nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

FSA Explorer showing large discrepancy for storage used when compared to storage directly

dogStore

I am looking into a NetApp cluster running ONTAP 9.9.1P4 which when looking at File System Analytics (FSA) Explorer, there's a big discrepancy reported when compared to a quota report.

For example a qtree has 146TB used although FSA reports this as 107TB used:

For awareness, this system is using FlexGroups.

This KB suggests turning the FSA feature off and on again:

https://kb.netapp.com/Advice_and_Troubleshooting/Data_Storage_Software/ONTAP_OS/File_system_analytics_(FSA)_gives_wrong_report

Although it is expected that the recalculation may take weeks to complete on this storage.

Are there any other options that I could take?

I would really appreciate any input anyone has for this.

Thanks in anticipation 🙂

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

paul_stejskal

Without a case it will be hard to troubleshoot further. We do not reveal how things are calculated on public forums. Also a TSE would need access to AutoSupport data or logs to review further.

All comments

paul_stejskal

Could the difference be snapshots or logical vs physical space used? I'd say open a case for this.

dogStore

Cheers, I suppose that's a possibility of where the difference is coming from.

Sadly, I don't have the option to raise a case available to me which is why I have raised it here. Is there any way you can tell me more about how FSA actually calculates this?

paul_stejskal

Without a case it will be hard to troubleshoot further. We do not reveal how things are calculated on public forums. Also a TSE would need access to AutoSupport data or logs to review further.

dogStore

Thanks Paul, I understand

Have a good one 🙂