toasters March 1997

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

25 participants
31 discussions

non-F toasters
by Tom Yates 21 Mar '97

21 Mar '97

is there anyone out there who's still got non F-series toasters? particularly, has anyone got 450s? Tom Yates - Unix Chap - The Mathworks, Inc. - +1 (508) 647 7561 MAG#65061 DoD#0135 AMA#461546 1024/CFDFDE39 0C E7 46 60 BB 96 87 05 04 BD FB F8 BB 20 C1 8C

2 1

Re: "DU" lying on sunos5 machines
by Amy Chused 20 Mar '97

20 Mar '97

It's 'cuz Solaris du counts blocks, not K, and the netapp blocks are 16K, not 1/2 K. I think there's an option to du to tell it how big the bloody blocks are or to make it count K, not blocks. 'Course, if I remember correctly, that option is broken in the stock install, but there's a patch available from sun that fixes it, I think. Amy -- answering off the top of her head, with an answer worth what you paid for it. At 10:40 AM 3/20/97 -0600, Jim Fondren wrote: >I sent the following report to support but also wanted to ask the >user community about this... > >The unix "du" command is lying to me on Sunos5 machines... > >sanantonio: ll arc >-rw-rw-rw- 1 rich users 1053700 Aug 12 1996 arc > >sanantonio: du -sk arc >65 arc > >sanantonio: /files/home/jim/ftp/fileutils-3.16/src/du -sk arc >65 arc > >sanantonio: uname -a >SunOS sanantonio 5.5 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-1 > > >A Sunos4 box says... > >[dallas] ll arc >-rw-rw-rw- 1 rich users 1053700 Aug 12 1996 arc >[dallas] du -s arc >2072 arc >[dallas] uname -a >SunOS dallas 4.1.3_U1 1 sun4m >Any known work-arounds? I checked NETAPPs' FAQ and didn't see anything. > >My Netapps box is a F220... NetApp Release 4.0a: Wed Oct 16 05:03:33 PDT 1996

3 2

DU Lying to me on Sunos5 (last word)
by Jim Fondren 20 Mar '97

20 Mar '97

Hello again, Just a last update on my problem with DU which has now been happily resolved. :-) The patch for sol 2.5 (2.5.1 includes it) is now up to 103477-07. I'm mirroring it at ftp.cartotech.com/pub/sunpatch/103477-07.tar.gz Symptoms are DU returning erroneous info on filesystems mounted from a NETAPP device using NFS V3. Thanks, Jim F CARTOTECH

1 0

"DU" lying on sunos5 machines
by Jim Fondren 20 Mar '97

20 Mar '97

Hello, I sent the following report to support but also wanted to ask the user community about this... The unix "du" command is lying to me on Sunos5 machines... sanantonio: ll arc -rw-rw-rw- 1 rich users 1053700 Aug 12 1996 arc sanantonio: du -sk arc 65 arc sanantonio: /files/home/jim/ftp/fileutils-3.16/src/du -sk arc 65 arc sanantonio: uname -a SunOS sanantonio 5.5 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-1 A Sunos4 box says... [dallas] ll arc -rw-rw-rw- 1 rich users 1053700 Aug 12 1996 arc [dallas] du -s arc 2072 arc [dallas] uname -a SunOS dallas 4.1.3_U1 1 sun4m Any known work-arounds? I checked NETAPPs' FAQ and didn't see anything. My Netapps box is a F220... NetApp Release 4.0a: Wed Oct 16 05:03:33 PDT 1996 Thanks, ----------------------- Jim.Fondren(a)PoBox.Com --------------------------- Jim Fondren Unix Systems and GIS Programming jim(a)cartotech.com CARTOTECH 210-657-1500 11900 Crownpoint Suite 100 San Antonio, TX 78233 USA NO UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL EMAIL - NO EXCEPTIONS

2 1

DU lying on sunos5 machines (update)
by Jim Fondren 20 Mar '97

20 Mar '97

Thankyou to all that responded. Your hints let met get closer to a solution. http://puma.join.ad.jp/tech/faq-e/sun/solaris2/Q5.51.html ...contains a related reference and mentions a patch to 2.5, 103226 (SPARC). Apparently solaris 2.5.1 doesn't have this bug (and I verified that on one of my 2.5.1 boxes). Thanks again, ----------------------- Jim.Fondren(a)PoBox.Com --------------------------- Jim Fondren Unix Systems and GIS Programming jim(a)cartotech.com CARTOTECH 210-657-1500 11900 Crownpoint Suite 100 San Antonio, TX 78233 USA

