Yes of course you're right.
We all know that manual paragraph that but considering this option cannot damage data contained it could be useful to test it also in this case...there are a lot of misteries in options... J
Regards,
Da: De Wit Tom (Consultant) [mailto:tom.de.wit@consultant.volvo.com] Inviato: mercoledì 15 ottobre 2008 16.06 A: Milazzo Giacomo; Darren Sykes; Glenn Walker; Page, Jeremy; toasters@mathworks.com Oggetto: RE: Snapvault slow on one specific volume?
I wouldn't recommend enabling extents for volumes other than the ones holding exchange databases. The option does degrade runtime performance and only improves validation of exchange databases, so the option should only be used with Exchange databases. The DataOntap administration guide tells the following:
When to enable logical extents http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/ontap/rel73/html/ontap/sysadmin/tuning/concept/c_oc_tun_ms-exchange-logical-extents-when.html#c_oc_tun_ms-exchange-logical-extents-when You enable logical extents for volumes that contain Microsoft Exchange data only. The decision to use logical extents involves a trade-off between improved database validation performance and runtime performance. Use logical extents when you want to improve validation performance. If runtime performance is higher priority, you might not want to use extents.
Grtz,
Tom
________________________________
From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Milazzo Giacomo Sent: woensdag 15 oktober 2008 15:21 To: Darren Sykes; Glenn Walker; Page, Jeremy; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: R: Snapvault slow on one specific volume?
Reading about this they seem the same issues with Exchange on WAFL LUNs on a volume WITHOUT the "vol options extent on".
You certainly know that if you have an old Data Ontap without that options (it came fm 7.2 if I well remember) or if you leave it off and you have Exchange LUNs this can cause terribly bad performances (and fragmentation nightmares) as the one here reported.
Waiting for a fix I put it so...why don't you put the extent vol options to on and try again? J
Regards
Da: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] Per conto di Darren Sykes Inviato: mercoledì 15 ottobre 2008 10.10 A: Glenn Walker; Page, Jeremy; toasters@mathworks.com Oggetto: Re: Snapvault slow on one specific volume?
I'd say it was probably the bug; in theory dedup should increase performance in that situation as the block would be stored in the cache and therefore we wouldn't need to go to disk to get that data. The degradation is also really pronounced - doing a plain old rsync file copy of the VMDK's shows great performance right until it hits the sequence of dedup'd blank blocks, then the transfer literally almost stops.
From speaking to a couple of people, I wouldn't expect 7.2.5.1 or 7.3 to provide many improvements over the latest P releases of of 7.2.4. The bug is more likely to be fixed in 7.3.1, so it's a good 4 months away.
However, as the NOW case mentioned, this won't affect the normal operation of a VM, assuming you're not attempting to do anything horrible - like a block for block disk image. Someone also suggested that a disk format might cause problems, however I'd query that as writes are unaffected, it's just reading back those blank blocks. In normal operation a guest OS would never do that, as far as it's concerned (due to the information stored within the guest's file system) they're just unallocated blocks on the disk that'll never be read.
Darren
On 15/10/2008 00:43, "Glenn Walker" ggwalker@mindspring.com wrote:
Guessing that it sped up access due to the bug (and/or regular performance degradation from hitting the same blocks multiple times due to de-dupe)?
With some of the dedupe improvements rumored in 7.3, I'd expect that to potentially improve.
________________________________
From: Darren Sykes [mailto:Darren.Sykes@csr.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 9:45 AM To: Glenn Walker; Page, Jeremy; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: Snapvault slow on one specific volume?
SMotion - you'd hope (without breaking any NDA's) that they would address that in the next version, and possibly give you the option to specify thin or fat disks explicitly.
Out of interest - I removed dedup on our templates volume and a VM provisioning job that took 16 mins yesterday took less than 5 mins today.
Darren.
________________________________
From: Glenn Walker [mailto:ggwalker@mindspring.com] Sent: 14 October 2008 13:43 To: Darren Sykes; Page, Jeremy; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: Snapvault slow on one specific volume? FC and iSCSI does mean FAT VMDK, unless you create them manually and specify thin provisioned (not typical). The Storage VMotion info is good to know - I hope they get that fixed soon. Thanks for the additional info - it's something for us to watch out for. We went NFS from the start (and performed P2V and V2V into the NFS-based datastores), but I know that SVMotion has been used and templates as well. I'll try to check our use of templates a bit later today... Glenn
________________________________
From: Darren Sykes [mailto:Darren.Sykes@csr.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 3:00 AM To: Glenn Walker; Page, Jeremy; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: Snapvault slow on one specific volume?
