<?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: Volume members of a Raid Group in ONTAP Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Volume-members-of-a-Raid-Group/m-p/48771#M11432</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;P&gt;No, the raid protection type (raid dp or raid4) is for the entire aggregate. You can create one aggregate with raid dp and another with raid4 but you'll have the space splitted over two aggregates. I recommend you to check and test the aggregates configuration and sizes before hold volumes and production data.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2012 21:26:59 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>VMUNOZ_NTT</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2012-09-10T21:26:59Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Volume members of a Raid Group</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Volume-members-of-a-Raid-Group/m-p/48748#M11427</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hy,is it possible to know the volumes members of a raid group??&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have an aggregate with two raid groups&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;RaidGroup1: 14 disk data + 2 parity&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;RaidGroup2: 4 disks data + 2 parity&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Spares: 2 disks spares&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The idea is to know the relationship between LUNs/Volumes/RaidGroup/Aggregates to can define a correct disaster recovery plan.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Eduardo&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 06:19:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Volume-members-of-a-Raid-Group/m-p/48748#M11427</guid>
      <dc:creator>eduardozav</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T06:19:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Volume members of a Raid Group</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Volume-members-of-a-Raid-Group/m-p/48753#M11428</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;All volumes span across the entire aggregate so there is no way to differentiate which aggregate it is on... similarly a lun in a volume is on all raid groups in the aggregate.&amp;nbsp; Also, for performance, it is best to keep raid group sizes even in the aggregate.&amp;nbsp; For a DR, SnapMirror of the Volume or Qtree is most often used.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2012 00:09:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Volume-members-of-a-Raid-Group/m-p/48753#M11428</guid>
      <dc:creator>scottgelb</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-09-10T00:09:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Volume members of a Raid Group</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Volume-members-of-a-Raid-Group/m-p/48757#M11429</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN id="result_box" lang="en"&gt;&lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;My&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;provider&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;did&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;this configuration&lt;/SPAN&gt;.&lt;BR /&gt;Q&lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;uestions&lt;/SPAN&gt;:&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN id="result_box" lang="en"&gt; 0) So I can't make an aggregate with two different type of raid group?, is it true?&lt;BR /&gt; 1) &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;Besides &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN id="result_box" lang="en"&gt;&lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;performance&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN id="result_box" lang="en"&gt;&lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;I don't see&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;another&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;advantage&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN id="result_box" lang="en"&gt;&lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;and as disadvantages I &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN id="result_box" lang="en"&gt;&lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;lose&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;two&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;parity disks&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;in return for&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;making a single large&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;raid&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;group&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;(20&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;data + 2&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;parity&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;+2&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;spare)&lt;/SPAN&gt;.&lt;BR /&gt; 2) &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;For such case&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;it would be better&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;had made&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;two&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;aggregate&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;with&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;one&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;raid&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;group&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;(9&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;data&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;+ 2&lt;/SPAN&gt; &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;parity&lt;/SPAN&gt;) &lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;each or is a mistake? &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN lang="en"&gt;&lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt; 3) If I could separate the production environment of testing environment I could decided on put all volumes testing on one aggregate defined as testing aggregate.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN lang="en"&gt;&lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;thanks&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN lang="en"&gt;&lt;SPAN class="hps"&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:06:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Volume-members-of-a-Raid-Group/m-p/48757#M11429</guid>
      <dc:creator>eduardozav</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-09-10T02:06:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Volume members of a Raid Group</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Volume-members-of-a-Raid-Group/m-p/48761#M11430</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;You can create an aggregate with multiple raid groups of different sizes…just good to keep all the same size.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;20D&lt;EM&gt;2P&lt;/EM&gt;2 Spare is definitely a feasible option.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would have gone 2(9D&lt;EM&gt;2P) or 18D&lt;/EM&gt;2P…but if not hitting a performance issue then you are likely good to go… many won’t hit an issue.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you want to keep prod/dev on separate spindles, then having an additional aggregate makes sense.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:29:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Volume-members-of-a-Raid-Group/m-p/48761#M11430</guid>
      <dc:creator>scottgelb</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-09-10T02:29:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Volume members of a Raid Group</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Volume-members-of-a-Raid-Group/m-p/48766#M11431</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Perfect, for end, I can not have one aggregate with 2 raid group different, example 1 aggr (1 raid group "DP"&amp;nbsp; 9D2P and other raid group type "4" 10D1P + 2 spares)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;Thanks a lot.&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:42:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Volume-members-of-a-Raid-Group/m-p/48766#M11431</guid>
      <dc:creator>EDUZAVALA</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-09-10T02:42:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Volume members of a Raid Group</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Volume-members-of-a-Raid-Group/m-p/48771#M11432</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;P&gt;No, the raid protection type (raid dp or raid4) is for the entire aggregate. You can create one aggregate with raid dp and another with raid4 but you'll have the space splitted over two aggregates. I recommend you to check and test the aggregates configuration and sizes before hold volumes and production data.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2012 21:26:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Volume-members-of-a-Raid-Group/m-p/48771#M11432</guid>
      <dc:creator>VMUNOZ_NTT</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-09-10T21:26:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Volume members of a Raid Group</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Volume-members-of-a-Raid-Group/m-p/48775#M11433</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks, my doubts was resolved!!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:56:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Volume-members-of-a-Raid-Group/m-p/48775#M11433</guid>
      <dc:creator>eduardozav</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-09-11T12:56:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

