Comments on: NetApp FAS 2020 Sizing

By: karlochacon

karlochacon — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 23:50:36 +0000

sorry for continue asking

6 and 6 disk for each controller suing RAID 4 and 1 spare for aggregate is OK?

thanks a lot

By: karlochacon

karlochacon — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 23:00:35 +0000

hi guys

I was reading this how can I adjust this that you’re talking about? any command line?

This is before aggregate and volume snap reserves, which you can adjust to fit your needs, but are configured by default to be five and twenty percent, respectively.

thanks a lot

By: TooMeeK

TooMeeK — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 11:27:36 +0000

We have two of FAS2020 in production. Both have expansion shelves.
So one is FAS2020 with 12xSAS 300GB and shelve with 14xSAS 450GB.
Other is FAS2020 with 12xSATA 1TB and expansion shelve 14xSATA also 1TB.
I was wondering why it has been splitted to two aggregates, now I know that. It’s capacity limit.
They aren’t speed deamons anyway, I think becouse low-end CPUs builtin. FAS2050 should be better.

By: thinking sysadmin / NetApp FAS2020 aggregate capacity on ONTAP 7.3.1

thinking sysadmin / NetApp FAS2020 aggregate capacity on ONTAP 7.3.1 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:41:48 +0000

[...] NetApp FAS 2020 Sizing post remains popular nearly a year after I wrote it. However, with ONTAP 7.3.1 (and later) out, [...]

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:10:05 +0000

Hi Ahmed,

Please note that I left out the 10% WAFL overhead initially – the figures above are updated to be correct.

- An aggregate is similar to a volume group under Linux in that it contains the actual volumes that you use (FlexVols). With the 8x1TB drives, you’d get an aggregate of 4.36TB; if you left the aggregate and volume snapshot reserves at their default, you could make one volume of 3.31TB; however, you could set both reserves to zero – just understand the drawbacks of this before you do it – and create a 4.36TB FlexVol. (You could also, of course, create multiple smaller FlexVols in one containing aggregate.)

- You are correct that the limitation is that you would not have continuous storage space when you create a second aggregate – and that you’re spending more money on parity drives than you would with a Filer that could handle larger aggregates.

- With 12x1TB, you could create an aggregate using up to 8 disks in one RAID group; you could use the four leftover drives for spares, but it would be exceedingly inefficient to try to create a usable volume from them, particularly if you try to create a RAID-DP group with them.

-The 2050 has the same limits as the rest of the NetApp FAS product line – for instance, you can make an 11.4TB aggregate out of 26 750GB drives (two RAID-DP groups, so four drives are used for parity), after WAFL overhead and with the default 5% aggregate snapshot on.

By: Ahmed Kamal

Ahmed Kamal — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 07:00:43 +0000

Thanks a million Andrew, I am a potential buyer so I could not access this NOW document yet. Please let me make sure I get this right

- When I use a 8x1TB drives, the aggregate limit is 4.85TB, does this mean that the maximum filesystem size I get is that (75% * 4.85TB) ? Is that aggregate like Linux’s “volume group” ?

- When I install a new shelf with similar 8x1TB, I get “another” filesystem of the same size, so the limitation in reality is that those 2 file systems are separate and not one continuous storage space ?

- If I fill the internal 12x1TB disks, doesn’t that give the maximum aggregate size limit?

- How much did the 2050 raise the limits

Thanks for all the help