toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

RE: parity drive rebuild causing ls hangs
by Derek Lai 15 Oct '04

15 Oct '04

I don't think you want to focus on disk utilization during rebuilds. Even with the low impact setting it is supposed to rebuild as fast as it can, just give higher priority to regular data traffic. Derek -----Original Message----- From: Jerry [mailto:juanino@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 9:37 AM To: Derek Lai Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: parity drive rebuild causing ls hangs Writes were bouncing around, but no more than 10 Megabytes/sec. Even went the writes went down to 1MB/sec the util was still burried at 99 or 100%. --- Derek Lai <Derek.Lai(a)onyxco.com> wrote: > I don't think there is much difference between > rebuilding a data disk vs. > parity disk. Unless you are doing lots of writes. > Since the writes will also > have to update the parity disk, they may be > contending with the rebuild. Do > you have any idea how much writes were going on? > > > Derek > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry [mailto:juanino@yahoo.com] > Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 9:02 AM > To: Derek Lai > Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: RE: parity drive rebuild causing ls hangs > > > I think there are only 5 72g disks in that raid > group. > Still, I've done this with data disks many times, > and > the rebuild at "medium" is not really noticeable. > We > set it to low during the rebuild, still no effect. > > We're not talking about something a performance > metric > picked up, we're talking about a 30-60 sec on just > an > ls (small disk i/o presumeably). Something wasn't > right. > > --- Derek Lai <Derek.Lai(a)onyxco.com> wrote: > > > What is your setting on > > raid.reconstruct.perf_impact? The default is set > to > > medium. You can try to set it to low and the ls > > performance might be better. > > But keep in mind the rebuilds might take longer. > > > > How many disk is in your raidgroup? Keep in mind > > that when the filer is in > > rebuild mode, the number of I/O skyrockets. If you > > have 8 disks in the > > raidgroup and one disk fails, any single I/O > request > > for a piece of > > information store in that raidgroup is going to > > cause 7X the amount of I/O > > compared to normal operation. This is not peculiar > > to NetApp but a normal > > thing for raid. > > > > One other way to get better performance without > > having the rebuilds take > > longer is to reduce the number of disk you have in > > the raidgroup. > > > > > > Derek > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jerry [mailto:juanino@yahoo.com] > > Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 6:55 AM > > To: list toasters > > Subject: parity drive rebuild causing ls hangs > > > > > > Anyone ever experience really bad performance when > > rebuilding a parity disk? We had a parity disk > fail > > on our FAS940 and when it was trying to rebuild > the > > disk i/o util went to 100% (observed with > sysstat). > > Reads and Writes did not appear high, but I don't > > think rebuild traffic effects those numbers. > > > > During this time, "ls" was taking between 30 and > 60 > > seconds (unacceptable). We thought for sure this > > couldn't be normal, since we've had disks fail and > > rebuild many times. The difference this time is > it > > was a parity disk, but I don't think that should > > make > > a difference other than taking a little longer to > > rebuild. Sure enough, after the rebuild was > complete > > it started working again. Any opinions? > > > > Jerry > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > > protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com

1 0

RE: parity drive rebuild causing ls hangs
by Derek Lai 15 Oct '04

15 Oct '04

I don't think there is much difference between rebuilding a data disk vs. parity disk. Unless you are doing lots of writes. Since the writes will also have to update the parity disk, they may be contending with the rebuild. Do you have any idea how much writes were going on? Derek -----Original Message----- From: Jerry [mailto:juanino@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 9:02 AM To: Derek Lai Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: parity drive rebuild causing ls hangs I think there are only 5 72g disks in that raid group. Still, I've done this with data disks many times, and the rebuild at "medium" is not really noticeable. We set it to low during the rebuild, still no effect. We're not talking about something a performance metric picked up, we're talking about a 30-60 sec on just an ls (small disk i/o presumeably). Something wasn't right. --- Derek Lai <Derek.Lai(a)onyxco.com> wrote: > What is your setting on > raid.reconstruct.perf_impact? The default is set to > medium. You can try to set it to low and the ls > performance might be better. > But keep in mind the rebuilds might take longer. > > How many disk is in your raidgroup? Keep in mind > that when the filer is in > rebuild mode, the number of I/O skyrockets. If you > have 8 disks in the > raidgroup and one disk fails, any single I/O request > for a piece of > information store in that raidgroup is going to > cause 7X the amount of I/O > compared to normal operation. This is not peculiar > to NetApp but a normal > thing for raid. > > One other way to get better performance without > having the rebuilds take > longer is to reduce the number of disk you have in > the raidgroup. > > > Derek > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry [mailto:juanino@yahoo.com] > Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 6:55 AM > To: list toasters > Subject: parity drive rebuild causing ls hangs > > > Anyone ever experience really bad performance when > rebuilding a parity disk? We had a parity disk fail > on our FAS940 and when it was trying to rebuild the > disk i/o util went to 100% (observed with sysstat). > Reads and Writes did not appear high, but I don't > think rebuild traffic effects those numbers. > > During this time, "ls" was taking between 30 and 60 > seconds (unacceptable). We thought for sure this > couldn't be normal, since we've had disks fail and > rebuild many times. The difference this time is it > was a parity disk, but I don't think that should > make > a difference other than taking a little longer to > rebuild. Sure enough, after the rebuild was complete > it started working again. Any opinions? > > Jerry > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

