<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: LUN alignment Windows 2003 cluster in Data Protection</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/LUN-alignment-Windows-2003-cluster/m-p/45754#M7127</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I could be wrong but it was my understanding that the LUN type specified when creating a LUN was used to accommodate for the fact that different partition table types start the first partition at a particular offset. I think ONTAP aligns the LUN correctly according to the LUN type so that you don't need to be concerned about alignment.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However, if the partition table on the LUN is not the same as it was configured/formatted for, chances are the LUN is not properly aligned on disk. The ramifications are that in the worst case the filer is having to fetch two disk blocks for a single file system block requested, thus using more IOPS than necessary. This usually manifests itself greater on file systems with random reads rather than sequential reads.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Personally I would recommend that you create a new LUN with the correct type and migrate your data from the old to the new.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;HTH,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Richard&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2011 18:24:27 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>rmharwood</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2011-05-13T18:24:27Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>LUN alignment Windows 2003 cluster</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/LUN-alignment-Windows-2003-cluster/m-p/45749#M7126</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have a Microsoft Windows 2003 SQL cluster which was deployed on a netapp 6040. We have Data ONTAP 7.3.3.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Windows 2003 cluster’s only support basic MBR disks without third party add-on like Veritas Storage foundation.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When this Windows 2003 cluster was setup the Netapp LUN was formatted in Windows-GPT. In Windows 2003 the format is configured as Windows Basic Disk (MBR). My question is what is the ramification of this? Will this cause a LUN misalignment?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When I run “wmic partition get BlockSize, StartingOffset, Name, Index”&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The shared storage disks report 32,256 startingoffset This appearts to report that the LUN is properly aligned.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Am I missing something here?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;keep in mind that I have read through this &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;A class="jive-link-external-small" href="https://kb.netapp.com/support/index?page=content&amp;amp;id=1010803" target="_blank"&gt;https://kb.netapp.com/support/index?page=content&amp;amp;id=1010803&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 06:55:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/LUN-alignment-Windows-2003-cluster/m-p/45749#M7126</guid>
      <dc:creator>tatroc1976</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T06:55:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: LUN alignment Windows 2003 cluster</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/LUN-alignment-Windows-2003-cluster/m-p/45754#M7127</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I could be wrong but it was my understanding that the LUN type specified when creating a LUN was used to accommodate for the fact that different partition table types start the first partition at a particular offset. I think ONTAP aligns the LUN correctly according to the LUN type so that you don't need to be concerned about alignment.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However, if the partition table on the LUN is not the same as it was configured/formatted for, chances are the LUN is not properly aligned on disk. The ramifications are that in the worst case the filer is having to fetch two disk blocks for a single file system block requested, thus using more IOPS than necessary. This usually manifests itself greater on file systems with random reads rather than sequential reads.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Personally I would recommend that you create a new LUN with the correct type and migrate your data from the old to the new.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;HTH,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Richard&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2011 18:24:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/LUN-alignment-Windows-2003-cluster/m-p/45754#M7127</guid>
      <dc:creator>rmharwood</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-05-13T18:24:27Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: LUN alignment Windows 2003 cluster</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/LUN-alignment-Windows-2003-cluster/m-p/45758#M7128</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Using a LUN of type "windows_gpt" to host a Windows MBR partition will cause block alignment issues.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The following KB article has some good details.&amp;nbsp; &lt;A href="https://kb.netapp.com/support/index?page=content&amp;amp;id=1010803" target="_blank"&gt;https://kb.netapp.com/support/index?page=content&amp;amp;id=1010803&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 02:23:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/LUN-alignment-Windows-2003-cluster/m-p/45758#M7128</guid>
      <dc:creator>paleon</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-02-29T02:23:57Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

