I need to serve iscsi + CIFS. I would be servering around 1TB of cifs and 1.8 TB of iscsi data to vmware servers running SQL. We dont have any IOPS numbers.

Question is what would be the performance impact...if any of a seperate aggregate of 8 disks on a seperate controller. Will the availability of the active second controller with 2GB RAM compensate for a smaller raid group.

2008/11/24 Webster, Stetson Stetson.Webster@netapp.com

It depends on the amount of risk exposure you want (in absence of the spare), and performance impact you can withstand with the fewer disks.

*Stetson M. Webster** *Professional Services Engineer NCIE-SAN, NCIE-B&R, SNIA-SCSE NetApp Global Services - Southeast District

919.250.0052 Mobile Stetson.Webster@netapp.com

Learn how: netapp.com/guarantee

[image: guarantee-email-sig2]http://www.netapp.com/us/solutions/infrastructure/virtualization/guarantee.html?ref_source=eSig

*From:* Premkumar Subramanian [mailto:prem@x-or.co.uk] *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2008 2:42 PM *To:* toasters@mathworks.com *Subject:* FAS2050 with 20 disks

Hi,

I plan to implement a FAS2050 with 20 internal SAS disks. I intend to have 12 disks on one of the controller and 8 on the other. the idea being to make use of processing power of both controllers. Now the trade-off is the number of spindles in each aggregate possibly affecting performance. I have seen a few people use just 2 disks on the second controller with no spares and have the other 16 disks+2 spares on a single controller.

which of these two would be a better option?

--

Best regards, Premkumar Subramanian