This post is more than 5 years old
25 Posts
0
1803
July 7th, 2008 14:00
Raid Group Expansion
I need to expand a 5 disk (146GB) Raid 5 (4 x 1) set adding one disk. The questions are:
1. Will the current LUN be acessible to the host during the Raid Group expansion?
2. Can I use diskpart to expand the LUN on the host, using concatonation to allow the host immediate access to the increased size.
Host Info: 2 Windows Servers 2003 in a clustered environment.
I usually would create another raid Group and LUN then create a MetaLun, but I only need 133GB of additional space and I don't have anymore disks.
All LUNs are on a CX3-80 running Flare 3.26
Thanks,
Bing
1. Will the current LUN be acessible to the host during the Raid Group expansion?
2. Can I use diskpart to expand the LUN on the host, using concatonation to allow the host immediate access to the increased size.
Host Info: 2 Windows Servers 2003 in a clustered environment.
I usually would create another raid Group and LUN then create a MetaLun, but I only need 133GB of additional space and I don't have anymore disks.
All LUNs are on a CX3-80 running Flare 3.26
Thanks,
Bing
No Events found!
RRR
6 Operator
•
5.7K Posts
0
July 8th, 2008 07:00
I read somewhere that you need to put the 2nd node offline, but cannot fint the document anymore. It might have been a Microsoft document... I don't remember.
RRR
6 Operator
•
5.7K Posts
0
July 8th, 2008 07:00
ROTFLMAO
AranH1
2.2K Posts
0
July 8th, 2008 07:00
clarification on the expansion question.
.... glad to help
AranH1
2.2K Posts
0
July 8th, 2008 07:00
Like I said I've just added a single disk to a raid
group for expansion, usually did a seperate radi set
then a metalun. I guess it sort of the same idea
just a bit of a different twist.
Thanks Again,
Bing
Glad we could help Bing, welcome to the forums.
Aran
RRR
6 Operator
•
5.7K Posts
0
July 8th, 2008 07:00
AranH1
2.2K Posts
0
July 8th, 2008 07:00
RRR
6 Operator
•
5.7K Posts
0
July 10th, 2008 00:00
AranH1
2.2K Posts
0
July 10th, 2008 07:00
Back in GMT -8.....
I think that your successful fail over may not be consistently predictable behavior. To be safe I would follow the process you outlined, you don't want a node to be unable to host the resources when the time comes to fail over.
ovivier
142 Posts
0
July 10th, 2008 07:00
Writing from GMT+2
Would this problem occur anytime or is it an issue risk? I am quite sure to have done the increase and the next failover was successfully.
Arrgghhh... I could have a serious problem with my cluster because it is an active/active cluster! Some disks are active resources on node1 and other disks are active resources on node2. So if I increase metalun1 which is active on node1 and if I increase metalun2 which is active on node2, then I could not do anything without disturbing service!!!
To avoid that, the best solution I see would be:
- switch node2's resources from node2 to node1
- increase metalun1 and metalun2 on node1
- reboot node2
- switch node2's resources from node1 to node2
Olivier
ovivier
142 Posts
0
July 10th, 2008 08:00
RRR
6 Operator
•
5.7K Posts
0
July 11th, 2008 04:00
In fact, I had a discussion about GMT with somebody and we agreed that GMT isn't what I meant, I meant UTC.
ovivier
142 Posts
0
July 11th, 2008 06:00
Well... I think I am right : in France in summertime we are GMT+2 like in Netherlands, isn't it ?
I see what you mean with GMT / UTC, yes UTC should be preferred !
Have a nice week-end, in France Monday will be a day off
Olivier
RRR
6 Operator
•
5.7K Posts
0
July 11th, 2008 07:00
GMT+1+1 is indeed GMT+2.
ovivier
142 Posts
0
July 11th, 2008 07:00
I see you know this very well !!!
True !