I need to serve iscsi + CIFS. I would be servering around 1TB of cifs and 1.8 TB of&nbsp; iscsi data to vmware servers running SQL. We dont have any IOPS numbers.<br><br>Question is what would be the performance impact...if any of a seperate aggregate of 8 disks on a seperate controller. Will the availability of the active second controller&nbsp; with 2GB RAM compensate for a smaller raid group.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">2008/11/24 Webster, Stetson <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:Stetson.Webster@netapp.com">Stetson.Webster@netapp.com</a>&gt;</span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">














<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">

<div>

<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;; color: rgb(0, 112, 192);">It depends on the amount
of risk exposure you want (in absence of the spare), and performance impact you
can withstand with the fewer disks.</span></p>

<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;; color: rgb(0, 112, 192);">&nbsp;</span></p>

<p><b><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Courier; color: black;">Stetson
M. Webster</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Courier; color: black;"><br>
</span></b><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Courier; color: black;">Professional Services Engineer<br>
NCIE-SAN, NCIE-B&amp;R, SNIA-SCSE<br>
NetApp Global Services - Southeast District</span><span style="color: blue;"></span></p>

<p><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Courier; color: black;">919.250.0052 Mobile<br>
</span><span style="color: blue;"><a href="mailto:Stetson.Webster@netapp.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Courier; color: blue;">Stetson.Webster@netapp.com</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 112, 192);"></span></p>


<p><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 112, 192);">Learn how: <a href="http://netapp.com/guarantee" target="_blank">netapp.com/guarantee</a></span></p>

<p><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 112, 192);">&nbsp;</span></p>

<p><a href="http://www.netapp.com/us/solutions/infrastructure/virtualization/guarantee.html?ref_source=eSig" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: blue; text-decoration: none;"><img src="cid:image003.jpg@01C94E45.BA8C5A00" alt="guarantee-email-sig2" border="0" height="88" width="496"></span></a><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 112, 192);"><span>&nbsp; </span></span></p>


<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;; color: rgb(0, 112, 192);">&nbsp;</span></p>

<div style="border-style: solid none none; border-color: rgb(181, 196, 223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1pt medium medium; padding: 3pt 0in 0in;">

<p><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> Premkumar Subramanian [mailto:<a href="mailto:prem@x-or.co.uk" target="_blank">prem@x-or.co.uk</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 24, 2008 2:42 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:toasters@mathworks.com" target="_blank">toasters@mathworks.com</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> FAS2050 with 20 disks</span></p>

</div><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">Hi,<br>
<br>
I plan to implement a FAS2050 with 20 internal SAS disks. I intend to have 12
disks on one of the controller and 8 on the other.<br>
the idea being to make use of processing power of both controllers. Now the
trade-off is the number of spindles in each aggregate possibly affecting
performance. I have seen a few people use just 2 disks on the second controller
with no spares and have the other 16 disks+2 spares on a single controller.<br>
<br>
which of these two would be a better option?<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Premkumar Subramanian<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>

</div></div></div>

</div>


</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><br>Best regards,<br>Premkumar Subramanian<br> <br>XOR Technologies<br>DDI: 0208 736 5884<br>Mobile: 07884477910<br><a href="http://www.x-or.co.uk">www.x-or.co.uk</a><br>
<br><br>