We have a R200 which has 168 ATA drives. I expected a high failure rate on these as ATA drives are not rated for continuous duty. I have been surprised, and pleased, that failure rate has been very low - perhaps 3 drives in a year. Not sure about the SATA. The way I am moving is to use (S)ATA for my NAS (user shares) and FC drives for hosting my iSCSI LUNs. Databases need the higher performance of FC, simple file shares do not.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of margesimpson@hushmail.com Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:00 PM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: Storage space overheads!
Hi Glenn D, Glenn W, Andrew, Michael, Holland and Holland, Thank you all for your feeback.
To summarize, the following is true (i.e., about storage sacrifice): - Disk are right sized (realigning size in blocks from different vendors...eg., for 72GB we get 68GB) before using by NetApp. - dual parity (2 disks on RG of 16 => 14D+2P) - spare disk/s - WAFL & RAID overhead (~ 5%). - aggr reserve 5% default - vol snapshot reserve 20% default - for LUNs: 50% for base snapshot + extra space 20% of remaining data space - user data should always be below 90% to avoid performance bottleneck and defrag issues.
That's sounds bad to me, but if you all feel to be true then its must be a solution.
How about putting SATA disks on the primary filers to save costs? Whats are the problems in replacing FC disks with SATA? Whats record about SATA disks, I heard they are terrible? (Failure rates is abnormal)
Thanks again for feedback. Marge.
Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480
Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485