<?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 Raid Group Sizing on FAS6070 in ONTAP Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Raid-Group-Sizing-on-FAS6070/m-p/72826#M16913</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Neil&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Remember the max aggr size&amp;nbsp; of 100TB...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Beside that, there are no performance disadvantages by going for the 19 disk/rg version.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Peter&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:39:38 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>peter_lehmann</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2011-07-19T11:39:38Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Raid Group Sizing on FAS6070</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Raid-Group-Sizing-on-FAS6070/m-p/72821#M16911</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;We are have recently upgraded our FAS6070 to Data OnTap 8.0.2 - we now need to update it to a more optimal configuration.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The FAS6070 currently has 524 x 500GB disks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;4 disks will be used for aggr0 leaving 520 disks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We are looking at 2 options for RAID Group Sizing - 16 or 19 disk RAID Groups &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;With 16 disk RAID groups we would get:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2 aggregates each consisting of 256 disks (16 RG) giving approx usable aggr size of 154TB (77TB in each aggregate)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Leaving 8 disks spare&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;With 19 disk RAID groups we would get:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2 aggregates 1 with 247 disks (13 RG) and the other with 266 disks (14 RG) giving approx usable aggr size of 161TB (83TB&amp;nbsp; in 1 aggregate, 77TB in the other aggregate)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Leaving 7 disks spare&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Are there any performance disadvantages to using 19 disk RAID groups,&amp;nbsp; as compared to using 16 disk RAID groups?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We obviously want to get the maximum storage capacity possible but also want to avoid unecessary risk or performance degradation.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Any advice would be helpful.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 06:50:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Raid-Group-Sizing-on-FAS6070/m-p/72821#M16911</guid>
      <dc:creator>neilwilson</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T06:50:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Raid Group Sizing on FAS6070</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Raid-Group-Sizing-on-FAS6070/m-p/72826#M16913</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Neil&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Remember the max aggr size&amp;nbsp; of 100TB...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Beside that, there are no performance disadvantages by going for the 19 disk/rg version.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Peter&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:39:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Raid-Group-Sizing-on-FAS6070/m-p/72826#M16913</guid>
      <dc:creator>peter_lehmann</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-07-19T11:39:38Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Raid Group Sizing on FAS6070</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Raid-Group-Sizing-on-FAS6070/m-p/72831#M16915</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;First of all, with FAS6070 you have a 100TB limit for a 64-bit aggregate (unless something has changed between 8.0.1 &amp;amp; 8.0.2).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;RAID group size mainly impacts a rebuild time, should any drive fail in that group - the bigger the group is, the longer it takes.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Radek&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:45:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Raid-Group-Sizing-on-FAS6070/m-p/72831#M16915</guid>
      <dc:creator>radek_kubka</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-07-19T11:45:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Raid Group Sizing on FAS6070</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Raid-Group-Sizing-on-FAS6070/m-p/72836#M16916</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Oops the sizes I put are total across all aggregates. Ill correct my post.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;All the aggregates are within the 100TB limit.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:45:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Raid-Group-Sizing-on-FAS6070/m-p/72836#M16916</guid>
      <dc:creator>neilwilson</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-07-19T12:45:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

