Hi,
Back about 7 years ago when we purchased our first NetApp systems we hired a NetApp consultant to help us set them up. One of the things he told me was to always put everything in a qtree. Whether it's a cifs shares, nfs export, or luns . . . put them in a qtree. I have followed that practice. I think part of this was that our NetApp systems are for a particular application and we use snapvault for some of the backups (luns and cifs shares). This is all on OnTap v8 in 7-mode.
As I'm about to create some CIFS shares for other uses, I'm wondering if this is a good practice. The new shares would be volume snapmirror'ed to a DR site, but no snapvault.
Any opinions are appreciated.
Thanks
Rick
----------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message.
For my customers....I called that: TMAC's rule #1 ;)
Always use qtrees. Always.
In 7-mode, it really did not hurt and when migrations came up, it was trivial to move the qtree piece,
In the first versions of cDOT though, qtrees were really not used. Migrating was done (via the netapp tools) at the volume level (since cDOT had no use for qtrees)
Personally, I would stick with the qtrees if you plan on sticking with 7-mode.
Snapmirror/vault can be done at a volume, qtree or "all top directories but qtrees" layer.
--tmac
*Tim McCarthy* *Principal Consultant*
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Rhodes, Richard L. < rrhodes@firstenergycorp.com> wrote:
Hi,
Back about 7 years ago when we purchased our first NetApp systems we hired a NetApp consultant to help us set them up. One of the things he told me was to always put everything in a qtree. Whether it's a cifs shares, nfs export, or luns . . . put them in a qtree. I have followed that practice. I think part of this was that our NetApp systems are for a particular application and we use snapvault for some of the backups (luns and cifs shares). This is all on OnTap v8 in 7-mode.
As I'm about to create some CIFS shares for other uses, I'm wondering if this is a good practice. The new shares would be volume snapmirror'ed to a DR site, but no snapvault.
Any opinions are appreciated.
Thanks
Rick
- The information contained in this message is intended only for the
personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message. *
Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.net http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
I'd second that...and obviously if you want any sort of user level quotas, or want to be able to mirror/move the data in the qtree.
--rdp
From: toasters-bounces@teaparty.net [mailto:toasters-bounces@teaparty.net] On Behalf Of tmac Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:25 PM To: Rhodes, Richard L. Cc: toasters@teaparty.net Subject: Re: Everything in a qtree?
For my customers....I called that: TMAC's rule #1 ;)
Always use qtrees. Always.
In 7-mode, it really did not hurt and when migrations came up, it was trivial to move the qtree piece,
In the first versions of cDOT though, qtrees were really not used. Migrating was done (via the netapp tools) at the volume level (since cDOT had no use for qtrees)
Personally, I would stick with the qtrees if you plan on sticking with 7-mode.
Snapmirror/vault can be done at a volume, qtree or "all top directories but qtrees" layer.
--tmac
Tim McCarthy Principal Consultant
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Rhodes, Richard L. <rrhodes@firstenergycorp.commailto:rrhodes@firstenergycorp.com> wrote: Hi,
Back about 7 years ago when we purchased our first NetApp systems we hired a NetApp consultant to help us set them up. One of the things he told me was to always put everything in a qtree. Whether it's a cifs shares, nfs export, or luns . . . put them in a qtree. I have followed that practice. I think part of this was that our NetApp systems are for a particular application and we use snapvault for some of the backups (luns and cifs shares). This is all on OnTap v8 in 7-mode.
As I'm about to create some CIFS shares for other uses, I'm wondering if this is a good practice. The new shares would be volume snapmirror'ed to a DR site, but no snapvault.
Any opinions are appreciated.
Thanks
Rick
________________________________ ________________________________
The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message.
_______________________________________________ Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.netmailto:Toasters@teaparty.net http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
In cDOT I would recommend against qtrees unless absolutely needed. As for needed, things like hitting volume limits come to mind.
Why?
Because you can't leverage cool features like volume move effectively. If you have 800 qtrees in a volume and one of those qtrees is causing node-wide perf issues, you can't move it to another node. You can only move the volume, and thus, you are simply moving the problem.
From: toasters-bounces@teaparty.net [mailto:toasters-bounces@teaparty.net] On Behalf Of Payne, Richard Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:30 PM To: tmac; Rhodes, Richard L. Cc: toasters@teaparty.net Subject: RE: Everything in a qtree?
I'd second that...and obviously if you want any sort of user level quotas, or want to be able to mirror/move the data in the qtree.
--rdp
From: toasters-bounces@teaparty.netmailto:toasters-bounces@teaparty.net [mailto:toasters-bounces@teaparty.net] On Behalf Of tmac Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:25 PM To: Rhodes, Richard L. Cc: toasters@teaparty.netmailto:toasters@teaparty.net Subject: Re: Everything in a qtree?
