Glenn> Honestly, moving volumes between aggregates (and controllers) Glenn> is the only thing I'm really looking forward to out of ONTAP 8. Glenn> If all blocks are just virtual pointers now, it makes no sense Glenn> that we cannot move volumes between aggregates and it is a huge Glenn> issue for us today.
Hmm... will you be able to move volumes live? I assume you'll need to have the free space in the destination aggr to hold the entire vol you're moving, but that should be ok then.
Just keeping the data live and in production during such moves would be a huge help.
Glenn> If they bump the limit beyond 32TB, I care less - most of our Glenn> volumes we keep rather small to assist with backup limitations Glenn> and/or reduction of single points of failure.
Sure, I agree too. I might even start to use more volumes then, instead of qtrees within volumes.
John
Yep, moving volumes on the fly is something we really appreciate with GX (and will do with 8 in cluster mode). It's pretty transparent from a client point of view (literally < 1 second access delay).
The only headache is NDMP backups of those volumes as they obviously need to be updated to reflect the new location.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of John Stoffel Sent: 04 June 2009 13:49 To: Glenn Walker Cc: 'John Stoffel'; 'Babar Haq'; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: HSM/ILM for Netapp
Glenn> Honestly, moving volumes between aggregates (and controllers) Glenn> is the only thing I'm really looking forward to out of ONTAP 8. Glenn> If all blocks are just virtual pointers now, it makes no sense Glenn> that we cannot move volumes between aggregates and it is a huge Glenn> issue for us today.
Hmm... will you be able to move volumes live? I assume you'll need to have the free space in the destination aggr to hold the entire vol you're moving, but that should be ok then.
Just keeping the data live and in production during such moves would be a huge help.
Glenn> If they bump the limit beyond 32TB, I care less - most of our Glenn> volumes we keep rather small to assist with backup limitations Glenn> and/or reduction of single points of failure.
Sure, I agree too. I might even start to use more volumes then, instead of qtrees within volumes.
John
To report this email as spam click https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/jSDIDM8coDjTndxI!oX7UpnwNuh!OyUz+!uKA1W!K fE59hIYsjQ7IyAocAv5M+cU2LQLjnD75HJhjvXYAQ53ow== .
I'd love to be able move volumes quickly and transparently between aggregates, and clustered heads. Is this really a possibility? I have a couple of things I'd like to move around . . . David
Yep, moving volumes on the fly is something we really appreciate with GX (and will do with 8 in cluster mode).
It's pretty transparent from a client point of view (literally < 1 second access delay).
The only headache is NDMP backups of those volumes as they obviously need to be updated to reflect the new location.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of John Stoffel Sent: 04 June 2009 13:49 To: Glenn Walker Cc: 'John Stoffel'; 'Babar Haq'; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: HSM/ILM for Netapp
Glenn> Honestly, moving volumes between aggregates (and controllers) Glenn> is the only thing I'm really looking forward to out of ONTAP 8. Glenn> If all blocks are just virtual pointers now, it makes no sense Glenn> that we cannot move volumes between aggregates and it is a huge Glenn> issue for us today.
Hmm... will you be able to move volumes live? I assume you'll need to have the free space in the destination aggr to hold the entire vol you're moving, but that should be ok then.
Just keeping the data live and in production during such moves would be a huge help.
Glenn> If they bump the limit beyond 32TB, I care less - most of our Glenn> volumes we keep rather small to assist with backup limitations Glenn> and/or reduction of single points of failure.
Sure, I agree too. I might even start to use more volumes then, instead of qtrees within volumes.
John
To report this email as spam click https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/jSDIDM8coDjTndxI!oX7UpnwNuh!OyUz+!uKA1W!K fE59hIYsjQ7IyAocAv5M+cU2LQLjnD75HJhjvXYAQ53ow== .
It is... if you're using the right operating system (and unfortunately you're probably not).
However, future 'mainstream' Netapp OS support is in the pipeline. I'm probably not helping here, but we can move volumes between heads, sites and disk types transparently with OnTAP GX today.
-----Original Message----- From: David Knight [mailto:knight@atmos.albany.edu] Sent: 04 June 2009 15:37 To: Darren Sykes Cc: john.stoffel@taec.toshiba.com; gwalker@aetas.org; babarhaq@email.com; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Re: HSM/ILM for Netapp
I'd love to be able move volumes quickly and transparently between aggregates, and clustered heads. Is this really a possibility? I have a couple of things I'd like to move around . . . David
Yep, moving volumes on the fly is something we really appreciate with
GX
(and will do with 8 in cluster mode).
