(unknown)

--===============7663370628624578208==
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 39H7v8OV024926
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO)
 for <[email protected]>; Tue, 17 Oct 2023 08:57:10 +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 E0F75815DA;
 Tue, 17 Oct 2023 07:57:07 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ubimet.com;
 s=20200131mdel; t=1697529427;
 bh=sBQNuhOHs6t9UP5doZC6pyY1tdOTKWyo3NyNJFDMIEo=;
 h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From;
 b=Ar6MNLtIfGY4PVuOI0aZmPcjgjsfy5kfddrWtyrFB0no8lnW8JMUCdgfnA4GQkHLj
 6TxXPP+hup1OuBbNAxHCUvlNoGMemFSt1Z02SXajpOT+1KEt4PI2sJNV/ywas8gsou
 2vBU8OtN2X4bDNQoZTu5obscccwLlUE80SrA5osLkgrOFwYXGWlxTLkdERcWXgtkM5
 9ubT9LdugAio3hfg36p3wmTasfSQdoB+cSLX/2A1sfkJliAXbAOl252+8Z+OewGqDr
 Yao/z9LD3/Mj7avJ0N46JKhXrN/4aGbjW7poyLN1HRuk9DdKyq0o10Rrhw7LCOM5Q7
 yJyIdsguzBwbw==
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 W_xAvv6waWfr; Tue, 17 Oct 2023 07:57:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zimbra-mta01.ext.dc.at.ubimet.com (webmail-dc.at.ubimet.com
 [10.1.18.22])
 by mx2-at.ubimet.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEBF3815D9;
 Tue, 17 Oct 2023 07:57:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by zimbra-mta01.ext.dc.at.ubimet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C63138068E;
 Tue, 17 Oct 2023 07:57:07 +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 h-wZfSjwY3PE; Tue, 17 Oct 2023 07:57:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by zimbra-mta01.ext.dc.at.ubimet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DC32806B6;
 Tue, 17 Oct 2023 07:57:06 +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 cA8khQBWrT6B; Tue, 17 Oct 2023 07:57:06 +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 0FCBB8068E;
 Tue, 17 Oct 2023 07:57:06 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 07:57:05 +0000 (UTC)
From: Florian Schmid <[email protected]>
To: Sebastian Goetze <[email protected]>,
 "Fenn, Michael" <[email protected]>
Cc: toasters <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
 <[email protected]>
 <[email protected]>
 <[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: [10.15.100.2]
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: MDLHQtdrQ6AuJgWzb38VByAQduJ6pQ==
X-Greylist: Recipient e-mail whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2
 (dormouse.teaparty.net [178.18.123.145]);
 Tue, 17 Oct 2023 08:57:10 +0100 (BST)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by dormouse.teaparty.net
 id 39H7v8OV024926

Hi Sebastian and Michael,

thank you very much for your help.

We haven't bought the SSD shelves yet.
We don't know, if we should take 2 shelves with 3.8 TB or 1 shelf with 7.6 TB.
I tend to one shelf with 7.6 TB...

We are using flash-pool already with Raid-4, exactly for saving space.
My problem is now, that I'm concerned about the HWU statement, that there is no SSD listed for using in flash-pool over 3.8 TB.
This let me think, that flash-pool is not supported for SSD with 7.6 TB or greater.

I haven't found anything else about it on NetApp site, only in the HWU for system cache limits for FAS 8300
Same limits are also for 8700 or 9000 series, no difference here.

Really strange.

Best regards,
Florian


----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
Von: "Sebastian Goetze" <[email protected]>
An: "toasters" <[email protected]>
Gesendet: Montag, 16. Oktober 2023 15:35:36
Betreff: Re: Question about flash pool maximum SSD size and local tiering

Hi Florian,


On 16.10.2023 15:01, Fenn, Michael wrote:
> FlashPool SSDs (unlike FlashCache) are attached to aggregates as normal RAID groups, so you can use as many 3.8 TB drives in RAID-DP as you like to hit the maximum FlashPool capacity.

Consider using RAID4 for the SSD RaidGroups... More Cache, and for the 
Write-cached blocks, not really less safety. (SSDs are more reliable, 
blocks are usually written fairly soon to HDD anyway)

Regarding sizes: any size that's supported for the HW should be fine 
(3.8/15.3TB). Within the Cache-RG, you should use the same size disks, 
however...


>
> Note that FlashPool and FabricPool use the same underlying tiering metadata structures, so you can only have one or the other enabled on any given aggregate.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
> On 10/16/23, 8:03 AM, "Toasters on behalf of Florian Schmid via Toasters" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Toasters mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
_______________________________________________
Toasters mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters


--===============7663370628624578208==
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
--===============7663370628624578208==--