I vaguely remember running a test on an ONTAP 9 simulator.
What I found was that if the destination aggr had compaction enabled, then snapmirror into that aggr would also have compacted data. This DOES NOT work with XDP (snapvault & version-flexible snapmirror)
--tmac
*Tim McCarthy, **Principal Consultant*
*Proud Member of the #NetAppATeam https://twitter.com/NetAppATeam*
*I Blog at TMACsRack https://tmacsrack.wordpress.com/*
[image: NetApp - In partnership with Alpine Testing Solutions][image: NetApp Certified Data Administrator, ONTAP] https://www.certmetrics.com/netapp/public/badge.aspx?t=c&d=2012-11-05&i=35&ci=NETAPP00041276[image: NetApp Certified Implementation Engineer - SAN Specialist, ONTAP] https://www.certmetrics.com/netapp/public/badge.aspx?t=c&d=2012-11-08&i=36&ci=NETAPP00041276[image: NetApp Certified Storage Installation Engineer, ONTAP] https://www.certmetrics.com/netapp/public/badge.aspx?t=c&d=2015-10-13&i=38&ci=NETAPP00041276[image: NetApp Certified Implementation Engineer - Data Protection Specialist] https://www.certmetrics.com/netapp/public/badge.aspx?t=c&d=2015-10-15&i=11&ci=NETAPP00041276
NetApp Candidate ID: NETAPP00041276 FlexPod Design: Oct 2015 - Jan 2018, S0N62WE1BMVEYF3M FlexPod Implementation: Oct 2015 - Jan 2018, JH3QJT4KLEQ41HPH
RHCE6 110-107-141 https://www.redhat.com/wapps/training/certification/verify.html?certNumber=110-107-141&isSearch=False&verify=Verify
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:25 AM, jordan slingerland < jordan.slingerland@gmail.com> wrote:
My understanding is that both are block based operations so it makes sense to me that the blocks would be put down on disk unchanged. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that you may want to reverse the snapmirror back to the system that presumably does not have compaction enabled or support the feature, so the blocks are left uncompacted? If the vol move is within the same controller AFF the lack of backward compatibility is not a concern. Just a though, I don't know.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Francis Kim fkim@berkcom.com wrote:
Strange how compaction appears to work with vol move but not with snap mirror.
.
On Sep 23, 2016, at 4:39 AM, Steiner, Jeffrey Jeffrey.Steiner@netapp.com wrote:
A vol-move operation will cause compaction to happen. I know it's not ideal but at least its internal. Obviously a scanner is preferred but functionally it would be a lot like a vol move.
Likewise if you use FLI to import a LUN that will trigger all the efficiency features during the import.
Sent from my mobile phone.
On 23 Sep 2016, at 02:10, Jeffrey Mohler jmohler@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
Compaction in our testing can be good, really good...an additional 20% in many of our test data sets on top of everything else. (SSET diagnosis)
However, there are limitations on how you get data into AFF to get compaction...IE, you cant snapmirror it.
It must transfer, as far as we're told today, via a host/file based migration. Be thinking bout this when you consider an AFF migration. It must be done outside on ONTAP.
We have pushed to get this fixed via a scanner/etc that reads and relays out the file based structure.
Jeff Mohler jmohler@yahoo-inc.com Tech Yahoo, Storage Architect, Principal (831)454-6712 YPAC Gold Member Twitter: @PrincipalYahoo CorpIM: Hipchat & Iris
On Friday, September 23, 2016 1:53 AM, Mike Gossett cmgossett@gmail.com wrote:
my sales guy basically said the guarantee works as follows - they don't hit the 4:1 target, they buy you whatever amount of shelf\ssd required to makeup shortfall.
The magic has to do with what they call "compaction" - writes <4KB (down to 512B/ea) are "compacted" into a single 4K block... this apparently adds to the std dedupe and compression they use.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:32 PM, jordan slingerland < jordan.slingerland@gmail.com> wrote:
Sales guys are promising me 4:1 dedup ratios on an AFF with ontap9. They say they grantee it. I have specifically asked what stipulation. In a VDI environment with linked clones, etc. Sales guy tells me none and even specifically says they can dedup compressed video or audio (mp3) 4:1.
I have A LOT of trouble believing that. So, 4:1 dedup guaranteed or what?
Any comments welcome.
--Jordan
Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.net http://www.teaparty.net/ mailman/listinfo/toasters http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.net http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.net http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.net http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.net http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.net http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters