Hi William,
we have the same drives as you have, those so called '144 GB' ones :-) When performing a sysconfig -r the filer showed me those 137 GB and i, young as i am, thought that the filer already made the conversion to binary for me. By rule of thumb this number seemed to be correct to me.
Well with a drive capacity of 134 i really get close to what i am locking for!
Thanks a lot and a nice weekend
Jochen
-----Original Message----- From: Holland, William L [mailto:hollandwl@state.gov] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:15 PM To: Willeke, Jochen; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: Aggregate size question
Are you sure they are 137GB? We have 144GB drives in our system and OnTap reports them as 133GB. The discrepancy is that drive manufacturers report capacity in base 10 rather than binary. Therefore, drive manufacturers report 144,000,000,000 as 144GB when in reality it is 144,000,000,000/1024^3 == 134GB. In the "real" world giga = 1 billion in the computing world gig = 1024^3 or 1,073,741,824 bytes. If you use 134 instead of 137 for your calculations you will come out pretty close to what the filer is showing you for results. Also, I don't think it is x .9 THEN x .95. If you use 1=34GB drives and x .85 (10% + 5%) you will only be off by 8GB.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 7:04 AM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Aggregate size question
Hi everyboby,
i have a little question about aggregate sizing. I have a aggregate called aggr1 consisting of 24 disks â 137 GB hosted on a FAS920c running Ontap 7.0.1R1.
As i have 2 raidgroups 4 disks are parity. I took the 20 left disks and calculated the following:
20 (disks) x 137 GB (size) x 0,90 (10% WAFL) x 0,95 (5% Aggr Snapshot) = 2342,7 GB
When i perform a 'df -Ahr' i only see this:
df -Ahr Aggregate total used avail reserved aggr1 2270GB 1924GB 346GB 0GB aggr1/.snapshot 119GB 34GB 84GB 0GB
So i have a difference of about 70 GB between my result and the total which Ontap shows me. Ok, 70 GB won't make the world turn faster :-) but i would like to understand why i am missing 70 GB.
Thanks in advance
Jochen
Those 1000 vs 1024 counters are a lot of space between perceived and actual.
spare 4b.44 4b 2 12 FC:B - FCAL 10000 136000/278528000 137104/280790184
Means 136,000 megabytes of usable space. Using real 1024 notation, that turns out to 132.8125 gigabytes of usable space.
132.8125 GB * 20 disks == 2656.25 GB Take away 10% WAFL overhead, then 5% aggregate snap reserve: 2656.25 * .90 == 2390.625 2390.625 * .95 == 2271.09375
Okay so I'm still off by about a gigabyte...but close enough?
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Willeke, Jochen wrote:
Hi William,
we have the same drives as you have, those so called '144 GB' ones :-) When performing a sysconfig -r the filer showed me those 137 GB and i, young as i am, thought that the filer already made the conversion to binary for me. By rule of thumb this number seemed to be correct to me.
Well with a drive capacity of 134 i really get close to what i am locking for!
Thanks a lot and a nice weekend
Jochen
-----Original Message----- From: Holland, William L [mailto:hollandwl@state.gov] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:15 PM To: Willeke, Jochen; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: Aggregate size question
Are you sure they are 137GB? We have 144GB drives in our system and OnTap reports them as 133GB. The discrepancy is that drive manufacturers report capacity in base 10 rather than binary. Therefore, drive manufacturers report 144,000,000,000 as 144GB when in reality it is 144,000,000,000/1024^3 == 134GB. In the "real" world giga = 1 billion in the computing world gig = 1024^3 or 1,073,741,824 bytes. If you use 134 instead of 137 for your calculations you will come out pretty close to what the filer is showing you for results. Also, I don't think it is x .9 THEN x .95. If you use 1=34GB drives and x .85 (10% + 5%) you will only be off by 8GB.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 7:04 AM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Aggregate size question
Hi everyboby,
i have a little question about aggregate sizing. I have a aggregate called aggr1 consisting of 24 disks â 137 GB hosted on a FAS920c running Ontap 7.0.1R1.