For my customers....I called that: TMAC's rule #1 ;)
Always use qtrees. Always.
In 7-mode, it really did not hurt and when migrations came up, it was trivial to move the qtree piece,
In the first versions of cDOT though, qtrees were really not used. Migrating was done (via the netapp tools) at the volume level (since cDOT had no use for qtrees)
Personally, I would stick with the qtrees if you plan on sticking with 7-mode.
Snapmirror/vault can be done at a volume, qtree or "all top directories but qtrees" layer.
--tmac
Tim McCarthy Principal Consultant
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Rhodes, Richard L. <rrhodes@firstenergycorp.commailto:rrhodes@firstenergycorp.com> wrote: Hi,
Back about 7 years ago when we purchased our first NetApp systems we hired a NetApp consultant to help us set them up. One of the things he told me was to always put everything in a qtree. Whether it's a cifs shares, nfs export, or luns . . . put them in a qtree. I have followed that practice. I think part of this was that our NetApp systems are for a particular application and we use snapvault for some of the backups (luns and cifs shares). This is all on OnTap v8 in 7-mode.
As I'm about to create some CIFS shares for other uses, I'm wondering if this is a good practice. The new shares would be volume snapmirror'ed to a DR site, but no snapvault.
Any opinions are appreciated.
Thanks
Rick
________________________________ ________________________________
The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message.
_______________________________________________ Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.netmailto:Toasters@teaparty.net http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
for cDOT...I fully agree
for 7-mode, most people (at least those I knew) rarely, if ever used vol copy. You can still migrate the qtree (qtree snapmirror).
--tmac
*Tim McCarthy* *Principal Consultant*
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Parisi, Justin Justin.Parisi@netapp.com wrote:
In cDOT I would recommend against qtrees unless absolutely needed. As for needed, things like hitting volume limits come to mind.
Why?
Because you can't leverage cool features like volume move effectively. If you have 800 qtrees in a volume and one of those qtrees is causing node-wide perf issues, you can't move it to another node. You can only move the volume, and thus, you are simply moving the problem.
*From:* toasters-bounces@teaparty.net [mailto: toasters-bounces@teaparty.net] *On Behalf Of *Payne, Richard *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:30 PM *To:* tmac; Rhodes, Richard L. *Cc:* toasters@teaparty.net *Subject:* RE: Everything in a qtree?
I'd second that...and obviously if you want any sort of user level quotas, or want to be able to mirror/move the data in the qtree.
--rdp
*From:* toasters-bounces@teaparty.net [ mailto:toasters-bounces@teaparty.net toasters-bounces@teaparty.net] *On Behalf Of *tmac *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:25 PM *To:* Rhodes, Richard L. *Cc:* toasters@teaparty.net *Subject:* Re: Everything in a qtree?
For my customers....I called that: TMAC's rule #1 ;)
Always use qtrees. Always.
In 7-mode, it really did not hurt and when migrations came up, it was trivial to move the qtree piece,
In the first versions of cDOT though, qtrees were really not used.
Migrating was done (via the netapp tools) at the volume level (since cDOT had no use for qtrees)
Personally, I would stick with the qtrees if you plan on sticking with 7-mode.
Snapmirror/vault can be done at a volume, qtree or "all top directories but qtrees" layer.
--tmac
*Tim McCarthy*
*Principal Consultant*
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Rhodes, Richard L. < rrhodes@firstenergycorp.com> wrote:
Hi,
Back about 7 years ago when we purchased our first NetApp systems we hired a NetApp consultant to help us set them up. One of the things he told me was to always put everything in a qtree. Whether it's a cifs shares, nfs export, or luns . . . put them in a qtree. I have followed that practice. I think part of this was that our NetApp systems are for a particular application and we use snapvault for some of the backups (luns and cifs shares). This is all on OnTap v8 in 7-mode.
As I'm about to create some CIFS shares for other uses, I'm wondering if this is a good practice. The new shares would be volume snapmirror'ed to a DR site, but no snapvault.
Any opinions are appreciated.
Thanks
Rick
*The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message. *
Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.net http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
One of the main advantages of a qtree is the ability to use move style commands, but there's a default qtree for each volume that allows that to happen without anything explicit. The only time I use qtrees is if I need to create multiple shares inside a single volume, which is a standard we've gotten away from for backup reasons.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Payne, Richard richard.payne@amd.com wrote:
I’d second that…and obviously if you want any sort of user level quotas, or want to be able to mirror/move the data in the qtree.
--rdp
*From:* toasters-bounces@teaparty.net [mailto: toasters-bounces@teaparty.net] *On Behalf Of *tmac *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:25 PM *To:* Rhodes, Richard L. *Cc:* toasters@teaparty.net *Subject:* Re: Everything in a qtree?
For my customers....I called that: TMAC's rule #1 ;)
Always use qtrees. Always.
In 7-mode, it really did not hurt and when migrations came up, it was trivial to move the qtree piece,
In the first versions of cDOT though, qtrees were really not used.
Migrating was done (via the netapp tools) at the volume level (since cDOT had no use for qtrees)
Personally, I would stick with the qtrees if you plan on sticking with 7-mode.
Snapmirror/vault can be done at a volume, qtree or "all top directories but qtrees" layer.
--tmac
*Tim McCarthy*
*Principal Consultant*
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Rhodes, Richard L. < rrhodes@firstenergycorp.com> wrote:
Hi,
Back about 7 years ago when we purchased our first NetApp systems we hired a NetApp consultant to help us set them up. One of the things he told me was to always put everything in a qtree. Whether it’s a cifs shares, nfs export, or luns . . . put them in a qtree. I have followed that practice. I think part of this was that our NetApp systems are for a particular application and we use snapvault for some of the backups (luns and cifs shares). This is all on OnTap v8 in 7-mode.
As I’m about to create some CIFS shares for other uses, I’m wondering if this is a good practice. The new shares would be volume snapmirror’ed to a DR site, but no snapvault.
Any opinions are appreciated.
Thanks
Rick
*The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message. *
Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.net http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.net http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
I personally was a heavy qtree user back in the 7-mode times and when I set up my first cDOT gear I was looking desperately to replicate what I got on 7-mode to the new platform and quickly figured out that it doesn’t make sense here anymore, at least for most of the cases I’ve been using it for.
So I’d agree with „yes on 7-mode, no on cDOT“.
Just my 2 cents,
Alexander Griesser Head of Systems Operations
ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH
E-Mail: ag@anexia.atmailto:ag@anexia.at Web: http://www.anexia.athttp://www.anexia.at/
Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601
Von: toasters-bounces@teaparty.net [mailto:toasters-bounces@teaparty.net] Im Auftrag von Basil Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. Jänner 2015 20:43 An: toasters@teaparty.net Betreff: Re: Everything in a qtree?
One of the main advantages of a qtree is the ability to use move style commands, but there's a default qtree for each volume that allows that to happen without anything explicit. The only time I use qtrees is if I need to create multiple shares inside a single volume, which is a standard we've gotten away from for backup reasons.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Payne, Richard <richard.payne@amd.commailto:richard.payne@amd.com> wrote: I’d second that…and obviously if you want any sort of user level quotas, or want to be able to mirror/move the data in the qtree.
--rdp
From: toasters-bounces@teaparty.netmailto:toasters-bounces@teaparty.net [mailto:toasters-bounces@teaparty.netmailto:toasters-bounces@teaparty.net] On Behalf Of tmac Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:25 PM To: Rhodes, Richard L. Cc: toasters@teaparty.netmailto:toasters@teaparty.net Subject: Re: Everything in a qtree?
For my customers....I called that: TMAC's rule #1 ;)
Always use qtrees. Always.
In 7-mode, it really did not hurt and when migrations came up, it was trivial to move the qtree piece,
In the first versions of cDOT though, qtrees were really not used. Migrating was done (via the netapp tools) at the volume level (since cDOT had no use for qtrees)
Personally, I would stick with the qtrees if you plan on sticking with 7-mode.
Snapmirror/vault can be done at a volume, qtree or "all top directories but qtrees" layer.
--tmac
Tim McCarthy Principal Consultant
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Rhodes, Richard L. <rrhodes@firstenergycorp.commailto:rrhodes@firstenergycorp.com> wrote: Hi,
Back about 7 years ago when we purchased our first NetApp systems we hired a NetApp consultant to help us set them up. One of the things he told me was to always put everything in a qtree. Whether it’s a cifs shares, nfs export, or luns . . . put them in a qtree. I have followed that practice. I think part of this was that our NetApp systems are for a particular application and we use snapvault for some of the backups (luns and cifs shares). This is all on OnTap v8 in 7-mode.
As I’m about to create some CIFS shares for other uses, I’m wondering if this is a good practice. The new shares would be volume snapmirror’ed to a DR site, but no snapvault.
Any opinions are appreciated.
Thanks
Rick
________________________________ ________________________________
The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message.
_______________________________________________ Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.netmailto:Toasters@teaparty.net http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
_______________________________________________ Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.netmailto:Toasters@teaparty.net http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
-
Alexander Griesser -
Basil -
Parisi, Justin -
Payne, Richard -
Rhodes, Richard L. -
tmac