This is a relatively recent development….I think with 7.2.5 or
7.3 possibly.
Glenn Dekhayser
VoyantStrategies
From:
owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf
Of James Beal
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 3:25 PM
To: Bill Holland
Cc: Peta Spies; toasters@mathworks.com
Subject: Re: Crazy disk swap thought
On 1 Dec 2008, at 20:14, Bill Holland wrote:
It wouldn't be a matter of the number of disks in a shelf,
but the raid group size and number of disks in the aggregate. Even if it
would work, you would end up with wasted disk space as the largest aggregate
you can have is 16TB. With 320GB disks, that would be roughly 56
disks, with 1TB disks, it would only be 16. So, if you have more than 16
disks in your current aggrate, you would exceed your max aggregate capacity
after 16 1TB disks if the filer were to see them as 1TB disks.
As an aside isn't it the maximum size of
the aggregate the cooked size rather than the raw, so isn't it around
19 disks ( there is an option which I am not sure is documented to raise
the maximum group size ).
This is from a netapp pre-sales person.
1TB
SATA = 10,615GB – max 19 disks per aggregate based on 1 spare and two RAID sets
of 8+2 and 7+2
This
means you can get about 105TB of real space out of a cabinet of 1TB drives
versus about 85TB for the next drive size down, 750GB drives
The option you suggested of a single RAID set per aggregate is not supported as
this would require 19 disks in the RAID set.
12,030GB
= max 19 disks – 1 x 17+2 (unsupported)