What issues are involved with naming the new Volume the same as the
old? Or is that an issue? I work with FCSvr specific set ups. Never
had to expand/replace Volumes, but I know it's coming for a couple of
clients. I'll assume Volume name may not be a problem, once Devices
and such are created and pointed to, and mount points are created.
But, should I watch out for anything?
Theory I'm thinking of is; Volume gets "replaced" by larger Volume all
together. Not just "expanded" upon. Just a theoretical scenario that
my be presented to me soon. I'm all for expanding, rather than
replacing, but, it's not a perfect world...
-Ben Balser
Charles Edge wrote:
On 7/13/09 9:33 PM, "Arek Dreyer" <email@hidden> wrote:
On Jul 13, 2009, at 7:59 AM, Martin van Diemen wrote:
I want to ask you what the best method would be for moving the data.
Should this be done with snfsdefrag?
If possible, I like to:
copy data to another known good volume,
add new storage,
recreate the volume,
copy data to the new volume.
I agree with Arek, although we have moved data with snfsdefrag between pools
then normalized once old LUNs/Pools have been retired to save from having
downtime. But that's possibly the most tedious work I've ever had to do...
If you can find a time to bring the SAN down and do it manually I would do
so. Added benefit of doing that is you truly defragment the volume.
Charles
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xsan-Users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/xsan-users/email@hidden
This email sent to email@hidden
|
