toasters January 1999

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

71 participants
68 discussions

Veritas Netabackup and NDMP
by Menachem Kaiser (r53417) 10 Jan '99

10 Jan '99

Hi, We have recently purchased two F760 filers as well as Veritas netbackup and StorageTek Tape library's. Thus far we have been unsuccessful in backing up our filers using NDMP. Has anyone out there have a similar configuration or encountered similar problems? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Manny

2 1

RE: Veritas Netbackup and NDMP
by Melvin, Grant 10 Jan '99

10 Jan '99

Hi Menachem, Have you contacted support at NetApp and/or Veritas? I know of at least two accounts who are running F630s with NetBackup & STK libraries. F760s should also work. I also know of an eval with F760s going on in Europe which had some tape drive unload issues. The library is controlled via ASCLS and the backup via NDMP and I think the problem has been identified as a synchronization issue, i.e. unload the tape via NDMP before using ASCLS to exchange/move the tape. Cheers, Grant -----Original Message----- From: Menachem Kaiser (r53417) [mailto:r53417@email.sps.mot.com] Sent: Sunday, January 10, 1999 5:50 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com; Eyal Traitel; Nachshon Yeshurun Subject: Veritas Netabackup and NDMP Hi, We have recently purchased two F760 filers as well as Veritas netbackup and StorageTek Tape library's. Thus far we have been unsuccessful in backing up our filers using NDMP. Has anyone out there have a similar configuration or encountered similar problems? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Manny

1 0

unsubscribe
by DESCHAMPS, Stephane 10 Jan '99

10 Jan '99

unsubscribe

1 0

Quota problem on F630
by Cheryl Cruddace 10 Jan '99

10 Jan '99

We have a brand new F630 filer that we brought up in the last month. Actually, it was a conversion from an Auspex filesystem and so some of the setup was historical in nature (for instance, we kept the concept of multiple home directories even though the filer is one large filesystem). We did increase each users quota to 500M per user, which was entered individually for ~ 350 users into the quotas file. There are two users that are reported as being over their 500M quota when you run quota report on the NetApp box. So they can not do any work since it bounces them off with an "exceeds quota" type message. If I run du -sk [username] on the Solaris box it shows the guy using 81Kb, far from over 500M?!?!. Quota report also shows him using 9658 files (which is also not true.. if I run "ls -aR | wc -l" I get 4917). I had to add a new user the other day. The process creates 11 dot files (.login, .cshrc, etc.) but quota report shows 139 files!! Does anyone have a clue what is going on? I had to increase this guy's quota to 1G to get around the problem until I can resolve it but I can't keep handing out 1G like candy at Halloween (although I'm sure NetApp would love that). Cheryl Cruddace LLNL

4 3

Re: Accessing a filer from two NT domains which are on two seperate subnets
by Keith Brown 08 Jan '99

08 Jan '99

>My question is : > >Is there some way, using netbios alias or some other alias mechanism, >whereby I could make the filer appear in the second domain's Network >Neighbourhood, so that the users in the second domain could access it >directly through their own port on the network card, instead of having >to go through the first one ? Actually, the particular filer interface that a client would use to communicate with a filer is not something that is directly influenced by the domain that it or the filer have been configured into. Domains are things that sit at a much higher level of abstraction than ip subnets and cables and so forth. On reading your message, it looks like you have configured all the clients on one subnet to be in one domain, and all the clients on another to be in a second domain, so you have got a one-to-one relationship between "clients that are in a X domain" and "clients that are on a particular ip-subnet", but that need not necessarily be the case. You could easily have half the clients on each subnet in one domain, and the other half from each subnet in another domain, but clients from *both* domains on a single subnet will normally communicate with the filer through the filer interface that is attached to that subnet, irrespective of which of the two domains the filer has been put into. Make sense? Keith

1 0

unsubscribe
by Mendoza, Kathy 08 Jan '99

08 Jan '99

unsubscribe

1 0

Accessing a filer from two NT domains which are on two seperate subnets
by Raymond Brennan 08 Jan '99

08 Jan '99

Hello All, I've got a F520 with a quad card on a 100BaseT network. I use three of the network interfaces and have given them IP addresses on three seperate subnets. My router has also got only the same three subnets enabled on it. I have got two NT domains, which are on two seperate subnets. The filer belongs to one NT domain. If someone in the second NT domain (which is on a seperate subnet) wants to access the filer from an NT box, then they have to go to the first NT domain to see it. This has an effect on network traffic etc. My question is : Is there some way, using netbios alias or some other alias mechanism, whereby I could make the filer appear in the second domain's Network Neighbourhood, so that the users in the second domain could access it directly through their own port on the network card, instead of having to go through the first one ? Yours Confusedly, Raymond Brennan

1 0

Re: Gb-ether and Extreme (Re: Routing Anomaly..fixed (and how))
by Jim McCoy 04 Jan '99

04 Jan '99

>On Thu 24 Dec, 1998, Bruce Walker <bmw(a)visgen.com> wrote: >> mark writes: >> > So, if I was hoping for high performance for a news spool on a filer [...] >> > I'd use Gb-ether into an Extreme switch. [...] >I'd be surprised if the problem was a complete show-stopper, and I too would >love to know if anyone has good or bad experiences using NetApp's with Gb-ether >they would like to share. We routinely run 630s and 760s on gb ethernet to Alteon AceDirector180 switches. No real problems yet, OTOH if there are problems to be found we are bound to run into them at the least convenient moment... jim mccoy Yahoo! Inc.

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 January 1999