It's pretty transparent from a client point of view (literally < 1 second access delay).
The only headache is NDMP backups of those volumes as they obviously need to be updated to reflect the new location.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com
[mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]
On Behalf Of John Stoffel Sent: 04 June 2009 13:49 To: Glenn Walker Cc: 'John Stoffel'; 'Babar Haq'; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: HSM/ILM for Netapp
Glenn> Honestly, moving volumes between aggregates (and controllers) Glenn> is the only thing I'm really looking forward to out of ONTAP 8. Glenn> If all blocks are just virtual pointers now, it makes no sense Glenn> that we cannot move volumes between aggregates and it is a huge Glenn> issue for us today.
Hmm... will you be able to move volumes live? I assume you'll need to have the free space in the destination aggr to hold the entire vol you're moving, but that should be ok then.
Just keeping the data live and in production during such moves would be a huge help.
Glenn> If they bump the limit beyond 32TB, I care less - most of our Glenn> volumes we keep rather small to assist with backup limitations Glenn> and/or reduction of single points of failure.
Sure, I agree too. I might even start to use more volumes then, instead of qtrees within volumes.
John
To report this email as spam click
https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/jSDIDM8coDjTndxI!oX7UpnwNuh!OyUz+!uKA1W!K
fE59hIYsjQ7IyAocAv5M+cU2LQLjnD75HJhjvXYAQ53ow== .
I know we can't do this under 7.2.3 Is GX an extra cost, or something I can look forward to as an no cost upgrade to our existing supported cluster. I can barely afford to keep our 3020 cluster under support right now. I suppose I could contact netapps sales support, but right now I have no money, and would hate to waste their time and mine. No need to reply - I'm curious, but I'll contact netapp if it becomes a critical need.
I'm so tired of this do more for less, on the surface it seems like a good idea, but is just not sustainable.
David
It is... if you're using the right operating system (and unfortunately you're probably not).
However, future 'mainstream' Netapp OS support is in the pipeline. I'm probably not helping here, but we can move volumes between heads, sites and disk types transparently with OnTAP GX today.
-----Original Message----- From: David Knight [mailto:knight@atmos.albany.edu] Sent: 04 June 2009 15:37 To: Darren Sykes Cc: john.stoffel@taec.toshiba.com; gwalker@aetas.org; babarhaq@email.com; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Re: HSM/ILM for Netapp
I'd love to be able move volumes quickly and transparently between aggregates, and clustered heads. Is this really a possibility? I have a couple of things I'd like to move around . . . David
Yep, moving volumes on the fly is something we really appreciate with
GX
(and will do with 8 in cluster mode).
It's pretty transparent from a client point of view (literally < 1 second access delay).
The only headache is NDMP backups of those volumes as they obviously need to be updated to reflect the new location.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com
[mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]
On Behalf Of John Stoffel Sent: 04 June 2009 13:49 To: Glenn Walker Cc: 'John Stoffel'; 'Babar Haq'; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: HSM/ILM for Netapp
Glenn> Honestly, moving volumes between aggregates (and controllers) Glenn> is the only thing I'm really looking forward to out of ONTAP 8. Glenn> If all blocks are just virtual pointers now, it makes no sense Glenn> that we cannot move volumes between aggregates and it is a huge Glenn> issue for us today.
Hmm... will you be able to move volumes live? I assume you'll need to have the free space in the destination aggr to hold the entire vol you're moving, but that should be ok then.
Just keeping the data live and in production during such moves would be a huge help.
Glenn> If they bump the limit beyond 32TB, I care less - most of our Glenn> volumes we keep rather small to assist with backup limitations Glenn> and/or reduction of single points of failure.
Sure, I agree too. I might even start to use more volumes then, instead of qtrees within volumes.
John
To report this email as spam click
https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/jSDIDM8coDjTndxI!oX7UpnwNuh!OyUz+!uKA1W!K
fE59hIYsjQ7IyAocAv5M+cU2LQLjnD75HJhjvXYAQ53ow== .
-
Darren Sykes -
David Knight -
John Stoffel