1 0

Re: "DU" lying on sunos5 machines
by Ketil Kirkerud 20 Mar '97

20 Mar '97

Jim Fondren <jim(a)cartotech.com> writes: > > Hello, > > I sent the following report to support but also wanted to ask the > user community about this... > > The unix "du" command is lying to me on Sunos5 machines... Theis is a known bug in SunOS 5.? Their nfs client/server code has a bug in it that makes du report wrongly. There are patches available. (I can't remember offhand what their IDs are, though) regards, ---Ketil Kirkerud, Scandinavia Online

1 0

Write operations using NFS v2?
by Ragnar Lonn 18 Mar '97

18 Mar '97

Hello, Thought I'd try out this list in the hope of sharing some info with others as opposed to bugging NetApp support only for my own sake ;) (but I'll CC them at least) I'm setting up an F540 as a newsspool NFS server. That is, I will store Usenet news articles on it. A handful of machines will mount the filesystem read-only and these machines will accept user newsreader connections. Then I will have one single machine that mount the filesystem read/write - it will be the machine that stores incoming articles and removes old ones from the filer. Now, for news I've got the advice to use NFS v2 because clients using v3 issue the readdir+ operation unique to v3 and this operation does some extra stuff (as opposed to v2's readdir) that most applications take advantage of but news software (INN nnrpd) has no use of the extra data returned by readdir+ and this makes it a performance loss to use v3 in this particular case. But... I've read that NFS writes are much faster in NFS v3 than v2. This, of course, leads me to my question (ta-daa) : Actually, I'll make it two questions. If the anser to the first one is no, the second one is not so interesting anymore ;) 1. Are write operations slower on a NetApp server if you use NFS v2 compared to when you're using NFS v3? (and if so, about how much does it differ?) 2. (if the answer to the above question was 'yes') Could I leave the option "nfs.v3.enable" ON, on the NetApp and mount the filesystem from the reader clients using e.g "mount -o vers=2,proto=udp" (can't remember the exact syntax) while at the same time, from the client that is supposed to be doing a lot of *writing* to the NetApp, mount using version 3 to speed up the writes? This machine won't be running nnrpd so it won't be doing any readdir+ in vain. Regards, /Ragnar, Algonet

4 8

Re: Write operations using NFS v2?
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 18 Mar '97

18 Mar '97

> Maybe this doesn't matter much if there's no performance advantage > in general to using v3 instead of v2 of course... Then there's > no reason for me to bother about v3 at all as I'm only going to > use the NetApp as a newsspool host and nothing else. I'm going to turn off v3 on our NetApp box tonight, just to see how much of a difference it makes. Another thing I've been wondering about is options.minra. I find the documentation a bit thin, shall we say. If the 'aggressive read ahead' mentioned in the documentation is *per file*, it's probably a good thing for a NetApp used as a News spool - since you normally retrieve a whole article at a time. If the read ahead is based on something other than file, I'm not so sure. Anybody played with minra on a NetApp news spool? Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

2 1

Re: NFS v2 works okay, but statvfs won't tell me about inodes
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 17 Mar '97

17 Mar '97

> > I can of course telnet to the NetApp and check the number of inodes > > directly, but I'd like to do it from the Solaris box which feeds the > > NetApp with news articles. Any good suggestions? > > I ran into the situation running inn on our Solaris machine, because it > tries to do a df -i on the spool directory. They changed df so that it > won't allow -i at all on an NFS mounted filesystem! I never tried a > statvfs call directly to see if that would work... I had assumed it > wouldn't work for v3 either. Well, it does - as long as you call statvfs directly with your own program, of course. > I just commented out the df -i check in inn and made sure I had enough > inodes on the filer. I didn't pick a *huge* value, but about double what > I needed. Yes, this is what I'm currently doing. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

2 1

NFS v2 significantly faster for News expire
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 17 Mar '97

17 Mar '97

I switched our NetApp box to NFS v2 last night, and it *does* make a difference. It's a bit early to draw firm conclusions after only one expire run, but so far it looks like I cut my expire time with a whole hour. Nice! It's particularly noticeable during the 'fastrm' and 'renumber' phases. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters March 1997