Subscribe
Accepted Solution

Feedback on NetApp System Manager 2.0R1

Hi,

Our team is very interested in the questions posted on System Manager functionality and your experience with System Manager.  Thanks for taking the time to share. Please  keep the questions and feedback on your experience working with System Manager coming.

Regards

The System Manager Team

Feedback on NetApp System Manager 2.0R1

I have the following filers:  FAS3170 on DOT 8.0.1, FAS3240 on DOT 8.0.1P3, and FAS2020 on DOT 7.3.5.1.  On all three, when using SM 2.0R1 to configure snapshots on my CIFS volumes, all of the retention settings are set to 0 days even though they are really set to 52 weekly, 198 daily, and 0 hourly snapshots. If I change them using SM 2.0R1 and go back into Configure Snapshots for the volume again, they are all back to 0.  When I go to configure snapshots in SM 1.1R1, the retetion settings are there correctly. This issue was in the beta too.

Feedback on NetApp System Manager 2.0R1

Thanks for reporting. We are looking into the issue.

Regards,

Karthik

Feedback on NetApp System Manager 2.0R1

I'm now using the latest System MAnager 2.0R1 build and I noticed that the NDMP management section has been removed.  I know that it was there in the previous beta release, will this functionality make it to the production version any time soon?

Feedback on NetApp System Manager 2.0R1

I've noticed that when clicking the Storage Efficiency or Snapshot Copies tab for a large volume it takes a while for the information to appear, this also seems to load the cpu on the controller while the this "information load" is in process it rises to 100% from about 35%.

Running snap list "volume" or df -S doesn't result in this extra cpu load and returns the information instantaneously.

Feedback on NetApp System Manager 2.0R1

Does NetAp recognize this as a bug that will be fixed or is this behavior by design?

Feedback on NetApp System Manager 2.0R1

Yes. We recognize it as an issue and will be fixed in the future releases.

Feedback on NetApp System Manager 2.0R1

Hi Amrita...

  • When creating a new volume or qtree the default suggestion by System Manager is a volume name with the current time and date in it. I don't see any usecase for a naming like that, so it doesn't help the administrator.  I suggest showing an empty field so the administrator doesn't have to delete the field content before typing the real vol name. Alternatively use the same bahavior as FilerView, where naming like vol0, vol1, vol2, etc. is suggested as default. This could be usefull to some at least.
  • The columns in i.e. the vol view should "make an effort" to make better use of the screen . Let's say the administrator has a 27 inch screen and all columns can be expanded to be able to show all content of the fields... System Manager doesn't automatically do this. Furthermore if the administrator makes the effort to expand all the columns... when he logs in the next day... he has to do it again... so the state of the columns should be saved.
  • For example in the vol view the bottom window is not resizable all the way (up/down). The Administrator should be able to resize i.e. the list of snapshots all the way up.
  • If the administrator reloads the page in the browser i.e. by accident he should either see what he had on screen before or at least be warned by a pop-up message that he's about to jump to the beginning. F5 is effectvely the same as restarting the application. Intuitive would be that the current page would be reloaded.

Cheers,

Mike

Re: Feedback on NetApp System Manager 2.0R1

Thanks for the feedback Mike and for all the support for System Manager.

We’ll try and see how we can pull this into future releases.

Regards

Amrita

Feedback on NetApp System Manager 2.0R1

The good: it's much, much faster than System Manager 1.1, so thank you for that. Also, there seems to be more control built in. I look forward to the expansion of System Manager to the point that I no longer have to switch between it, the command line, and FilerView. Also, it is now possible to add multiple initiator groups to a LUN, so, again, thank you.

The bad: I am using V-series filers, and it is now impossible to take ownership of an array LUN from within System Manager. Previously, I would go to an unowned LUN, right-click and select Take Ownership, but that option no longer exists.