Ray,

For me the best thing is to keep the volume names descriptive of what will be in them and also keep them unique within the environment. Having a /vol/data on 4 different filers isn't very descriptive when someone is trying to find something. It can also be more clutter if you want to dump all your volume related things like quota reports into one file for parsing. You then have to start adjusting for different filer names.

We are lucky that most of our data is project related. If they think they will need 30 TB and we know they will need multiple file systems we just start out naming them with a numeric suffix (foobar1, foobar2, etc)

We also do something with aggregates for the same reasons. All aggregates get a suffix that includes the first letter of the filer names such as foobar1_e. This means we can't have 2 filer names starting with the same letter, but I don't think that will be an issue for us :-) The unique suffix allows us to easily parse files for specific filer information, and know immediately which filer an aggregate belongs to.

Jeff

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Ray Van Dolson rvandolson@esri.com wrote:

Hello;

Curious what type of volume naming conventions you all have found work best?

We're about to expand our environment, and looking for ideas on ways to keep names somewhat formulaic and consistent across filers.

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