<?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: Naming conventions clustered ontap for better dealing with WFA in Active IQ Unified Manager Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Naming-conventions-clustered-ontap-for-better-dealing-with-WFA/m-p/18552#M3932</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would name node by the HA pair, 1a/1b and 2a/2b. I think that the node name should be in the aggr name. If you have a system with different type of drives I think adding the type would be useful for administration (ssd/scsi/sata). I'm sure the information is there in the display but sometime it's easier to have the this information there for admin. Just my 2 cents.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:56:59 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>bbjholcomb</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2013-02-20T13:56:59Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Naming conventions clustered ontap for better dealing with WFA</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Naming-conventions-clustered-ontap-for-better-dealing-with-WFA/m-p/18546#M3926</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;there are some discussion on PS- Clustered Ontap or on other DLs. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So we are starting on a green field with some new Clustered Ontap Systems which are built up. I want to know your opinions for a good naming.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Have somebody already implemented a bigger CDOT environment with WFA. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What do you suggest for naming the LIFs and the aggregates? Especially that WFA finders are working fine.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My Idea:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Aggregate Name:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;aggr01_1 --- aggregate 1 on Node 1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also does it make sense to put the type of aggregate in the name. e.g. hyprid, ssd, sata ... or can we filter on the datasource fom UM 5.1 ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Lifs:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;vs0001n001&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;vserver name + separator (n) + number&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for any advice.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Best wishes,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Markus&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:05:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Naming-conventions-clustered-ontap-for-better-dealing-with-WFA/m-p/18546#M3926</guid>
      <dc:creator>scheckel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-02-20T08:05:46Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Naming conventions clustered ontap for better dealing with WFA</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Naming-conventions-clustered-ontap-for-better-dealing-with-WFA/m-p/18552#M3932</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would name node by the HA pair, 1a/1b and 2a/2b. I think that the node name should be in the aggr name. If you have a system with different type of drives I think adding the type would be useful for administration (ssd/scsi/sata). I'm sure the information is there in the display but sometime it's easier to have the this information there for admin. Just my 2 cents.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:56:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Naming-conventions-clustered-ontap-for-better-dealing-with-WFA/m-p/18552#M3932</guid>
      <dc:creator>bbjholcomb</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-02-20T13:56:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Naming conventions clustered ontap for better dealing with WFA</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Naming-conventions-clustered-ontap-for-better-dealing-with-WFA/m-p/111394#M19716</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello. We are also in a green field project, and are deciding on naming conventions. Here's what I'm proposing to staff:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;for our Aggregates:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;6Gbps_900GB_SAS&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;3Gbps_600GB_SAS&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;6Gbps_3TB_SATA&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;3Gbps_1TB_SATA&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Our current naming convention is&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nas3_nas1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nas3_nas2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nas3_sata1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nas3_sata2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nas3_sata3&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Problem with that is there's no description of speed or capacity of the disks. This is important for proper deployment of volumes fromt the Aggregates.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:09:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Naming-conventions-clustered-ontap-for-better-dealing-with-WFA/m-p/111394#M19716</guid>
      <dc:creator>isd605</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-10-20T18:09:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Naming conventions clustered ontap for better dealing with WFA</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Naming-conventions-clustered-ontap-for-better-dealing-with-WFA/m-p/111448#M19727</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Good choice of naming convention, please go ahead.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What are you looking for WFA to do for you?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;sinhaa&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:27:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Naming-conventions-clustered-ontap-for-better-dealing-with-WFA/m-p/111448#M19727</guid>
      <dc:creator>sinhaa</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-10-21T09:27:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

