How did a shelf hang result in 10 failed drives? And how did you avoid a double disk failure with that many failures?

We had a flakey ESH eliminate the secondary path to about 5 drives awhile ago, but Netapp said there was a way to fix it (involving downtime). We were lucky, 4 of them were on new vols, so we just destroyed the vols and reseated the drives, no downtime or rebuilds required. But if they were real volumes, I might have taken the reboot over the reconstruct...

-MikeC

-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Hill, Aaron Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 7:24 PM To: 'Simon Ferrett'; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: New Simplified Monitoring Tool

Simon, I don't know if you can directly increase the no. of simultaneous reconstructs. However, you may be able to improve the speed marginally by using the raid.reconstruct.perf_impact option and setting to high. However, if your cpu's are already maxxed it probably won't make a lick of difference.

Aaron

-----Original Message----- From: Simon Ferrett [mailto:simon@musicmatch.com] Sent: Friday, 10 September 2004 11:04 AM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: New Simplified Monitoring Tool

Hey Folks,

I'm new to the list - "hello" - and have been a netapp user since about 1999.

Anyhow just a comment/suggestion on the toasterview stuff, which looks quite interesting, btw: One thing which could be good to show is the % complete for the reconstruction progress.

Currently I'm looking after an 840c, 940c, 840, 880, R100, R150-24 and a R200.

I had a shelf hang on the R100 and R150 this week resulting in about 10 failed drives, so the reconstruction is taking forever - hence my interest in keeping an eye on the reconstruction progress. It seems like the systems can only do two reconstructs at a time, so I've had raid groups waiting for a drive reconstruction for about 24 hours so far... If you know of a way to increase the number of parrallel reconstructions I'd be interested to hear it.

Cheers, and it's good to have finally found a group of other netapp users.

Simon.

-----Original Message----- From: McCarthy, Tim [mailto:timothy.mccarthy@netapp.com] Subject: RE: New Simplified Monitoring Tool

Hey, you have a failed disk. Better call NGS ;)

-----Original Message----- From: Ben Rockwood [mailto:BRockwood@homestead-inc.com] Subject: New Simplified Monitoring Tool

I'd see if anyone else was interested in it or could propose suggestions for it.

---

This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or his/her representative, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

************** IMPORTANT MESSAGE ************** This e-mail message is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains information which may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient please advise the sender by return email, do not use or disclose the contents, and delete the message and any attachments from your system. Unless specifically indicated, this email does not constitute formal advice or commitment by the sender or the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (ABN 48 123 123 124) or its subsidiaries. We can be contacted through our web site: commbank.com.au. If you no longer wish to receive commercial electronic messages from us, please reply to this e-mail by typing Unsubscribe in the subject line. ***************************************************************