I would split the load to both heads. What's the point in spending all the money for two heads if you are only going to use one...?
4 shelves of DS4243 will perform extremely well. I saw it on my own 3170, 6070, and 6080 pairs.

I would likely create one large aggr on each head (pending the environment...not knowing yours) and then create the volumes on that.
I would also split the DS14mk4 shelves between the heads as well....personally, I would turn off the disk-auto-assign and assign them myself
since the systems use software ownership, I can give a half shelf to one head and the other half to the other head.

--tmac
         Tim McCarthy
     Principal Consultant

  RedHat Certified Engineer
   804006984323821 (RHEL4)
   805007643429572 (RHEL5)


On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Fletcher Cocquyt <fcocquyt@stanford.edu> wrote:
Fellow toasters,
we are trading up some old trays for new DS4243 trays and we are trying to decide if we allocate all 8 of our DS4243 trays to one ~40Tb aggregate (we plan to run ONTAP 8.1 for data motion) assigned to one of the cluster's heads will the advantage of all those spindles in one aggr be killed by the head being overloaded?
In which case would we be better served by 2 x 4  DS4243 AGGRs - one assigned to each 3270 head?

We also have 7 DS14-MK4 shelves to help balance out the workloads

All other things equal - I'm inclined to go for the one big 40Tb aggr vs 2 x 20Tb aggrs to reap the biggest IO capacity and performance
Currently our CPU weekly average workloads on the two 3270 heads are only 20% and 16%

My impression is a single 3270s head should be have enough headroom to push the large aggr to its full IO capacity.
But I'd be very interested to hear the advice others who have tested both options and any unforeseen issues with an aggr this large (our previous largest is 16Tb under 7.3.5.1P2)

thanks

Fletcher.




_______________________________________________
Toasters mailing list
Toasters@teaparty.net
http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters