You should also pay attention to cp_from_cp. If you see non-zero numbers there, it means a cp could not be made in the background (even forced) and responces to clients' requests were made waited until a cp is finished.

The system is obviusly short of NVRAM.

-hiro

-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Sterling Woodcock sirbruce@ix.netcom.com To: Eyal Traitel eyal.traitel@motorola.com Cc: Eyal Traitel (r55789) eyal.traitel@motorola.com; Karl Swartz kls@netapp.com; Jay Orr orrjl@stl.nexen.com; lrazo@netapp.com lrazo@netapp.com; toasters@mathworks.com toasters@mathworks.com; beepy@netapp.com beepy@netapp.com Date: Sunday, February 20, 2000 2:35 AM Subject: Re: NVRAM memory

----- Original Message ----- From: Eyal Traitel eyal.traitel@motorola.com To: Bruce Sterling Woodcock sirbruce@ix.netcom.com Cc: Eyal Traitel (r55789) eyal.traitel@motorola.com; Karl Swartz kls@netapp.com; Jay Orr orrjl@stl.nexen.com; lrazo@netapp.com; toasters@mathworks.com; beepy@netapp.com Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2000 8:52 AM Subject: Re: NVRAM memory

Thanks.

I already can see this on one of the more used ones:

cp_from_timer = 288539 cp_from_snapshot = 210065 cp_from_low_water = 0 cp_from_high_water = 2 cp_from_log_full = 138834 cp_from_timer_nvlog = 10 cp_from_cp = 6006

Can someone from NetApp answer on if it would be useful to have an

upgrade

for such machine ?

To me cp_from_log_full seems high.

I did some digging in my old notes and found that one engineer recommened cp_from_log_full should only be 10% of cp_from_timer. I'm not sure what cp_from_snapshot is but even if you add that to cp_from_timer your log is still filling up over 25% of the time. cp_from_cp is not too bad, though, so maybe it is not hurting you that much.

Again, I'd check systat 1 during heavy loads and if it looks okay, your NVRAM is being heavily utilized but not overloaded.

Bruce