8b.16 8b 1 0 FC:A - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 data 8a.17 8a 1 1 FC:B - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 data 8b.18 8b 1 2 FC:A - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 data 8a.19 8a 1 3 FC:B - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 data 8a.21 8a 1 5 FC:B - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 data 8a.23 8a 1 7 FC:B - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 After the right sizing of the discs to 68000 MB = 69632000 KB, taking off 20.5 MB = 20992 KB (the reserved area at the start of each disc: it's been that ever since NetApp was hatched from the cosmic egg) that's a total of 10 (data discs) x 69611008 KB (per disc) = 696110080 KB. The space actually made available in the aggregate to flexible volumes, their snapshots, and aggregate snapshots, old Uncle Tom Cobley and all, is 90% of that, i.e. 696110080 * 0.9 = 626499072 KB. [It would have made a better lesson if 90% of 10 data discs hadn't equalled exactly 9 data discs! Sorry about that, you'll just have to count them carefully ...] Exactly the same (hidden) reserve applies in a traditional volume. [Oh, and to you guys over in the "Aggregate size question" thread, stop quoting all your figures in GB and to 2+ sig figs, as it's imposible to make anything add up if you do that. Real Programmers aren't scared of 10-figure numbers :-) ] -- Chris Thompson Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk

1 0

hi
by Milford 25 Feb '06

25 Feb '06

Hey, Get C!pr0, Pr0#zac and more oNliNE. Order safe1y and Securely through our secure transaction server.=20 -------------------------------- copy the address below and paste in o your web browser: blended.grindscull.net -------------------------------- vali d for 24 hors. Up through the darkness,. How many people with those qualities are you likely to find if you just go= out looking?. His scarf and one ski are beneath the TV,. Quite none?. shrinking sensation, Watson,=20. Thanks, Wilford Labovitz

1 0

RE: maxing out the filesystem
by Glenn Dekhayser 25 Feb '06

25 Feb '06

Actually, the aggregate snap reserve is by default only 5%, not 10%. I have never seen a volume go over 100% usage, in fact the filer yells at you and could take the volume offline if it can't write data. Are you sure you're not talking about consumption of the snap reserve, which CAN go over 100%? Glenn "It's worth remembering that ONTAP already imposes a 10% reserve on the filing system size (including snapshot reserve); or on the sum of sizes, for flexible volumes in an aggregate. A "100% full" tradvol/aggregate is actually only using 90% of the blocks on the discs. Or looked at another way, the difference in congestion between "90% full" and "100% full" is 2:1, not infinity:1.: "Blake Golliher" <thelastman(a)gmail.com> writes: > A filer can be written to over 100% space utilization, it'll just keep > growing. I've seen filers go up tot 107% space utilization before. and "George, Andrew" <georgea(a)anz.com> replies: > Interesting > We run a fair few filers in the 97%-99% arena, mainly as CIFS NAS devices. > Every time I've seen it hit 100% 0 bytes available CIFS has refused to > save anything. That's my experience, with NFS. I would be interested (from a theoretical point of view!) to know how Blake gets the space utilisation that high. (Snapshot usage vs reserve as shown by "df" can go over 100%, of course.) -- Chris Thompson Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk

4 3

RE: Aggregate size question
by Willeke, Jochen 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

Hi William, we have the same drives as you have, those so called '144 GB' ones :-) When performing a sysconfig -r the filer showed me those 137 GB and i, young as i am, thought that the filer already made the conversion to binary for me. By rule of thumb this number seemed to be correct to me. Well with a drive capacity of 134 i really get close to what i am locking for! Thanks a lot and a nice weekend Jochen -----Original Message----- From: Holland, William L [mailto:hollandwl@state.gov] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:15 PM To: Willeke, Jochen; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Aggregate size question Are you sure they are 137GB? We have 144GB drives in our system and OnTap reports them as 133GB. The discrepancy is that drive manufacturers report capacity in base 10 rather than binary. Therefore, drive manufacturers report 144,000,000,000 as 144GB when in reality it is 144,000,000,000/1024^3 == 134GB. In the "real" world giga = 1 billion in the computing world gig = 1024^3 or 1,073,741,824 bytes. If you use 134 instead of 137 for your calculations you will come out pretty close to what the filer is showing you for results. Also, I don't think it is x .9 THEN x .95. If you use 1=34GB drives and x .85 (10% + 5%) you will only be off by 8GB. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 7:04 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Aggregate size question Hi everyboby, i have a little question about aggregate sizing. I have a aggregate called aggr1 consisting of 24 disks â 137 GB hosted on a FAS920c running Ontap 7.0.1R1. As i have 2 raidgroups 4 disks are parity. I took the 20 left disks and calculated the following: 20 (disks) x 137 GB (size) x 0,90 (10% WAFL) x 0,95 (5% Aggr Snapshot) = 2342,7 GB When i perform a 'df -Ahr' i only see this: df -Ahr Aggregate total used avail reserved aggr1 2270GB 1924GB 346GB 0GB aggr1/.snapshot 119GB 34GB 84GB 0GB So i have a difference of about 70 GB between my result and the total which Ontap shows me. Ok, 70 GB won't make the world turn faster :-) but i would like to understand why i am missing 70 GB. Thanks in advance Jochen

