Ask The Experts

LS_Mirrors & SVM_DR Best Practices

brasseurm

Hello all,

 

I have some questions regarding the usage of LS_Mirrors in a SVM_DR configuration.  I've read it is a Best Practice to use LS_Mirrors to protect root volumes in a NAS environment.  My system is a 4 nodes cluster, using only FlexVol and with CIFS SVM_DR.

  • Is it "mandatory" or really "recommanded" to put one a on each 4 nodes of the cluster, since the aggregates where the volumes reside are owned by a single HA Pair ?
  • What's your recommandation regarding snapshots of these LS_Mirror volumes ?
  • What about performance, is it really worth to use it ?
  • Do you have any example of circumstance when you can lose a root volume and, thus promote a LS_Mirror ?

 

Thank you for your help, do not hesitate to provide me any other guideline about this...

 

 

2 REPLIES 2

GidonMarcus
  • Is it "mandatory" or really "recommanded" to put one a on each 4 nodes of the cluster, since the aggregates where the volumes reside are owned by a single HA Pair ?
    • highly recommend
  • What's your recommendation regarding snapshots of these LS_Mirror volumes ?
    • no need to. you can't restore them or the root volume itself. you can only create new ones.
  • What about performance, is it really worth to use it ?
    • it should not have good or bad impact on performance
  • Do you have any example of circumstance when you can lose a root volume and, thus promote a LS_Mirror ?
    • it will allow you to continue and serve data from other nodes in case of a failure affecting the hosting aggregate (corruption. raid degradation for example in a case of multi-disk failure, the node freeze (watchdog likely to take a few sec/min to detect, etc... etc...)

Gidi

Gidi Marcus (Linkedin) - Storage and Microsoft technologies consultant - Hydro IT LTD - UK

brasseurm

Thanks Gidi for you reply, very useful.

 

I guess it is not needed neither to snapshot the root volumes?  There's no particular situation where you have to restore it...?

As I know, there are "entry point" for the namespace only and should not contain any user data, but is there any configuration data on it ?

 

I aslo read SVM DR didn't replicate root volumes, but somewhere else I read a contradiction...  which affirmation is correct ?

 

Regarding performance, the LS_Mirrors are entry points for the namespace, is this means IO would go through it, is it worth to place root volumes and LS_mirrors on an faster aggregate ?

 

Thank you guys !

 

 

 
Announcements
NetApp on Discord Image

We're on Discord, are you?

Live Chat, Watch Parties, and More!

Explore Banner

Meet Explore, NetApp’s digital sales platform

Engage digitally throughout the sales process, from product discovery to configuration, and handle all your post-purchase needs.

NetApp Insights to Action
I2A Banner
Public