Spinning up and down isn't the issue.
According to the warning displayed when you do a disk_fw_update, even upgrading a single disk,
"It involves... suspending all disk I/O to all disks while that is happening"
SUSPENDING ALL DISK I/O TO **ALL** (not ONE) DISKS.
That's a problem in my environment.
So I guess the question is, is the notice wrong and when you're only doing a disk_fw_update on a single disk that's allocated as a spare, it doesn't suspend I/O to ALL disks?
ONTAP 6 will be very cool. I'm looking forward to being able to install it soon. I particularly appreciate the new logging features so I can see who did what when.
Thanks, MD
-----Original Message----- From: Krause, Oliver To: 'Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau'; 'toasters@mathworks.com' Sent: 1/8/01 3:50 PM Subject: RE: disk_fw_update issue with 840-5.3.7R2
As i said you can upgrade a single disk with "disk_fw_update <disk>" without service disruption while this disk is a spare. Again, you have to specify the disk. Also does a disk firmware upgrade not take 2 minutes per disk if you use disk_fw_update.
Oliver
BTW: ONTAP 6.0 and higher is supposed to do a automatic update when you insert a disk with older firmware (have not tried it yet). Cool, isn't it?
MadDog@fool.com (Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau) writes:
Spinning up and down isn't the issue.
According to the warning displayed when you do a disk_fw_update, even upgrading a single disk,
"It involves... suspending all disk I/O to all disks while that is happening"
SUSPENDING ALL DISK I/O TO **ALL** (not ONE) DISKS.
That's a problem in my environment.
So I guess the question is, is the notice wrong and when you're only doing a disk_fw_update on a single disk that's allocated as a spare, it doesn't suspend I/O to ALL disks?
The last time I did this (last June, 5.3.5 => 5.3.6, FDF6 => NA26 on ST39102FC disks, on an F740) then there was definitely a period of non-responsiveness of the filer, even if only a single (and spare) disk was being updated, long enough to make NFS clients start logging "NFS server so-and-so not responding".
Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1@ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG, Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 01:01:22AM +0000, Chris Thompson wrote:
The last time I did this (last June, 5.3.5 => 5.3.6, FDF6 => NA26 on ST39102FC disks, on an F740) then there was definitely a period of non-responsiveness of the filer, even if only a single (and spare) disk was being updated, long enough to make NFS clients start logging "NFS server so-and-so not responding".
We've consistantly seen the same behavior all the way up to 5.3.7R2.
It would be a "Bad Thing(tm)" if DOT 6.x automatcially performs this command without asking or without an override, and the disk firmware upgrade mechanism still involves network outtages. =)
-- Jeff
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Krueger, NetApp CA E-Mail: jeff@qualcomm.com Senior Engineer Phone: 858-651-6709 NetApp Filers / UNIX Infrastructure Fax: 858-651-6627 QUALCOMM, Inc. IT Engineering Web: www.qualcomm.com
-
Chris Thompson -
Jeffrey Krueger -
Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau