4 node AFF700.
I am wanting to implement Flexgroups to house user shares (due to a number of the wonderful things a Flexgroup would do for me).
The pushback I am hearing, (yet cannot find any evidence of the veracity of these claims) is:
1. That data on a constituent volume becomes unavailable should the owning node fail (the constituents do not fail over). This does not sound logical.
2. If I enforce quotas (when 9.5 becomes GA), I'm enforcing a quota on a single constituent volume, and still need to worry about constituent volumes filling up, thus Flexgroups do little to help in terms of balancing capacity.
Can someone please provide an answer as to whether any of this is correct?