As i have 2 raidgroups 4 disks are parity. I took the 20 left disks and calculated the following:
20 (disks) x 137 GB (size) x 0,90 (10% WAFL) x 0,95 (5% Aggr Snapshot) = 2342,7 GB
When i perform a 'df -Ahr' i only see this:
df -Ahr Aggregate total used avail reserved aggr1 2270GB 1924GB 346GB 0GB aggr1/.snapshot 119GB 34GB 84GB 0GB
So i have a difference of about 70 GB between my result and the total which Ontap shows me. Ok, 70 GB won't make the world turn faster :-) but i would like to understand why i am missing 70 GB.
Thanks in advance
Jochen
we have the same drives as you have, those so called '144 GB' ones :-) When performing a sysconfig -r the filer showed me those 137 GB and i, young as i am, thought that the filer already made the conversion to binary for me. By rule of thumb this number seemed to be correct to me.
Well with a drive capacity of 134 i really get close to what i am locking for!
Yep. Looks like 137 is not a pure "binary Gigabyte" unit for them, but a hybrid of binary/decimal.
Reported size 144GB => 1.44 * 10^11 bytes
In units of 10 ^ 9 ( 1 billion ) => 144 10^6 * 2^10 (1 million KiB) => 140.6 10^3 * 2^20 (1000 MiB) => 137.3 2^30 (1 GiB) => 134.1
Back in the day I seem to remember that NetApp "right-sized" all of their disks. This was done to account for small differences in drive capacities from different drive manufacturers. For example, a 36GB drive was "right-sized" to 34.5GB or there about.
Is it possible that what we're seeing here is the effect of right-sizing the disks? Does NetApp still do this (Bueller....Bueller)?
Jeff Mery - MCSE, MCP National Instruments
------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Allow me to extol the virtues of the Net Fairy, and of all the fantastic dorks that make the nice packets go from here to there. Amen." TB - Penny Arcade -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darren Dunham ddunham@taos.com Sent by: owner-toasters@mathworks.com 02/24/2006 11:45 AM
To toasters@mathworks.com cc
Subject Re: Aggregate size question
we have the same drives as you have, those so called '144 GB' ones :-)
When performing a sysconfig -r the filer showed me those 137 GB and i, young as i am, thought that the filer already made the conversion to binary for me. By rule of thumb this number seemed to be correct to me.
Well with a drive capacity of 134 i really get close to what i am
locking for!
Yep. Looks like 137 is not a pure "binary Gigabyte" unit for them, but a hybrid of binary/decimal.
Reported size 144GB => 1.44 * 10^11 bytes
In units of 10 ^ 9 ( 1 billion ) => 144 10^6 * 2^10 (1 million KiB) => 140.6 10^3 * 2^20 (1000 MiB) => 137.3 2^30 (1 GiB) => 134.1
all vendors right size disks.
anyone, anyone?
g
_____
From: jeff.mery@ni.com [mailto:jeff.mery@ni.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:35 PM To: Darren Dunham Cc: owner-toasters@mathworks.com; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Re: Aggregate size question
Back in the day I seem to remember that NetApp "right-sized" all of their disks. This was done to account for small differences in drive capacities from different drive manufacturers. For example, a 36GB drive was "right-sized" to 34.5GB or there about.
Is it possible that what we're seeing here is the effect of right-sizing the disks? Does NetApp still do this (Bueller....Bueller)?
Jeff Mery - MCSE, MCP National Instruments
------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Allow me to extol the virtues of the Net Fairy, and of all the fantastic dorks that make the nice packets go from here to there. Amen." TB - Penny Arcade -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darren Dunham ddunham@taos.com Sent by: owner-toasters@mathworks.com
02/24/2006 11:45 AM
To toasters@mathworks.com
cc
Subject Re: Aggregate size question
we have the same drives as you have, those so called '144 GB' ones :-)
When performing a sysconfig -r the filer showed me those 137 GB and i, young as i am, thought that the filer already made the conversion to binary for me. By rule of thumb this number seemed to be correct to me.
Well with a drive capacity of 134 i really get close to what i am locking
for!
Yep. Looks like 137 is not a pure "binary Gigabyte" unit for them, but a hybrid of binary/decimal.
Reported size 144GB => 1.44 * 10^11 bytes
In units of 10 ^ 9 ( 1 billion ) => 144 10^6 * 2^10 (1 million KiB) => 140.6 10^3 * 2^20 (1000 MiB) => 137.3 2^30 (1 GiB) => 134.1
-
Darren Dunham -
genO -
jeff.mery＠ni.com -
Myles Uyema -
Willeke, Jochen