I only get the base contents of the volume, and not the other qtree's that are co-mingled with folders in the base of the cifs share local path (/vol/Groups)
if I use VSM-
The volume would be replicated with all data / qtree's. but would remain 32bit.
Part of the issue I have is that this is over 10TB / 10 million files. I already have the QSM relationship for the base contents of the volume. If I setup additional QSM's, they would be adjacent to the base contents, and a single cifs share could not access. As part of the cutover plan, I am going to be aliasing the IP address since we have both Windows and Unix clients accessing this data from god knows where. Anyone have any suggestions? I am trying to make this a single cutover event, where the outage is less than an hour, and from previous expireance, if I move the contents from the base QSM (irv-gdc-san1a:/vol/Groups/qtree --> irv-gdc-san1a:/vol/Groups) it could take hours, and I wouldn't be able to maintain permissions unless I used robocopy with the /MIR and /SEC switches.
What about just migrating the volume a second time to another aggregate with VSM once on target controller? So 32bit volume on single 7.3.7 controller migrated with VSM to 32bit volume on target controller, then subsequent VSM / 64 bit conversion?
Is the destination aggregate on the FAS3140 a 64 bit aggregate? If so, you can simply perform a VSM migration from the 32 bit source aggr, the volume will be expanded to 64 bit automatically after breaking the snapmirror relationship.
If the destination aggregate is 32 bit and the FAS3140 controllers are running 8.1.4P4 or later you can perform an in-place aggregate extension without adding disks. Check out http://www.netapp.com/us/media/tr-3978.pdf page 7 for details.
Destination controller is 3140 running 8.1.4P8, with 64 bit aggregates. I swear I have seen VSM destinations stay 32 bit like their source, but I guess I dont have a VSM to test that theory with. Either way it sounds like the approach I am going to have to take as at least a first step. At least I know not to use QSM, since it can't keep the folder heirearchy in my scenario.
It's an 11TB volume, and I am cleaning up the first 3TB base volume contents that was QSM'd right now. I trust everyone, and don't feel the need to test this theory, and again I have to use VSM regardless due to the qtrees mixed with folders heirarchy.. I will update the thread once its complete in a couple days, I need to take an outage on the target this morning to add some quad GbE NICs since we wont be able to use the 10gb interfaces for some time.
I only get the base contents of the volume, and not the other qtree's that are co-mingled with folders in the base of the cifs share local path (/vol/Groups)"
So the '-' will only get the non-qtree data, yes, but you could also setup QSM for the other qtrees (4 I think you said). So you'd end up with 5 qtree snapmirrors. This would also give you the advantage of converting the non-qtree data into a qtree.
I see you're going down the VSM route (which also makes sense)....but I don't see the problem with using QSM for this, maybe I'm missing something?