<?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: ontapi - get-navolsize discrepancy with DFM 5 in ONTAP Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/ontapi-get-navolsize-discrepancy-with-DFM-5/m-p/80325#M18746</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is from:&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;lt;host&amp;gt;:8080/dfm/report/view/&lt;SPAN style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;aggregate-details&lt;/SPAN&gt;/445?group=516&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;"Storage Capacity" section.&amp;nbsp; Specifically "volumes" ... on DFM 5.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:20:53 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>JIM_SURLOW</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2014-01-23T17:20:53Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ontapi - get-navolsize discrepancy with DFM 5</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/ontapi-get-navolsize-discrepancy-with-DFM-5/m-p/80312#M18739</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;A colleague of mine has some code that loops through each volume in an aggregate and performs a "get-navolsize".&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However, when we tally this, it ends up being about 30TB.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When I sum these from vol size from the CLI and then doing the conversion to KB, I end up with 36TB.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;DFM 5.0 shows "Storage Capacity" "Volumes" as being 34TB, so I believe that there is some KB/MB/GB/TB differences between this as the 2nd method listed above.&amp;nbsp; However, I would think that this would correlate with the API call.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We did show a warning that we had an aggregate overcommitted with 29.5TB.&amp;nbsp; We suspect that this part correlates with the API, but given the date of the alert, maybe/maybe not.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Question:&amp;nbsp; Why doesn't get-navolsize and vol size from the command line correlate?&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; What may we be missing?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;P.S.&amp;nbsp; this is for OnTap 8.1.* 7-mode.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 05:45:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/ontapi-get-navolsize-discrepancy-with-DFM-5/m-p/80312#M18739</guid>
      <dc:creator>JIM_SURLOW</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T05:45:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ontapi - get-navolsize discrepancy with DFM 5</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/ontapi-get-navolsize-discrepancy-with-DFM-5/m-p/80317#M18742</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm an extensive user of the powershell toolkit as well as DFM.&amp;nbsp; I'm going to review this b/c I'm not sure i'm seeing this issue.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also, this might be better directed in either one of those forums&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Just clarify for me, what view in Ocum are you seeing the difference, is there a report you ran&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:11:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/ontapi-get-navolsize-discrepancy-with-DFM-5/m-p/80317#M18742</guid>
      <dc:creator>JGPSHNTAP</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-01-23T15:11:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ontapi - get-navolsize discrepancy with DFM 5</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/ontapi-get-navolsize-discrepancy-with-DFM-5/m-p/80320#M18744</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Wow JGPSHNTAP,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I was wonder which forums you want this question to be posted:&amp;gt;)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Henry&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2014 16:07:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/ontapi-get-navolsize-discrepancy-with-DFM-5/m-p/80320#M18744</guid>
      <dc:creator>HENRYPAN2</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-01-23T16:07:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ontapi - get-navolsize discrepancy with DFM 5</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/ontapi-get-navolsize-discrepancy-with-DFM-5/m-p/80325#M18746</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is from:&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;lt;host&amp;gt;:8080/dfm/report/view/&lt;SPAN style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;aggregate-details&lt;/SPAN&gt;/445?group=516&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;"Storage Capacity" section.&amp;nbsp; Specifically "volumes" ... on DFM 5.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:20:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/ontapi-get-navolsize-discrepancy-with-DFM-5/m-p/80325#M18746</guid>
      <dc:creator>JIM_SURLOW</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-01-23T17:20:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ontapi - get-navolsize discrepancy with DFM 5</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/ontapi-get-navolsize-discrepancy-with-DFM-5/m-p/80330#M18747</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Jim,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Ok, so I ran through what your seeing&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Get-navolsize is essentially getting volume size like vol size command on cli.&amp;nbsp; The report which you are looking at is only giving you what the filer counts to the Active file system, meaning it doesn't calculate in the snapshot reserve&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;A get-navol command should match which is in DFM.&amp;nbsp; I tend to code with get-navolsize for true representation&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:45:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/ontapi-get-navolsize-discrepancy-with-DFM-5/m-p/80330#M18747</guid>
      <dc:creator>JGPSHNTAP</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-01-23T17:45:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ontapi - get-navolsize discrepancy with DFM 5</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/ontapi-get-navolsize-discrepancy-with-DFM-5/m-p/80334#M18748</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sorry for being unclear...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In most cases, we see get-navolsize as reporting appropriately, but on this particular HA pair, it does NOT correlate to the CLI data or to DFM.&amp;nbsp; I can't understand why.&amp;nbsp; My expectation is that it would match the CLI, hence the opening of this discussion.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sounds like from your testing and understanding, get-navolsize correlates with CLI as well, and should.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;At least, my understanding on proper behavior has been confirmed.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2014 18:06:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/ontapi-get-navolsize-discrepancy-with-DFM-5/m-p/80334#M18748</guid>
      <dc:creator>JIM_SURLOW</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-01-23T18:06:46Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

