(unknown)

--===============0835128063678048229==
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from mx2-at.ubimet.com (mx2-at.ubimet.com [141.98.226.72])
 by dormouse.teaparty.net (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 39GC1NAq000626
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO)
 for <[email protected]>; Mon, 16 Oct 2023 13:01:25 +0100
Authentication-Results: dormouse.teaparty.net;
 spf=pass [email protected]
 smtp.helo=mx2-at.ubimet.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by mx2-at.ubimet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F08681392;
 Mon, 16 Oct 2023 12:01:23 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ubimet.com;
 s=20200131mdel; t=1697457683;
 bh=tKUDkjBFk8QfnhDydFQxxYz5wPoxvl4Ee73me0Ndb3Q=;
 h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From;
 b=Js6pcLdliS20I6Woag6AA2n675nptI0v4USpw3S8+gJi9zmwdwC8tMQcpNfm/jJK7
 qKkXc5vK20zs4jVW0Zb3ARKp6nNefltVj6d5Nk4omAsVA8d8LUCSMCdvs13mI82ANp
 2q/14r785RLhEd5e/6zsCKiNl4lc8XHzbmON4iFabvHN6JjXoHAvFSvCh5KK/k4q07
 Ai810TD2eNG7z/ufMxYZqh/ENEVhHAxCZrszmV19DM4wKUNmj+a0HysQBtYrP+QqVf
 dlapP1GnvFXKTw3bZyHdoZeBB/ImOWT8oKv1FVlQ5AioOgh0Kzx1rHQ8hJKeSIcEdC
 CiPvJ8beyMckA==
Received: from mx2-at.ubimet.com ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (mx02.dmz.dc.at.ubimet.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id jOKlp74hveNu; Mon, 16 Oct 2023 12:01:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zimbra-mta01.ext.dc.at.ubimet.com
 (zimbra-mta01.ext.dc.at.ubimet.com [10.1.18.22])
 by mx2-at.ubimet.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C412812FD;
 Mon, 16 Oct 2023 12:01:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by zimbra-mta01.ext.dc.at.ubimet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7568A804D3;
 Mon, 16 Oct 2023 12:01:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zimbra-mta01.ext.dc.at.ubimet.com ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (zimbra-mta01.ext.dc.at.ubimet.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavis,
 port 10032)
 with ESMTP id UlmujpDamMri; Mon, 16 Oct 2023 12:01:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by zimbra-mta01.ext.dc.at.ubimet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15081806E3;
 Mon, 16 Oct 2023 12:01:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavis at zimbra-mta01.ext.dc.at.ubimet.com
Received: from zimbra-mta01.ext.dc.at.ubimet.com ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (zimbra-mta01.ext.dc.at.ubimet.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavis,
 port 10026)
 with ESMTP id 4O4Tz6MMaMJG; Mon, 16 Oct 2023 12:01:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zimbra-store02.ext.dc.at.ubimet.com
 (zimbra-store02.ext.dc.at.ubimet.com [10.1.18.23])
 by zimbra-mta01.ext.dc.at.ubimet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 000AD804D3;
 Mon, 16 Oct 2023 12:01:21 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 12:01:21 +0000 (UTC)
From: Florian Schmid <[email protected]>
To: Alexander Griesser <[email protected]>
Cc: toasters <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Question about flash pool maximum SSD size and local tiering
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
X-Originating-IP: [10.15.100.3]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.15_GA_4562 (ZimbraWebClient - GC117 (Linux)/8.8.15_GA_3)
Thread-Topic: Question about flash pool maximum SSD size and local tiering
Thread-Index: AdoAGFo9nvy8ukRqRMSVJp4oZaDM5NwpI6YF
X-Greylist: Recipient e-mail whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2
 (dormouse.teaparty.net [178.18.123.145]);
 Mon, 16 Oct 2023 13:01:25 +0100 (BST)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by dormouse.teaparty.net
 id 39GC1NAq000626

Hi Alexander,

this is a very good tip! Tank you very much.
I will have a look on this.

Best regards,
Florian

----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
Von: "Alexander Griesser" <[email protected]>
An: "Florian Schmid" <[email protected]>, "toasters" <[email protected]>
Gesendet: Montag, 16. Oktober 2023 12:07:53
Betreff: AW: Question about flash pool maximum SSD size and local tiering

Hi Florian,

I cannot answer the question with the SSD sizes, I'm not sure if this is really a hard requirement or if the slices just may not be bigger than 3.8TB (in that case, you could probably manually partition the SSDs), maybe someone else has more insights into this.

As for your second question: You can spin up OnTap's integrated S3 server on your old boxes and use them as fabric pool targets:
https://www.netapp.com/media/17219-tr4814.pdf

Best,

Alexander Griesser
Head of Systems Operations

ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH

E-Mail: [email protected] 
Web: https://www.anexia.com 

Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler
Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Florian Schmid <[email protected]> 
Gesendet: Montag, 16. Oktober 2023 11:53
An: [email protected]
Betreff: Question about flash pool maximum SSD size and local tiering

Hi,

I have checked NetApp HWU for a FAS 8300 and system cache limits.

Ok, so far, max flash-pool is 72 TB, which is a way more than I want to use, but I haven't seen usable SSDs greater than 3.8 TB.

Is that really true, that I can't use a 7.6 TB or 15.3 TB SSD for flash-pool?

It would be nice, if someone has here a deeper understanding than I have about this and can give me here some clarifications.

May I ask a second question?
Is flash-pool still the way to go for speeding up NL-SAS aggregates?
I had a look on fabric-pool tiering, but it seems like, that this only works to S3 storage, which we don't have.
We have plenty of NL-SAS storage and also of SSDs and it would be great to have a tiering between them or at least use them for caching.

Best regards,
Florian


--===============0835128063678048229==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Toasters mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
--===============0835128063678048229==--