<div>
The vfiler act as virtual Netapp controllers and do not distribute data. &nbsp;The volumes that are attached to these vfilers sit on aggregates. &nbsp;On which aggregate the corresponding volumes are being stored in? &nbsp;The volumes may be in different aggregates which are independent of each other and do not share disks or a way to distribute data unless this is on the application level.
</div>


<div>
It's one aggregate. If I look in the information about the aggregate, it shows me those volumes.<br />
<br />
Although it might help, unfortunately I can't provide a screen shot for security reasons.
</div>


<div>
It may be a single aggregate but you have multiple volumes in the aggregate. &nbsp;These volumes may be using the capacity in the aggregate. &nbsp;<br />
<br />
1. &nbsp;How large is your aggregate<br />
2. &nbsp;How much volume storage are you using? &nbsp;Ensure that you have data+snapshots in the equation<br />
3. &nbsp;Ensure that the volumes are thin provisioned, otherwise the 1TB volume that is only 25% full will use the entire 1TB
</div>


<div>
1. Aggregate is 8TB<br />
2. Volumes are being used as above. Volumes aren't used for anything else besides this aggregate.<br />
3. Graph shows only 25% used on the volumes.
</div>


<div>
So let's do the math: &nbsp;The following volumes are on the aggregate and usage is as listed.<br />
<br />
90% of 8TB =7.2TB<br />
25% of 1TB = .25TB<br />
25% of 1TB = .25TB<br />
Total = 7.7TB which equal to 96.25% used on the aggregate which is what the Netapp is reporting. &nbsp;You should not go over 90% as best practice. &nbsp;If the aggregate is storing the volumes attached to the vfilers then you're running out of space.<br />
<br />
What
</div>


<div>
So I suspect that increasing B and C won't have any affect though. So it makes less sense to keep increasing A when B and C are not being fully utilized. IS there a way I can fix that?
</div>


<div>
I didn't realize this question was still open, but I think I have found a better explanation as to why this is happening. Looking at the volumes in the aggregate it shows this:<br />
<br />
Name, available space, total space<br />
V1, 320GB, 1TB<br />
V2, 320GB, 1TB<br />
V3, 320GB, 8TB<br />
<br />
In other words, the NETAPP controller is trying to balance the <i>available space</i> across the volumes, not the % used, despite the fact they are different sizes.<br />
<br />
As I said, these are the only volumes in this aggregate.
</div>


<div>
Are you sure V1, V2 and V3 aren't disk groups?
</div>


<div>
The Netapp isn't trying to balance anything.<br />
<br />
There's just one pool of free space that is being shared by all the volumes. This free space is handed out on a &quot;First Come First Served&quot; basis.<br />
<br />
Let's say you have 700GB left. Any application/user that writes 700GB to either of the 3 volumes will cause the free space to be used up. And will cause all 3 volumes to be full at the same time, which will probably crash the applications that are using them and data to be lost.<br />
<br />
The free space you see in each volume isn't guaranteed because it's the same shared free space you see in the other volumes. Don't try to add these numbers up, it will not make sense.<br />
<br />
That being said, if your aggregate is really 90% full, you're in a dire situation. Because of the way Netapp works, you're likely to <b>suffer performance loss</b> with so little free space. Also, when space finally runs out, all volumes will be affected at the same time. Applications using the volumes will probably crash or stop working and data may be lost. <br />
<br />
So I suggest you take action urgently.
</div>


<div>
So what action to take? Will increasing the size of the smaller volumes actually change anything, since it's the larger of the three that is 90% full? What should be done to ensure the volumes are balanced optimally?
</div>


<div>
&quot;move the largest volume to a larger aggregate, if available&quot;<br />
There are unused disks available, but just to clarify... I thought that the aggregate was made up of volumes? So the size of the aggregate is already the size of the volumes? We then have a vfiler pointing to that aggregate to store data.
</div>


<div>
&gt; I thought that the aggregate was made up of volumes?<br />
<br />
I thought you were talking about RAID groups rather than volumes which is why I posted 41572694 previously.
</div>


