tmacmd at gmail
Nov 3, 2011, 1:23 PM
Post #2 of 4
I would split the load to both heads. What's the point in spending all the
Re: One large ~40Tb 8 x DS4243 aggr too unbalanced for 3270 ?
[In reply to]
money for two heads if you are only going to use one...?
4 shelves of DS4243 will perform extremely well. I saw it on my own 3170,
6070, and 6080 pairs.
I would likely create one large aggr on each head (pending the
environment...not knowing yours) and then create the volumes on that.
I would also split the DS14mk4 shelves between the heads as
well....personally, I would turn off the disk-auto-assign and assign them
since the systems use software ownership, I can give a half shelf to one
head and the other half to the other head.
RedHat Certified Engineer
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Fletcher Cocquyt <fcocquyt [at] stanford>wrote:
> Fellow toasters,
> we are trading up some old trays for new DS4243 trays and we are trying to
> decide if we allocate all 8 of our DS4243 trays to one ~40Tb aggregate (we
> plan to run ONTAP 8.1 for data motion) assigned to one of the cluster's
> heads will the advantage of all those spindles in one aggr be killed by the
> head being overloaded?
> In which case would we be better served by 2 x 4 DS4243 AGGRs - one
> assigned to each 3270 head?
> We also have 7 DS14-MK4 shelves to help balance out the workloads
> All other things equal - I'm inclined to go for the one big 40Tb aggr vs 2
> x 20Tb aggrs to reap the biggest IO capacity and performance
> Currently our CPU weekly average workloads on the two 3270 heads are only
> 20% and 16%
> My impression is a single 3270s head should be have enough headroom to
> push the large aggr to its full IO capacity.
> But I'd be very interested to hear the advice others who have tested both
> options and any unforeseen issues with an aggr this large (our previous
> largest is 16Tb under 220.127.116.11P2)
> Toasters mailing list
> Toasters [at] teaparty