<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>thinking sysadmin &#187; aggregate size limit</title>
	<atom:link href="http://andyleonard.com/tag/aggregate-size-limit/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://andyleonard.com</link>
	<description>qstat -u aleonard -s z</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Jan 2012 03:46:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>NetApp FAS 2020 Sizing</title>
		<link>http://andyleonard.com/2008/08/04/netapp-fas-2020-sizing/</link>
		<comments>http://andyleonard.com/2008/08/04/netapp-fas-2020-sizing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:59:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[storage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aggregate size limit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fas2020]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[netapp]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andyleonard.com/?p=58</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Update: For ONTAP 7.3.1 and later, this post is now out-of-date. It&#8217;s been a while since I posted about my unhappiness with NetApp&#8217;s FAS2020. And while we&#8217;ve replaced our 2020 with a 2050, I still get a lot of traffic to those pages, and a few emailed questions from prospective or new 2020 owners asking [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Update:</strong> For <a href="http://andyleonard.com/2009/06/23/netapp-fas2020-aggregate-capacity-on-ontap-7-3-1/">ONTAP 7.3.1 and later</a>, this post is now out-of-date.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s been a while since I posted about my unhappiness with <a href="/2008/02/07/my-netapp-fas2020-makes-me-want-to-cry/">NetApp&#8217;s FAS2020</a>.  And while we&#8217;ve replaced our 2020 with a 2050, I still get a lot of traffic to those pages, and a few emailed questions from prospective or new 2020 owners asking about the so-called 8TB limit.  Here&#8217;s a summary of what I know:<br />
<span id="more-58"></span></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>The aggregate limit appears to actually be 7TB</strong>, not 8TB as is commonly stated.  I&#8217;m not sure what the source of this confusion is, but error messages on the 2020 and NetApp&#8217;s docs on NOW seem to bear this out.</li>
<li><strong>If you have 1TB drives, your maximum aggregate size is 4.36TB from a single DP RAID group of 8 drives.</strong>  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.</li>
<li><strong>If you have 750GB drives, your maximum aggregate size is 4.91TB, from a single DP RAID group of 11 drives</strong> &#8211; again, before aggregate and volume snap reserves.</li>
<li>If you have other drives that you&#8217;ll be using, you can calculate the maximum aggregate size based on <a href="http://now.netapp.com/Knowledgebase/solutionarea.asp?id=kb34728">this NOW document</a> and <a href="http://p6.hostingprod.com/@filerjedi.com/blog1/2006/09/actual_netapp_usable_sizes_1.html">drive Rightsizes</a>.</li>
<li><strong>The FAS2020 currently supports four shelves of fourteen drives each, plus twelve internal drives for a total of sixty-eight drives.</strong></li>
<li>I never got to the point of pushing our 2020&#8242;s performance limits while we had it, but in general, the more spindles you have, the faster.  I suspect that the 2020&#8242;s performance might be hamstrung by it&#8217;s limited NVRAM (128MB with a single controller), but I can&#8217;t confirm that.  Our 2050 has performed adequately as second-tier storage for two 3040s.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Updated:</strong> Fixed my math on the maximum aggregate sizes &#8211; I left out the 10% WAFL overhead!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://andyleonard.com/2008/08/04/netapp-fas-2020-sizing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

