<?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: FlexGroup configurations in ONTAP Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/FlexGroup-configurations/m-p/147262#M32758</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks &lt;a href="https://community.netapp.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/9150"&gt;@CHRISMAKI&lt;/a&gt; .&amp;nbsp; @tmac said the same.&amp;nbsp; Now I have confirmation from two sources.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2019 21:14:25 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Tas</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-03-18T21:14:25Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>FlexGroup configurations</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/FlexGroup-configurations/m-p/147206#M32746</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I've seen the FG Best Practices guide and the manual.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Both seem to imply that disks, RG-types, and RG-sizes should be the same across the board when creating FG's.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Is this a best practice for best performance?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;1. What if I have an ADP RG, which will have a fewer number of drives in the first RG?&amp;nbsp; Is this okay?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;2. The next four or five RG's in the aggregate will have our standard RT-type, 24-disc/4TB's.&amp;nbsp; Would this be okay&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The next node's aggregate may be all 24-disc RT-type, 4TB, 6TB or 8TB.&amp;nbsp; Will this be allright?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thank you&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;TasP&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 12:43:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/FlexGroup-configurations/m-p/147206#M32746</guid>
      <dc:creator>Tas</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-04T12:43:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: FlexGroup configurations</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/FlexGroup-configurations/m-p/147258#M32757</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Tas,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The reason for this consistency requirement, which I believe is a soft-requirement, is for consitant performance across constituent volumes. When a FlexGroup is created, it provisions a multiple of constituent volumes across the aggegates it is allowed to consume from. If half of the FG is on NL-SAS and the other half is on SSD, access performance will vary wildly, depending on which constituent volume a file got written.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Since it appears all of your aggregates are going to be NL-SAS, I wouldn't be overly concerned about the differences between them, you likely won't notice much of a difference, if any.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2019 19:20:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/FlexGroup-configurations/m-p/147258#M32757</guid>
      <dc:creator>CHRISMAKI</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-18T19:20:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: FlexGroup configurations</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/FlexGroup-configurations/m-p/147262#M32758</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks &lt;a href="https://community.netapp.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/9150"&gt;@CHRISMAKI&lt;/a&gt; .&amp;nbsp; @tmac said the same.&amp;nbsp; Now I have confirmation from two sources.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2019 21:14:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/FlexGroup-configurations/m-p/147262#M32758</guid>
      <dc:creator>Tas</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-18T21:14:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

