<?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: Raid Size  Group in ONTAP Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Raid-Size-Group/m-p/99746#M20276</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;depends on your trade-off between performance and space. the more disks in a raid-group the better performance&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;it is easy with the SAS disks:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1 raid-group 20+2+2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;it's a bit different with the SATA disks because a SATA raid-group is limited to 20 disks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;so:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;18+2+4 spares&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;you can also have 2 raid-groups but it doesn't make sense as the performance is worse and you are getting the same capacity (18 data disks)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;(9+2) + (9+2) + 2 spares&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;(this is all assuming the use of&amp;nbsp; RAID-DP)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2015 18:28:12 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>JSHACHER11</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-01-25T18:28:12Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Raid Size  Group</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Raid-Size-Group/m-p/99740#M20275</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello I have 1 netapp with 900 GB SAS sas disks 24 and 1 disk shelf DS4246 with 2 TB SATA disks 24 What would be the best Raid configuration I need Size Gruoup leave 2 spare disks&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 05:14:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Raid-Size-Group/m-p/99740#M20275</guid>
      <dc:creator>ROBARROS1983</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T05:14:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Raid Size  Group</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Raid-Size-Group/m-p/99746#M20276</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;depends on your trade-off between performance and space. the more disks in a raid-group the better performance&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;it is easy with the SAS disks:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1 raid-group 20+2+2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;it's a bit different with the SATA disks because a SATA raid-group is limited to 20 disks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;so:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;18+2+4 spares&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;you can also have 2 raid-groups but it doesn't make sense as the performance is worse and you are getting the same capacity (18 data disks)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;(9+2) + (9+2) + 2 spares&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;(this is all assuming the use of&amp;nbsp; RAID-DP)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2015 18:28:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Raid-Size-Group/m-p/99746#M20276</guid>
      <dc:creator>JSHACHER11</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-01-25T18:28:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

