With so few disks and presumably needing HA, I would almost wonder if you would see better performance creating a 3 disk agg0/vol0 on toaster B side, and adding all the remaining disks to single aggr0 on the A side (housing vol0 and data volumes)

...I know that might seem a little counter intuitive from some perspectives, but there are not many good configuration options, in terms of raid group/aggregate layout , with so few disks.

-----Original Message-----
From: toasters-bounces@teaparty.net [mailto:toasters-bounces@teaparty.net] On Behalf Of Matt Hallmark
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 4:21 PM
To: John Stoffel
Cc: toasters@teaparty.net

Subject: Re: What is the minimum number of shelves for a FAS3220 HA pair?

It's all done with software disk ownership, it could boot off of disk 23 or 24 if you wanted to create the aggregates that way. (whatever the slot/bay naming scheme is these days).  I know that I could /make it work/ just fine with 2 controllers and one shelf, but it may not be a "supported configuration" from a netapp perspective.

Matt

On Sep 25, 2013, at 1:15 PM, "John Stoffel" <john.stoffel@taec.toshiba.com> wrote:

>
> Scott> We are considering a FAS3220HA running clustered ONTAP (8.2)
> Scott> with a single DS4246 shelf. However, we were recently informed
> Scott> by our sales people that this is not possible, and that the

> Scott> minimum number of shelves for an HA pair running cDOT was two.
> Scott> Apparently each node needs it's own DS4246 for the cDOT

> Scott> operating system? Is it not possible to split the disks on a
> Scott> single shelf into two aggregates and assign one aggregate to
> Scott> each controller?
>
> Each head needs it's own boot disks, and since it's hard-coded to boot
> off slots 1 and 2 (or some other pair, I forget) in the shelf, having
> just one shelf would not allow the other head to boot.
>
> Personally, I'd probably gamble that a single 3220 with a single shelf
> doesn't really need clustering since you're obviously (to me at least,
> please correct me if I'm wrong) not looking for capacity or even
> massive performance, since you have a small number of spindles.  But I
> could be totally off base here.
>
> John
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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