<?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 More aggregrates or more spindles per aggr for VM datastores? in ONTAP Hardware</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Hardware/More-aggregrates-or-more-spindles-per-aggr-for-VM-datastores/m-p/99727#M6098</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello netapp community,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I've been debating this for a while with myself and I am leaning one way but was hoping for more input.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have a HA FAS3070 netapp pair running ontap 7.3.7 with 4 attached disk shelves with 300 GB 15K FC disks.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The aggregates will host volumes that contain VM's mounted via NFS to the ESXi servers.&amp;nbsp; Typically I would just create an aggregate per disk shelf.&amp;nbsp; So say 4 aggregrates with 13 or 14 disks per.&amp;nbsp; This way if we have client VM's that are going crazy and causing a tremendous amount of disk I/O it will only affect the VMs in the aggregrate and not the entire environment. However if we create a giant pool of disks using all of the disks available on all 4 disk shelves perhaps the impact of a couple VM's that are causing an abnormal amount of disk I/O won't affect much.&amp;nbsp; I am building out a new environment which is why I am going back to this again. Any input is appreciated.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Marc&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 05:14:34 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>marc_ho_ltx</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-06-05T05:14:34Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>More aggregrates or more spindles per aggr for VM datastores?</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Hardware/More-aggregrates-or-more-spindles-per-aggr-for-VM-datastores/m-p/99727#M6098</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello netapp community,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I've been debating this for a while with myself and I am leaning one way but was hoping for more input.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have a HA FAS3070 netapp pair running ontap 7.3.7 with 4 attached disk shelves with 300 GB 15K FC disks.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The aggregates will host volumes that contain VM's mounted via NFS to the ESXi servers.&amp;nbsp; Typically I would just create an aggregate per disk shelf.&amp;nbsp; So say 4 aggregrates with 13 or 14 disks per.&amp;nbsp; This way if we have client VM's that are going crazy and causing a tremendous amount of disk I/O it will only affect the VMs in the aggregrate and not the entire environment. However if we create a giant pool of disks using all of the disks available on all 4 disk shelves perhaps the impact of a couple VM's that are causing an abnormal amount of disk I/O won't affect much.&amp;nbsp; I am building out a new environment which is why I am going back to this again. Any input is appreciated.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Marc&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 05:14:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Hardware/More-aggregrates-or-more-spindles-per-aggr-for-VM-datastores/m-p/99727#M6098</guid>
      <dc:creator>marc_ho_ltx</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T05:14:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

