Subscribe

Naming conventions clustered ontap for better dealing with WFA

Hi,

there are some discussion on PS- Clustered Ontap or on other DLs.

So we are starting on a green field with some new Clustered Ontap Systems which are built up. I want to know your opinions for a good naming.

Have somebody already implemented a bigger CDOT environment with WFA.

What do you suggest for naming the LIFs and the aggregates? Especially that WFA finders are working fine.

My Idea:

Aggregate Name:

aggr01_1 --- aggregate 1 on Node 1

Also does it make sense to put the type of aggregate in the name. e.g. hyprid, ssd, sata ... or can we filter on the datasource fom UM 5.1 ?

Lifs:

vs0001n001

vserver name + separator (n) + number

Thanks for any advice.

Best wishes,

Markus

Re: Naming conventions clustered ontap for better dealing with WFA

I would name node by the HA pair, 1a/1b and 2a/2b. I think that the node name should be in the aggr name. If you have a system with different type of drives I think adding the type would be useful for administration (ssd/scsi/sata). I'm sure the information is there in the display but sometime it's easier to have the this information there for admin. Just my 2 cents.

Re: Naming conventions clustered ontap for better dealing with WFA

Hello. We are also in a green field project, and are deciding on naming conventions. Here's what I'm proposing to staff:

 

for our Aggregates:

 

6Gbps_900GB_SAS

3Gbps_600GB_SAS

6Gbps_3TB_SATA

3Gbps_1TB_SATA

 

 

Our current naming convention is

nas3_nas1

nas3_nas2

nas3_sata1

nas3_sata2

nas3_sata3

 

Problem with that is there's no description of speed or capacity of the disks. This is important for proper deployment of volumes fromt the Aggregates.

Re: Naming conventions clustered ontap for better dealing with WFA

Good choice of naming convention, please go ahead.

 

What are you looking for WFA to do for you?

 

sinhaa

If this post resolved your issue, help others by selecting ACCEPT AS SOLUTION or adding a KUDO.