Glenn,
That's true; by default all new VM's created on an NFS volume would be thin provisioned. I'm not sure if that's the case for templates though (I thought they were created fat on purpose for performance reasons when deploying them).
Also, we migrated from FC and iSCSI LUNS (which is basically a file copy) so most of our VM's are fat anyway. From what I understand using SVMOTION also results in a fat filed VM, though that's not officially supported on NFS in ESX3.5.
So, in summary there are a few reasons why you might end up with non-thin provisioned VM's on NFS and may therefore hit this bug.
Darren
________________________________
From: Glenn Walker [mailto:ggwalker@mindspring.com] Sent: Tue 10/14/2008 03:23 To: Darren Sykes; Page, Jeremy; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: Snapvault slow on one specific volume?
I was under the impression that ESX over NFS used thin-provisioned VMDKs by default (that's how it is in our environment, and all of the files are appearing as thin-provisioned). Would this then be not the same bug? Thin-provisioned VMDKs means that the portion of the VMDK not allocated to the guest would be treated as a sparse file, not a file filled with zeros. (unless someone decided to perform a full format on the 'disk', perhaps?)
________________________________
From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Darren Sykes Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 3:51 PM To: Page, Jeremy; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: Snapvault slow on one specific volume?
Jeremy/All,
Following on from our conversation offline:
It would seem you (and I) have been suffering from the bug described here: http://now.netapp.com/NOW/cgi-bin/bol?Type=Detail&Display=281669
We saw it on template volumes. I'm planning to disable ASIS on that volume to attempt to speed up access.
Obviously, that solution may be less than useful in your environment where it's live data volumes which benefit from ASIS.
Darren
________________________________
size=2 width="100%" align=center tabIndex=-1>
From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com on behalf of Page, Jeremy Sent: Mon 10/13/2008 13:14 To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Snapvault slow on one specific volume?
I have an aggr with two volumes on it. One of them is a 3.5 TB CIFS/NFS share that is reasonably fast to snapvault and a 1 TB NFS share (ESX VMs) that is exceptionally slow. As in it's been doing it's initial copy for over a week and still has not finished. NDMP backups of this volume are also quite slow, does anyone know why it would be so much slower then the other volume using the same spindles? The filer is not under extreme load, although occasionally it's pretty busy. Here is a "normal" sysstat: CPU Total Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache Cache CP CP Disk ops/s in out read write read write age hit time ty util 12% 1007 2970 8996 15769 9117 0 0 8 93% 49% : 41% 18% 920 2792 6510 11715 6924 0 0 8 99% 84% T 39% 15% 1276 3580 10469 15942 8041 0 0 10 92% 33% T 36% 13% 1487 3416 11347 15632 4907 0 0 11 89% 42% : 43% 17% 1417 3180 9890 14000 9444 0 0 9 98% 79% T 41% 13% 972 3704 9705 15427 9934 0 0 7 92% 46% T 51% 18% 1087 2947 11911 17717 4640 0 0 9 98% 33% T 47% 11% 1204 3358 11219 14090 5159 0 0 7 88% 100% : 50% 12% 1161 2808 9085 12640 5936 0 0 9 90% 33% T 44% 13% 981 4735 11919 16125 7097 0 0 9 92% 45% : 43% 15% 1158 5780 12480 17565 8266 0 0 10 92% 88% T 41% I'm just having difficulty trying to determine why two volumes on the same spindles would be so different in the time it takes to do their initial transfer. Also, the VM's do not seem slower then those hosted on other aggregates (this one is 3 RG of 11 disks each, Ontap 7.2.4 on a 3070A IBM rebranded).
To report this email as spam click here https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/wQw0zmjPoHdJTZGyOCrrhg== .
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended only for the addressee. Any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may constitute a violation of law. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by responding to this e-mail, and delete the message from your system. If you have any questions about this e-mail please notify the sender immediately.