https://community.netapp.com/t5/AFF/planning-aggregates/m-p/435029#M1069 <P>Hello</P><P>We shall have a basic AFF A250 with 10 NVMe Disks.</P><P>I wonder if it worth creating 2 aggregates with 1 Raid Group each or better stay with 1 aggregate with 2 Raid Groups ?</P><P>Raid size of 9 disks is unquestionable I guess.&nbsp;</P><P>Thank you</P> Wed, 04 Jun 2025 10:00:59 GMT AlexeyF 2025-06-04T10:00:59Z https://community.netapp.com/t5/AFF/planning-aggregates/m-p/435029#M1069 <P>Hello</P><P>We shall have a basic AFF A250 with 10 NVMe Disks.</P><P>I wonder if it worth creating 2 aggregates with 1 Raid Group each or better stay with 1 aggregate with 2 Raid Groups ?</P><P>Raid size of 9 disks is unquestionable I guess.&nbsp;</P><P>Thank you</P> Wed, 04 Jun 2025 10:00:59 GMT https://community.netapp.com/t5/AFF/planning-aggregates/m-p/435029#M1069 AlexeyF 2025-06-04T10:00:59Z https://community.netapp.com/t5/AFF/planning-aggregates/m-p/435033#M1070 <P>If you reassign the partitions to one controller then to just create an active/passive solution. The $$$ spent on the two controllers is basically wasted. You won’t get the performance out of the box</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;make two aggregates, one on each controller</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;if you need all the space on one volume, look at using a FlexGroup.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;Otherwise, make two aggregates and split your loads between the aggregates. Be sure to put data LIFs on both controllers as well</P> Tue, 17 May 2022 11:10:01 GMT https://community.netapp.com/t5/AFF/planning-aggregates/m-p/435033#M1070 TMACMD 2022-05-17T11:10:01Z