<?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: Performance Advisor - Volume Latency View in Active IQ Unified Manager Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Performance-Advisor-Volume-Latency-View/m-p/47624#M9772</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi sean,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;!--[if gte mso 10]&gt;
&lt;style&gt;
 /* Style Definitions */
 table.MsoNormalTable
 {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
 mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
 mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
 mso-style-noshow:yes;
 mso-style-parent:"";
 mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
 mso-para-margin:0in;
 mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
 mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
 font-size:10.0pt;
 font-family:"Times New Roman";
 mso-ansi-language:#0400;
 mso-fareast-language:#0400;
 mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
&lt;/style&gt;
&lt;![endif]--&gt;&lt;P&gt;nfs_latency is calculated as average for of all the ops, so it would be average of read, write and other latencies.&amp;nbsp; Discrepancy in the value could be due to bug in OpsMgr 3.7.1 which is fixed in DFM 3.8 release. Refer to Burt 327609 for more details,&amp;nbsp; P.S.&amp;nbsp; this issue is only specific to latency counters at volume level.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Nagesh&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 05:46:22 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>nagesha</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2009-06-18T05:46:22Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Performance Advisor - Volume Latency View</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Performance-Advisor-Volume-Latency-View/m-p/47615#M9770</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;In PA - Volume Latency View, two questions:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1)&amp;nbsp; Why does NFS Latency by Optype contain different data than Overall Latency by Optype?&amp;nbsp; The volume only contains data accessed through NFS.&amp;nbsp; The latency in milliseconds is off by at least factor of 10.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2).&amp;nbsp; In the NFS Latency by Optype view what is the difference between nfs_latency and the other counters?&amp;nbsp; I'm aware of the differences between read/write/other.&amp;nbsp; Is nfs_latency meant to be a sum of those three?&amp;nbsp; If so, it's off by almost a factor of 100 (sometimes almost an order of magnitude).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;sean.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 07:27:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Performance-Advisor-Volume-Latency-View/m-p/47615#M9770</guid>
      <dc:creator>smurphy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T07:27:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Performance Advisor - Volume Latency View</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Performance-Advisor-Volume-Latency-View/m-p/47619#M9771</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Providing a little more detail:&amp;nbsp; DFM 3.7.1 (this has been continuously upgraded since 3.4) on SLES 9 sp3.&amp;nbsp; This behavior is true regardless of the volume (or storage system) that is selected.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;sean.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:57:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Performance-Advisor-Volume-Latency-View/m-p/47619#M9771</guid>
      <dc:creator>smurphy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-06-17T17:57:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Performance Advisor - Volume Latency View</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Performance-Advisor-Volume-Latency-View/m-p/47624#M9772</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi sean,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;!--[if gte mso 10]&gt;
&lt;style&gt;
 /* Style Definitions */
 table.MsoNormalTable
 {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
 mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
 mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
 mso-style-noshow:yes;
 mso-style-parent:"";
 mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
 mso-para-margin:0in;
 mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
 mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
 font-size:10.0pt;
 font-family:"Times New Roman";
 mso-ansi-language:#0400;
 mso-fareast-language:#0400;
 mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
&lt;/style&gt;
&lt;![endif]--&gt;&lt;P&gt;nfs_latency is calculated as average for of all the ops, so it would be average of read, write and other latencies.&amp;nbsp; Discrepancy in the value could be due to bug in OpsMgr 3.7.1 which is fixed in DFM 3.8 release. Refer to Burt 327609 for more details,&amp;nbsp; P.S.&amp;nbsp; this issue is only specific to latency counters at volume level.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Nagesh&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 05:46:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Performance-Advisor-Volume-Latency-View/m-p/47624#M9772</guid>
      <dc:creator>nagesha</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-06-18T05:46:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

