We have five applications, each on its own datastore and SRM protection group. Do you need to create five separate SVMs for the five applications, or is one enough? What does NetApp recommend?
... View more
Hello! ONTAP Select docs (https://docs.netapp.com/us-en/ontap-select/concept_nw_vsphere_vswitch_config.html) states that for a deployment of a 2-node OTS cluster in 25GbE 2-port hosts.. we should use active-active NIC teaming: But also, there's a table describing active/standby teaming: So, I guess we should use active/standby and the above picture is wrong (active-active should be replaced by active-standy). Does it make sense? Kind regards, Pedro
... View more
Good Morning all, I feel like this problem is easily solved but im not sure about how to go about it the best way, or if im just overthinking it. Basically im building a new AFF-A150, and during the initial setup process I accidentally began with Controller B instead of Controller A, which made Controller B my "clustername-01" node. This isn't really a big deal but for the sake of uniformity across all my NetApp systems (all 2 node systems) i've wanted my clustername-01 node to be controller A and clustername-02 to be controller B. Would this be as easy as changing the LIF names for my 4 cluster SVM LIFS and 2 node management LIFS or is this something else I would need to do?
... View more
We have been using snapdiff backups for our SVMs for years. We use IBM Storage Protect (latest version) and Data ONTAP 9.13.1.P7. The following messages keep appearing in the audit log of our cluster: 'Unable to find API: vfiler-list-info on data vserver SVM_xxx'. The message always appears when the backup of a filer volume starts. When we search for the error, we only ever find very old references to 7-mode. Is there a way to deactivate the message under ONTAP?
... View more
Hello, I’m seeking some clarification on the disk show command in NetApp ONTAP, specifically regarding the difference between physical and usable disk sizes across different NetApp models. I’ve observed that on AFF (All Flash FAS) models, the physical-size and usable-size values for disks are the same. However, on FAS (Fabric-Attached Storage) models, these values are different. Here are the details from the disk show command for both types of models: AFF Model netapp-c1::> disk show -fields physical-size,usable-size disk physical-size usable-size ------ ------------- ----------- 1.0.0 1.75TB 1.75TB 1.0.1 1.75TB 1.75TB 1.0.2 1.75TB 1.75TB 1.0.3 1.75TB 1.75TB 1.0.4 1.75TB 1.75TB 1.0.19 1.75TB 1.75TB 1.0.20 1.75TB 1.75TB 1.0.21 1.75TB 1.75TB 1.0.22 1.75TB 1.75TB 1.0.23 1.75TB 1.75TB 10 entries were displayed. FAS Model OnTapMulti::> disk show -fields physical-size,usable-size disk physical-size usable-size -------- ------------- ----------- NET-1.1 2.00TB 1.97TB NET-1.2 68.00GB 66.93GB NET-1.3 1023GB 1023GB NET-1.4 1023GB 1023GB NET-1.5 1023GB 1023GB NET-1.6 1023GB 1023GB NET-1.7 8.00GB 7.99GB NET-1.8 8.00GB 7.99GB NET-1.9 8.00GB 7.99GB NET-1.10 8.00GB 7.99GB 10 entries were displayed. Why are the physical-size and usable-size values the same for AFF model disks but different for FAS model disks? Thank You !
... View more
