Hi We have a followig configuration: AFF250 with 10 disks of 13,97TB. ADPv2 is in place. 2 data aggregates of 9 partitions each 6,94 TiB in size. We've just added 8 disks which appear as spares, not partitioned. Tryig to expand the aggregate via GUI (ONTAP 9.10) I get the following estimation message: Adding drives to local tier "aggr02" will increase its capacity by approximately 25 TiB I wonder how is it going to expand the aggregate? I would expect 8 partitions of 6,94 TiB added to the existing raid group what would result in 8x6,94TiB Can I do it manually via command line? Have not found any documentation other than Add capacity to a local tier (add disks to an aggregate) (netapp.com) but it is not detailed enough. Thanks in advance for your advices.
... View more
We are using a EX4550-32F x 2 switches stack with a QSFP+ Juniper modules in PIC 1 on both switches for connecting an A700s Netapp to the Data network. For the sake of the question I will address only one of the connections we currently have to the switches. We are using the following setup as advised by Netapp: Node B is currently connected with only e0e to the 2nd EX4550-32F QSFP+ module, with a QSFP+-40G-CU3M cable (recognized by the Juniper switch) but shown on the Netapp as "CISCO-JPC", and configured on et-1/1/0 with access mode. A LIF is configured with an IP on e0e directly. The current status is that network port show command shows healthy status on e0e for Node B, right duplex, mtu etc. Same is on the et-1/1/0 interface on Juniper. But if I run the ifstat e0e command on Node B I see CRC errors accumulating on e0e (I don't see any errors on et-1/1/0 interface on the Juniper). My question is - what can be the reason for the CRC errors (that are probably the reason for the fact we don't have any connectivity on this LIF that uses this port) and what additional things should we check? Our vendor states that all the hdw is compatible. Thank you.
... View more
Quick question, we have noticed the NS224 shelf IDs on the cluster have not been set to those in the design doc. While I know it will require the controllers to be reset ( they are base configured with only e0M and root aggs ) can someone advise the order of steps to reset the system and adjust the shelf ID ( basically take the controller back to having come out the box ). Thanks
... View more
I have a new AFF A250 running ONTAP 9.13.1P10 it has 24 x 7.68TB NVME SSDs When I go to create the new aggregates, the system proposes : Two aggregates each of 23 x 3.48TB = 65.8TB ( 2 disks lost to raid so 21 x 3.48 = 73.08 ) 65.80TB is 10% less than 73.08TB - Typically this would be the 10% WAFL overhead, however as I am running out of the box ONTAP 9.13.1 I would expect the WAFL overhead to be 5% and the usable aggregate to be 69.42TB My question is : when a new aggregate is created does it a by default have a 5% Aggregate Snap Reserve factored in, therefore I am seeing 5% WAFL overhead + 5 SnapReserve or do I have an issue with the AFF where it is not setting the WAFL reserve to 5% It may seem a small amount of space for that aggregate example but over the whole cluster its around 40-50 TB we are missing. ( other nodes on the cluster are C400 which much larger disks ) Thank you.
... View more
Hello, We try to configure Fpolicy throught Ansible to facilitate updates of exclude extension list content manage by security team. In the extension list we have numeric extension like 000 but when ansible try to activate the fpolicy it failed : "msg": "calling: /private/cli/vserver/fpolicy/policy/scope: got Expecting json, got: b'{ n \"records\": [ n {\\n \"vserver\": \"BASNASCIFS\",\\n \"policy_name\": \"blockext_cifs_v1.50\",\\n \"file_extensions_to_include\": [\\n 000,\\n \"kkk\",\\n \"kkkjj\"\\n ],\\n \"is_file_extension_check_on_directories_enabled\": true,\\n \"is_monitoring_of_objects_with_no_extension_enabled\": false\\n } n ], n \"num_records\": 1 n}'." For your information the scope is created successfully : Vserver Policy Extensions Extensions Name Name Included Excluded ----------------- ------------------- -------------------- ------------------- abcd blockext_cifs_v1.50 000, kkk, kkkjj - And if we enable the fpolicy throught the cli, it work ! Have you got an idea ? It seems that ansible use the value as integer and not as string, we tried to add single au double quote, same issue Thanks Jc
... View more
