Subscribe
Accepted Solution

The requested size is more than the maximum size allowed for a deduplication volume...

Hi there

I have a fairly large volume on a primary FAS3140 running 8.0, this volume is Snapvaulted to a secondary filer which is a FAS2240 running 8.1.1.

Because of the primary size, and the retention required on the secondary, I have been forced to resize the secondary volume in order to get rid of the space warning in DFM.

But this just leaves me with this conformance error, which I don't understand...  I think this has to be because DFM isn't aware that 20TB actually is possible on a FAS2240 with dedupe enabled...

Basically it is 20TB, and dedupe is enabled... I believe the maximum on a FAS2240 is 40 or 50TB...

Here is the error I get on my dataset... everything else is OK..  so it does do the snapvault updates etc...

Conformance Results:

=== SEVERITY ===

Error:  Conformance checking for volume filer-dk11:/sv_files (3287) failed.

=== ACTION ===

Checking conformance for volume filer-dk11:/sv_files (3287).

=== REASON ===

The requested size 20.0 TB is more than the maximum size allowed for a

deduplication volume. The maximum size on model FAS2240-4 and ONTAP

version 8.1.1P1 7-Mode is 16.0 TB.

---------------------------------------------

It this a bug ?

/Heino

Re: The requested size is more than the maximum size allowed for a deduplication volume...

Hi Heino,

     What version of OnCommand Unified Manager are you using ?

This is a known issue and doesn't need a fix, rather it can be easily updated using the cli, that is described in the bugs online link below.

http://support.netapp.com/NOW/cgi-bin/bol?Type=Detail&Display=629751

Regards

adai

Re: The requested size is more than the maximum size allowed for a deduplication volume...

Hi Adai

Thanks for the quick reply.  I'm running that latest downloadable version 5.1

I the old days there was an updatable configuration file for DFM with each new ontap release, I guess that's gone now ?

I guess I will just fix it with the commands described in the case you refered to.

Thanks again!

/Heino