|
adorai posted:Oracle specifically supports it. I cannot think of a single other relational database that does, but if you know of one, please enlighten me. I believe DB2, MaxDB and Sybase support NFS. That said, my point of contention is that it is not impossible, nor is it unheard of for customers to choose NFS over FC and iscsi as a storage protocol. Please understand I'm not trying to tell you that one should choose NFS over FC or iscsi. All I'm saying is that one shouldn't rule NFS out as a 'hack' for reasons which I've previously stated in this thread. I think it all depends on the customer's requirements and I don't presume to understand individual clients' decision making processes other than I can only assume that they are making competent decisions based upon clear requirements as dictated by their business.
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2010 04:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 16:27 |
|
|
madsushi posted:With RAID-DP, you always want the biggest aggregates / raid groups you can get, as it saves you from wasting drives to new raid sets. Every aggregate means a new raid set, which means 2 disks lost to the dual parity drives. Ideally you'll split the drives evenly between your controllers and make the biggest aggregates you can, making sure to maximize your "raid group" size to minimize lost disks. More disks in an aggregate = more spindles your data is spread across = better performance. Be careful about modifying your raid group sizes. If you make them too big, it will take an eternity for your raid group to rebuild after a disk failure. I woudn't recommend changing them at all unless you had a very good reason for doing so (ie you had no choice). The unfortunate problem with RAID6 (or DP) is that you "waste" a lot of disk for the sake of resiliency. I agree with you, 64-bit aggregates are the way to go. Nomex, 1 aggregate is fine.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
Nomex posted:Would you put multiple workloads in 1 aggregate to maximize the amount of disks globally? Should I only have 2 aggregates total? If so, that makes my life a lot easier. Before 64 bit aggregates rolled up, the main limitation was the 16 TB aggregate maximum which would play a major factor in your planning. However, now that this limit is no longer a problem, your main concern should be whether or not you think you'll ever need to perform aggregate level snapshots/restores. I've never seen anyone perform an aggregate level snaprestore however I have heard that it has saved the skin (and thus careers) of some people. It all comes down to how much money you have for disk. Performance/spindles aren't so much of a design consideration anymore, now that disks are massive, which is why NetApp now sells FlashCache (aka PAM II) cards. For example, if you need 50 TB raw and you wanted to use 2 TB SATA drives, you wouldn't get very good performance/spindle compared to 50 TB worth of SAS drives. However if you stuck some FlashCache in front of your SATA array, you'd probably obtain comparable performance, depending on your workload.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2011 05:47
|
|
|
j3rkstore posted:Is there any downside to buying off-lease NetApp shelves on ebay? Some of the retailers have warranty options so I'd be looking at those. It depends on what you plan on storing on them. If it's just your warez  collection, go for it! If it's a snapmirror/snapvault secondary for corporate windows workgroup data, I'd say you're probably ok as well. If it's your CRM or corporate email, I'd say it's a bad idea. You'll be protected from low level disk errors provided you keep enough spares around for the aggregates.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
Question for the folks who like using RDMs. What sort of performance problems have you experienced? Are you still using RDMs or not?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2012 07:55
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:This question is making me incredibly confused. What are you even getting at? A couple posts back someone mentioned seeing performance problems with RDMs. My question is pretty much the same as yours except I'm not trying to be a dick about it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2012 05:12
|
|
|
madsushi posted:I disagree with this. For misogynist, from page 67. namaste friends fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Mar 19, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 16:27 |
|
|
The first thing to check if your Snapmanger for <some windows product> is failing, is if one of your volumes has run out of space or you're about to run out of space.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2013 09:21
|
|