RE: vol0 question

-- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Peregrine Systems, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Harm [mailto:jharm@llnl.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:23 PM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Re: vol0 question An argument for isolating root volume is that we are still warned in the netapp admin classes that if the root volume gets full, the filer will crash. We can build qtress to limit client to just under 100% or we can reserve 1% snap and turn off snaps. But will either of those really work? Will the filer potentially crash on a full volume even if it is not root volume? At 6:12 AM -0800 2/5/02, Jeff Kennedy wrote: >I don't disagree but this seems to be a paradigm of the past. With the >R100 out, and OT 6.2 comming soon, the limitations are quickly >disappearing. Currently I plan to just snapmirror volumes to the R100, >but with 6.2 I plan to create volumes in the 1TB+ range and snapmirror >the qtrees (everything we do is in qtrees). I used to be a volume nazi >for probably the same reasons you mention (no volume was to *ever* get >above 400GB's non-snapshot), now I don't see that as a problem anymore. >I have no issues with volumes going past 1TB if this works as >advertised, and I have no reason to think it won't. > >So, do you still think vol0 should be seperate? And don't give me the >"That's the way we've always done it..." routine :-] Keep in mind the >R100 does mostly archival, backup/restore, and misc funtions like db >exports and IT tool storage, not traditional production stuff. > >~JK > >Chris Blackmor wrote: >> >> Jeff, >> I personally don't like active data on vol0. In the past I have >> put archive data on vol0 because it is low impact. I happen to >> be a little more paranoid than some but that is just me and we >> have been bitten before by putting highly volatile on the root volume. >> Chris >> >> On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 02:02:14PM -0800, Jeff Kennedy wrote: >> > Now that the R100 has come out I was wondering what people think of the >> > seperate vol0 concept? In the old days it wasn't quite so bad; ok, so >> > you wasted a 4gb drive or maybe even an 18gb drive. But now we're >> > looking at tossing a 136gb drive for what? Squat really. >> > >> > So what's the new thought on this? Do you not waste the disk on a >> > seperate vol0 and just keep tight reigns on qtrees? Or is there still >> > an argument for vol0 on it's own? >> > >> > Thanks. >> > -- >> > ===================== >> > Jeff Kennedy >> > Unix Administrator >> > AMCC >> > jlkennedy@amcc.com >> >> -- >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >> * | When you're throwin' your * >> * Chris Blackmor _______ | weight around, * >> * Advanced Micro Devices ____ | | be ready to have it * >> * Phone: (512) 602-1608 /| | | | thrown around by * >> * Fax: (512) 602-5155 | |___| | | somebody else. * >> * Email: chris.blackmor@amd.com |____/ | | Author Unknown* >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >> * My comments are mine, and mine alone. * >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > >-- >===================== >Jeff Kennedy >Unix Administrator >AMCC >jlkennedy@amcc.com -- }}}===============>> LLNL James E. Harm (Jim); jharm@llnl.gov System Administrator Compaq Clusters (925) 422-4018 Page: 423-7705x57152