<div>
I was looking at the problem the wrong way around. I see now that volumes are not limited by the size of the aggregate in the way I thought. Adding disks solved the immediate problem by making the aggregate bigger, which gave more room for the volume to grow.
</div>


<div>
<div class="content wysiwyg-content">
I have an aggregate with 8TB of total space that is used for a vFiler. I received some alerts that more than 90% of the aggregate is used. However, looking at the three volumes that make up this aggregate:<br />
<br />
V1 - 1TB, 25% used<br />
V2 - 1TB, 25% used<br />
V3 - 8TB, 90% used<br />
<br />
It appears that the data is not being spread across the available space and instead all the data is going on to V3.<br />
<br />
I have inherited this Netapp like this, so I don't know if this is normal or not. I would assume that the Netapp OS would put more data on V1 and V2 before letting V3 fill up, but it doesn't seem to be this way so far? Is it bad or against best practice to let the aggregate volumes be different sizes like this?<br />
<br />
Thanks!
</div>
</div>


I have an aggregate with 8TB of total space that is used for a vFiler. I received some alerts that more than 90% of the aggregate is used. However, looking at the three volumes that make up this aggregate:

V1 - 1TB, 25% used
V2 - 1TB, 25% used
V3 - 8TB, 90% used

It appears that the data is not being spread across the available space and instead all the data is going on to V3.

I have inherited this Netapp like this, so I don't know if this is normal or not. I would assume that the Netapp OS would put more data on V1 and V2 before letting V3 fill up, but it doesn't seem to be this way so far? Is it bad or against best practice to let the aggregate volumes be different sizes like this?

Thanks!

Netapp Aggregate - Division of data between volumes

The term "Backup" means the methods and processes involved to copy computer data (system data as well as application data) to media other than the ones where the data originally live (disk, tape, optical, cloud). "Restore" in turn means the methods and processes involved in data recovery, i. e., bringing back copied computer data to their original location. Backup/Restore primarily serves as a means of protection against data loss, be it due to disaster, corruption or sabotage. It can also be used for recovering data from an earlier point in time and even for cloning machines or applications. There is a wide variety of backup/restore software available, from expensive commercial products to free or open source tools.

Storage Software

Computer data storage, often called storage or memory, is a technology consisting of computer components and recording media used to retain digital data. In addition to local storage devices like CD and DVD readers, hard drives and flash drives, solid state drives can hold enormous amounts of data in a very small device. Cloud services and other new forms of remote storage also add to the capacity of devices and their ability to access more data without building additional data storage into a device.

Storage

Storage devices include any device used for storing and retrieving digital information. Hard disk drives (HDDs) use one or more rigid ("hard") rapidly rotating disks (platters) coated with magnetic material. Data is accessed in a random-access manner, meaning that individual blocks of data can be stored or retrieved in any order and not only sequentially. The primary competing technology for secondary storage is flash memory in the form of solid-state drives (SSDs), but HDDs remain the dominant medium for secondary storage due to advantages in price per bit and per-device recording capacity. CD-RW (Compact Disc-ReWritable) is a digital optical disc storage format that allows information to be stored outside the mechanical HDD.

Storage Hardware

VMware, a software company founded in 1998,  was one of the first commercially successful companies to offer x86 virtualization. The storage company EMC purchased VMware in 1994. Dell Technologies acquired EMC in 2016. VMware’s parent company is now Dell Technologies.

VMware has many software products that run on desktops, Microsoft Windows, Linux, and macOS, which allows the virtualizing of the x86 architecture.  Its enterprise software hypervisor for servers, VMware vSphere Hypervisor (ESXi), is a bare-metal hypervisor that runs directly on the server hardware and does not require an additional underlying operating system.

VMware

Servers are computing devices that are similar to desktop computers in that they have the same basic components, but are significantly different in size, configuration and purpose. Servers are usually accessed over a network, and many run unattended, without a computer monitor, input device, audio hardware or USB interfaces. Many servers do not have a graphical user interface (GUI), and are configured and managed remotely. Servers typically include hardware redundancy such as dual power supplies, RAID disk systems, and ECC memory, along with extensive pre-boot memory testing and verification. Critical components might be hot swappable, and to guard against overheating, servers might have more powerful fans or use water cooling.