5 4

RE: maxing out the filesystem
by Glenn Dekhayser 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

I understand that Netapp support is very adamant about leaving them on. They can restore the entire system, in case of file system corruption (or so I've heard). Which of course raises the question, is the risk of file system corruption so great that they hold back 5% of the aggregate data space to protect against it? It's never happened to me.... .....so I turn it off too. :) Glenn Subject: Re: maxing out the filesystem Max wrote: > Does anyone here use aggregate snap reserves ? I was under the impression > that is was only useful for sync mirror setups... So I usually just shut > it off to take advantage of the extra space. We set aggr snap reserves to 0% as you said, I believe they are only needed for sync mirror and otherwise can be disabled. -skottie -- Scott Miller skottie(a)anim.DreamWorks.com

1 0

Don't ignore this.
by Toubies 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

Yo Paris, A lot of property owners are getting new house-lending programs and I believe it's time for the two of us to do the same. After reading all their info., I really want to commence the application right away . And I select this host-site at http://es.geocities.com/owen_ziegelbauer/ as the place to begin. They are truly efficient, which is the reason they can run over the entire process in merely 18-20 days. Hope this helps, Toubies

1 0

Jeanie Piper
by Joe Henley 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

Barton, %CUSTOM_LINK Joe Henley

1 0

RE: Aggregate size question
by Holland, William L 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

Are you sure they are 137GB? We have 144GB drives in our system and OnTap reports them as 133GB. The discrepancy is that drive manufacturers report capacity in base 10 rather than binary. Therefore, drive manufacturers report 144,000,000,000 as 144GB when in reality it is 144,000,000,000/1024^3 == 134GB. In the "real" world giga = 1 billion in the computing world gig = 1024^3 or 1,073,741,824 bytes. If you use 134 instead of 137 for your calculations you will come out pretty close to what the filer is showing you for results. Also, I don't think it is x .9 THEN x .95. If you use 1=34GB drives and x .85 (10% + 5%) you will only be off by 8GB. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 7:04 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Aggregate size question Hi everyboby, i have a little question about aggregate sizing. I have a aggregate called aggr1 consisting of 24 disks â 137 GB hosted on a FAS920c running Ontap 7.0.1R1. As i have 2 raidgroups 4 disks are parity. I took the 20 left disks and calculated the following: 20 (disks) x 137 GB (size) x 0,90 (10% WAFL) x 0,95 (5% Aggr Snapshot) = 2342,7 GB When i perform a 'df -Ahr' i only see this: df -Ahr Aggregate total used avail reserved aggr1 2270GB 1924GB 346GB 0GB aggr1/.snapshot 119GB 34GB 84GB 0GB So i have a difference of about 70 GB between my result and the total which Ontap shows me. Ok, 70 GB won't make the world turn faster :-) but i would like to understand why i am missing 70 GB. Thanks in advance Jochen

2 1

Aggregate size question
by Willeke, Jochen 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

Hi everyboby, i have a little question about aggregate sizing. I have a aggregate called aggr1 consisting of 24 disks â 137 GB hosted on a FAS920c running Ontap 7.0.1R1. As i have 2 raidgroups 4 disks are parity. I took the 20 left disks and calculated the following: 20 (disks) x 137 GB (size) x 0,90 (10% WAFL) x 0,95 (5% Aggr Snapshot) = 2342,7 GB When i perform a 'df -Ahr' i only see this: df -Ahr Aggregate total used avail reserved aggr1 2270GB 1924GB 346GB 0GB aggr1/.snapshot 119GB 34GB 84GB 0GB So i have a difference of about 70 GB between my result and the total which Ontap shows me. Ok, 70 GB won't make the world turn faster :-) but i would like to understand why i am missing 70 GB. Thanks in advance Jochen

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