2 1

Undeliverable: Re:
by System Administrator 14 Oct '04

14 Oct '04

Your message To: Malek.hamdan Subject: Re: Sent: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 05:19:03 +1000 did not reach the following recipient(s): Malek.hamdan on Fri, 15 Oct 2004 04:19:14 +1000 The recipient name is not recognized The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=au;a=telememo ;p=davnet pty. ltd.;l=SYD-MAIL-0104101418194AVY9K24 MSEXCH:IMS:Davnet Pty. Ltd.:Sydney:SYD-MAIL-01 0 (000C05A6) Unknown Recipient

1 0

FW: NetApp Question
by Alec Devroey 14 Oct '04

14 Oct '04

Could anyone answer any of the following questions: SQL Questions I have 2 SQL Servers that replicate with each other using SQL Replication. One of the servers (Server1) Is a remote server at a Site and the other (Server 2) is based in a DataCenter and is connected to a FAS. If I would use SnapManager for SQL and restore a snapshot of the SQL Database what would happen to my SQL Synchronisation. Firewall Questions I also have 2 SQL servers in the DMZ, What do I need to do to the our firewall to allow these 2 servers to connect to the FAS, What are my possibilities, Is it a high security risk Snapshots How do I configure snapshots to act like a GFS rotation, Daily, weekly and Monthly Windows Question Is there a limit on how many Tape Devices I can connect to Windows Server without affecting backup performance, someone once told me that is recommended that only 4 drives should be connected. All help greatly appreciated Met Vriendelijke Groeten Alec Devroey Consultant - Systems & Data Integration Simac nv/sa KMO zone Guldendelle Arthur De Coninckstraat 5 B-3070 KORTENBERG Belgium Tel. General +32 (0)2 7551511 Tel Mobile +32 (0)476 610363 E-Mail: alec.devroey(a)simac.be <mailto:n@simac.be> Web-site: http://www.simac.be <http://www.simac.bbe/> ##################################################################################### This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, copying, distribution, or other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error please notify Simac immediately and then delete this e-mail. Simac has taken all reasonable precautions to avoid virusses in this email. Simac does not accept liability for damage by virusses, for the correct and complete transmission of the information, nor for any delay or interruption of the transmission, nor for damages arising from the use of or reliance on the information. All e-mail messages addressed to, received or sent by Simac or Simac employees are deemed to be professional in nature. Accordingly, the sender or recipient of these messages agrees that they may be read by other Simac employees than the official recipient or sender in order to ensure the continuity of work-related activities and allow supervision thereof. #####################################################################################

2 1

netapp ndmp backup faq anywhere?
by Tavis Gustafson 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

Does anyone know of a recent backup over ndmp faq I could look at. I would like to backup 15 or so netapps to tape via ndmp. Is there a viable free method of doing this? Comercial solutions cost upwards of 30K ! thank, -Tavis

1 0

Bug ID 135544 : I prefer avoiding put too-new disk in the broken state
by Stephane 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

<< Bug ID 135544 Title Disk with label problem doesn't appear in sysconfig -r or FilerView ... Notes Formatted Data ONTAP 6.5 includes a fix whereby disks with an invalid or too-new label version are assimilated into the "broken" pool, so will appear in sysconfig -r and FilerView. Label assimilation will signal the presence of such a disk with a raid.config.disk.bad.label.version event to the messages and EMS logs. >> I don't call this a fix. It doesn't let you move a volume from a dead Filer to another one running. You could broke your precious data on this volume. If disk unfail is issued on this disk, they lost their label. It is a rigid mechanism. Better would be to marginalize these disk at the wafl level and not put them on the break state.

1 0

Undeliverable: Re:
by System Administrator 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

Your message To: Malek.hamdan Subject: Re: Sent: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:28:10 +1000 did not reach the following recipient(s): Malek.hamdan on Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:28:16 +1000 The recipient name is not recognized The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=au;a=telememo ;p=davnet pty. ltd.;l=SYD-MAIL-0104101300284AVY888D MSEXCH:IMS:Davnet Pty. Ltd.:Sydney:SYD-MAIL-01 0 (000C05A6) Unknown Recipient

1 0

Who's going to 7.0, and when?
by James Brigman 12 Oct '04

12 Oct '04

Hey Folks; DO 7.0 promises some revolutionary capabilities when it becomes available "real soon now". How many of you out there are going to upgrade to it as soon as you can? Anyone? JKB

2 1

Undeliverable: Re:
by System Administrator 12 Oct '04

12 Oct '04

Your message To: Malek.hamdan Subject: Re: Sent: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:23:25 +1000 did not reach the following recipient(s): Malek.hamdan on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:23:33 +1000 The recipient name is not recognized The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=au;a=telememo ;p=davnet pty. ltd.;l=SYD-MAIL-0104101213234AVY86C0 MSEXCH:IMS:Davnet Pty. Ltd.:Sydney:SYD-MAIL-01 0 (000C05A6) Unknown Recipient

1 0

Undeliverable: Re:
by System Administrator 12 Oct '04

12 Oct '04

Your message To: Malek.hamdan Subject: Re: Sent: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:15:16 +1000 did not reach the following recipient(s): Malek.hamdan on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:15:24 +1000 The recipient name is not recognized The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=au;a=telememo ;p=davnet pty. ltd.;l=SYD-MAIL-0104101203154AVY8YDT MSEXCH:IMS:Davnet Pty. Ltd.:Sydney:SYD-MAIL-01 0 (000C05A6) Unknown Recipient

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