<?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: hot spare across active/active heads in ONTAP Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/hot-spare-across-active-active-heads/m-p/77057#M17963</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Only owned disks can be a spare disk. So, it is very difficult to share a spare among two active-active nodes. (what maybe will work, is un-own the "disk" and create a script that set the correct ownership when a disk is failed. Un-owned disks doesn't receive disk firmware updates also). So, this is not the general practice.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Reinoud&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 21:38:33 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>reinoud7</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2010-07-16T21:38:33Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>hot spare across active/active heads</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/hot-spare-across-active-active-heads/m-p/77052#M17961</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Getting back into NetApp after a 4 year hiatus and need a refresher on hot spares.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hardware is a FAS2020 dual head active/active setup, single shelf, 12 x 450GB FC disks, OnTAP 7.3.2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If I do 1 aggregate, raid dp, will 1 hot spare disk be sufficient to fill in for ANY disk that would fail?&amp;nbsp; I have something stuck in the back of my head about hotspares needing to be owned by a head, and I'm not quote sure how that factors in with this hardware&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 07:11:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/hot-spare-across-active-active-heads/m-p/77052#M17961</guid>
      <dc:creator>esquared1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T07:11:57Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: hot spare across active/active heads</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/hot-spare-across-active-active-heads/m-p/77057#M17963</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Only owned disks can be a spare disk. So, it is very difficult to share a spare among two active-active nodes. (what maybe will work, is un-own the "disk" and create a script that set the correct ownership when a disk is failed. Un-owned disks doesn't receive disk firmware updates also). So, this is not the general practice.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Reinoud&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 21:38:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/hot-spare-across-active-active-heads/m-p/77057#M17963</guid>
      <dc:creator>reinoud7</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-07-16T21:38:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: hot spare across active/active heads</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/hot-spare-across-active-active-heads/m-p/77062#M17965</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Every disk has a owner it is as simple as that. Hence, they shouldn't be shared b/w controllers.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If there is a space crunch like always, you can ask&amp;nbsp; one controller to take 9 Disk&amp;nbsp; ( 8 in Aggregate and 1 spare ) ( which will serve your data as well). and 2nd controller only 3 disks. ( RAID-DP). &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In this case even if in 2nd controller 2 disk fails ( very unlikely situation&amp;nbsp; it will be in panic and cause 1st controller to take over, But your data is still secure in 1st controller using RAID-DP and a spare.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However, its again not a best practice but will yield you a win-win situation, if at all there is a space crunch situation. Alternatively, you can add a shelf.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-Bakshana&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 06:40:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/hot-spare-across-active-active-heads/m-p/77062#M17965</guid>
      <dc:creator>ogra</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-07-17T06:40:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: hot spare across active/active heads</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/hot-spare-across-active-active-heads/m-p/77067#M17967</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;That is an interesting options Bakshana.&amp;nbsp; Why would that not be considered best practice?&amp;nbsp; Is it because of lack of actual hot spare on 1 of the aggregates, or because of general best practice being to balance disks as evenlly as possible across controllers?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 11:35:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/hot-spare-across-active-active-heads/m-p/77067#M17967</guid>
      <dc:creator>esquared1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-07-17T11:35:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

