FAS and V-Series Storage Systems Discussions

RG Size 2TB Disks

nsitps1976

With a FAS 2020HA with 12 2TB drives is this a valid config:

1 Spare

1 RG =  11 disks, 2 parity and 9 data

All assigned to one node, the other acting purely for failover.

I do not want to lose 6 disks by having a RG per node.

Thanks

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

aborzenkov

To allow failover between heads in active/active pair each head must be up and running; and to be able to run, each head needs at least root volume. Your configuration leaves second head as cold spare. It could be acceptable if you can afford downtime for replacement (I had customers with single FAS250 or R200), but it is pretty expensive spares stock IMHO.

View solution in original post

11 REPLIES 11

aborzenkov

To allow failover between heads in active/active pair each head must be up and running; and to be able to run, each head needs at least root volume. Your configuration leaves second head as cold spare. It could be acceptable if you can afford downtime for replacement (I had customers with single FAS250 or R200), but it is pretty expensive spares stock IMHO.

View solution in original post

nsitps1976

Oh!

So what is the best way to configure this so as to lose as little disk as possible?

Two RG of 5 disks using Raid4 (4 data and 1 parity) - One hot spare per node ?

Also, in the cold senario you described what would be the process to swap the cold controller for a failed active controller?

aborzenkov

Various replacement procedures are described on NOW site.

I really can’t say which is the best. In similar situation several years ago customer opted for hot standby with 2 disks in RAID4 for root and no spares on one controller, but they were 72GB disks; I guess you would not like to lose 4TB worth of space. If you do not absolutely need large contiguous chunk your suggestion looks reasonable; although I’d rather go for RAID_DP without spares.

Search communities, this question pops up pretty often and there were several long threads about it already.

brucem

As noted already, you need a root volume for each controller. So best bang for your buck would be a 3 drive Raid-DP on the 2nd controller ( 1+2 no HS)  and the other controller would have a 7+2 (raid DP)  No HS, or a 6+2 DP and 1 HS, your call

nsitps1976

I thought it was a requirment to have at least one HS per controller?

How is this configured? Will the system not complain?

Also, can you point me in the direction of the threads re this, I can't seem to find much on my senario.

Regards

aborzenkov

Yes, system will complaint but run. In some cases it is possible to turn warnings off - see raid.min_spare_count option.

Similar posts:

http://communities.netapp.com/message/45564#45564

http://communities.netapp.com/message/32426#32426

http://communities.netapp.com/message/42579#42579

nsitps1976

So there is no special config required in order to not assign a HS - You simply just use all disks for the aggr ??

aborzenkov

Mostly yes, but do not forget about raid.timeout option. I learned about it hard way when my very first NetApp suddenly started to switch off ☺

nsitps1976

Please could you explain what raid.timeout option is and what I need to do?

Is it only needed when you do not have HS disks?

aborzenkov

NetApp will shut down if degraded RG is not repaired within raid.timeout timeframe. It is to protect you from further disk failures. It is described in Data ONTAP manuals.

nsitps1976

Thanks for all the help

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