Naming conventions clustered ontap for better dealing with WFA

[scheckel]

Hi,

there are some discussion on PS- Clustered Ontap or on other DLs.

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.

Have somebody already implemented a bigger CDOT environment with WFA.

What do you suggest for naming the LIFs and the aggregates? Especially that WFA finders are working fine.

My Idea:

Aggregate Name:

aggr01_1 --- aggregate 1 on Node 1

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 ?

Lifs:

vs0001n001

vserver name + separator (n) + number

Thanks for any advice.

Best wishes,

Markus

[bbjholcomb]

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.

[isd605]

Hello. We are also in a green field project, and are deciding on naming conventions. Here's what I'm proposing to staff:

for our Aggregates:

6Gbps_900GB_SAS

3Gbps_600GB_SAS

6Gbps_3TB_SATA

3Gbps_1TB_SATA

Our current naming convention is

nas3_nas1

nas3_nas2

nas3_sata1

nas3_sata2

nas3_sata3

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.

[sinhaa]

Good choice of naming convention, please go ahead.

What are you looking for WFA to do for you?

sinhaa