<?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: How volumes are created within an aggregate with more than 1 RAID group in ONTAP Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/How-volumes-are-created-within-an-aggregate-with-more-than-1-RAID-group/m-p/10430#M2400</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the response.&amp;nbsp; I still would like to more in detail how the writes are spread out on the aggregate.&amp;nbsp; Are the RAID groups in the aggregate created so that a volume is striped across them?&amp;nbsp; Is it like JBOD?&amp;nbsp; In my example, I have 14 data disks on one RAID group and 4 on the other for a total of 18 data disks.&amp;nbsp; That would mean, in order to spread evenly, my disk would have to be laid out so that 7/9 (14/18) blocks are on the first RAID group and 2/9 (4/18) are on the second.&amp;nbsp; Does WAFL realize this when volumes are created?&amp;nbsp; Can it *see* into RAID groups for the number of disks contained within?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:25:11 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>paul_w_jackson</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2011-03-07T20:25:11Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>How volumes are created within an aggregate with more than 1 RAID group</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/How-volumes-are-created-within-an-aggregate-with-more-than-1-RAID-group/m-p/10421#M2395</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;How are volumes created within an aggregate when that aggregate has 2 RAID groups of different sizes?&amp;nbsp; Currently we have 1 RAID group with 14 data plus 2 parity and another with only 4 data and 2 parity.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm concerened that volumes that have part of their data on the smaller RAID group would have poorer performance unless NetApp only writes a fraction of the data on the smaller RAID group.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Paul&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 06:58:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/How-volumes-are-created-within-an-aggregate-with-more-than-1-RAID-group/m-p/10421#M2395</guid>
      <dc:creator>paul_w_jackson</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T06:58:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: How volumes are created within an aggregate with more than 1 RAID group</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/How-volumes-are-created-within-an-aggregate-with-more-than-1-RAID-group/m-p/10425#M2397</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Paul, &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;All 16 data disks will help with IOPS in equal manner. WAFL will take care of striping for you. Remember RAID is more for data protection than for IOPS.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Without being able to document it I reckon you re fine. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards, &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Eric&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2011 19:46:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/How-volumes-are-created-within-an-aggregate-with-more-than-1-RAID-group/m-p/10425#M2397</guid>
      <dc:creator>eric_barlier</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-03-07T19:46:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: How volumes are created within an aggregate with more than 1 RAID group</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/How-volumes-are-created-within-an-aggregate-with-more-than-1-RAID-group/m-p/10430#M2400</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the response.&amp;nbsp; I still would like to more in detail how the writes are spread out on the aggregate.&amp;nbsp; Are the RAID groups in the aggregate created so that a volume is striped across them?&amp;nbsp; Is it like JBOD?&amp;nbsp; In my example, I have 14 data disks on one RAID group and 4 on the other for a total of 18 data disks.&amp;nbsp; That would mean, in order to spread evenly, my disk would have to be laid out so that 7/9 (14/18) blocks are on the first RAID group and 2/9 (4/18) are on the second.&amp;nbsp; Does WAFL realize this when volumes are created?&amp;nbsp; Can it *see* into RAID groups for the number of disks contained within?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:25:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/How-volumes-are-created-within-an-aggregate-with-more-than-1-RAID-group/m-p/10430#M2400</guid>
      <dc:creator>paul_w_jackson</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-03-07T20:25:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: How volumes are created within an aggregate with more than 1 RAID group</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/How-volumes-are-created-within-an-aggregate-with-more-than-1-RAID-group/m-p/10434#M2403</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;You basically need to find the basic TR (Technical Reports) on the WAFL filesystem (TR-3001, I think) to get a more detailed explanation.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Fundamentally, a flexible volume is simply a storage abstraction. Data from all volumes in an aggregate are simply "mixed" together on the disks.&amp;nbsp; When you add disks to an existing aggregate, WAFL tries to fill the new disks up with "new" data until they are just as full as the existing data disks.&amp;nbsp; This can often cause performance problems as the new disks will be "hot disks" .&amp;nbsp; "Reallocation" needs to be performed on all of the volumes in the aggregate to restore a balanced IO picture. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The rest is in the TR(s).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 03 Apr 2011 21:09:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/How-volumes-are-created-within-an-aggregate-with-more-than-1-RAID-group/m-p/10434#M2403</guid>
      <dc:creator>shaunjurr</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-04-03T21:09:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: How volumes are created within an aggregate with more than 1 RAID group</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/How-volumes-are-created-within-an-aggregate-with-more-than-1-RAID-group/m-p/10438#M2405</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;it looks like 6 disk have been added to your aggregate without changing the default raidgroup size of 16 and so you ended up with this misbalanced configuration.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;as of the Storage Subsystem Technical FAQ, the raid group sizes should not differ by more than one disk:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;"Drive deficiencies should be distributed across RAID groups so that no single RAID group is deficient more than a single drive."&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;and if I remember correctly, the smaller raidgroup must have at least half the disk count of the bigger raidgroup. but I can't find a doc about that right now.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;so I think your configuration is not even supported by Netapp.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2014 06:06:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/How-volumes-are-created-within-an-aggregate-with-more-than-1-RAID-group/m-p/10438#M2405</guid>
      <dc:creator>DOMINIC_WYSS</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-08-28T06:06:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

