toasters February 1999

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

106 participants
95 discussions

Re: Netapp nfs over tcp
by Gordon Keegan 16 Feb '99

16 Feb '99

> On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Gordon Keegan wrote: > > > > > Speaking of NFS over TCP, we'd also like to try turning nfs.tcp.enable > > on to do some testing. Does anyone know if this would affect current > > mounts if we just enable it at the filer command line with > > "options nfs.tcp.enable on", or can that be done? > > Your clients aren't currently mounting with tcp, you'll have to have > them umount the server and then remount after you've enabled it on > the server. So it is kind of a chore. > I probably didn't phrase the question as well as I should have. If I enable NFS over TCP, then mount a single host using TCP and do testing, will that stomp on the dozens of other clients that still have their UDP mounts? (there; hopefully that was better :) -- Gordon Keegan, M10-10 Phone: (508) 261-4696 Motorola ISG Fax: (508) 261-5757 20 Cabot Boulevard Mansfield, MA 02048 email: lgk011(a)dma.isg.mot.com

6 5

Re: Sharing files between NT and Unix
by mds＠gbnet.net 16 Feb '99

16 Feb '99

On Tue 16 Feb, 1999, "Schepers, Jan" <Jan.Schepers(a)nl.origin-it.com> wrote: > Hello People, > > > Apparently I have never understood the concept of an netapp filer, > but this is what an HP guy is trying to tell me: > "NetApps Filers can't share files between NT and Unix *simultaneously*." Well as the above statment is totally, provably incorrect... > > What could he have meant ? ...he evidently meant 'I will lie outrageously to try to boost my company's chances of a sale'. So many companies' sales-forces resort to this that I find myself proposing a cull of salespeople - in the Canadian-baby-seal style, to preserve the viability of the rest of the species. > > cheers, You're most welcome. > > Jan > >-- End of excerpt from "Schepers, Jan"

1 0

Re: Netapp nfs over tcp
by Daniel Quinlan 16 Feb '99

16 Feb '99

Actually, I have one question: is there any reason we wouldn't want to start using NFSv3/UDP for Solaris boxes on our switched LAN? - Dan

2 1

Shared Snapshot directory
by Patrick.Day.B＠bayer.com 16 Feb '99

16 Feb '99

This is kinda long, so i appologize ahead of time... We are running OnTap version 5.2.1 on a 740. When we ordered the system we got an autoloader backup (powerstor L500). Unfortuantly, Ontap can't handle the loader to meet our needs. So, as a solution, we attached the device to an NT server running BackupExec 7.2. I was thinking that in order to get a good backup of the system i could share out the .snapshot/nightly.0 as shapc$. This would give me a look at the system from the the root directory. At first it appeared that this would work fine, the CIFS SHARE command shows the snapc$ share as always being mapped to the nightly.0 directory, even after the nightly.0 is changed to nightly.1. However, when i did a snap list command, it shows that the nightly.1 is "busy". When i do a backup, it backs up the OLD snapshot directory and when i open the directory, i confirm that it is the old data. It seems that the Netfiler remembers which directory is mapped regardless of the name. I have found that when i reboot, the share is recreated to the correct directory, but rebooting every night is not an option. I have also changed the saved nightly snapshots to 1. The system will not create a new snapshot because the old one is busy and of course, having only one nightly snapshot is not an option. Is there any way to get the netfiler to refresh the share automatically? ---or make it stupid and not remeber that today's nightly.1 is yesterday's nightly.0? Any input would be appreciated. --Patrick Day Sys. Admin Bayer Corporation

2 1

Linux NFS over TCP
by Daniel Quinlan 16 Feb '99

16 Feb '99

FYI - with the current Linux release (version 2.2.1), NFS over TCP is now working (it went into 2.2.0-pre6). But, only NFS version 2. Anyone have an opinion on NFSv2 over TCP compared to NFSv2 over UDP? I seem to remember seeing some benchmark that showed it was better, but now I can only find benchmarks (like SPEC SFS 2.0) that show it has a faster response time, but not throughput. - Dan

1 0

Tape Drives Question????
by Jason Middlebrooks 15 Feb '99

15 Feb '99

Will a Redwood Tape Drive work with a Netapp Filer. Has anybody tried this yet??? Jason Middlebrooks Systems Engineer Datalink Phone: 888-933-9327x260 2264 Northwest Parkway, Suite I Pager: 888-502-1625 Marietta, GA 30067 Fax: 770-933-9272

1 0

Re: Netapp nfs over tcp
by mds＠gbnet.net 15 Feb '99

15 Feb '99

Oooooooooh. An idea is aborning.... How about allowing filers admins to specify the protocol capability profile that a client is allowed to see on a client-by-client basis in a file not unlike the name-mapping files and exports files and quotas files that we already use... Then we could have NFS-over-TCP turned on for WAN clients but turned off for LAN clients and can experiment with NFS3/2 - all by configuring at the server end (one place) rather than at the client end (many places). Thoughts?

3 2

subscription
by Michael Chong 13 Feb '99

13 Feb '99

Michael M. Chong Web Server Düde The Motley Fool http://www.motleyfool.com

1 0

RE: Can Netapp F700 series do load balancing via NT without using a Virtual IP?
by Sam Schorr 13 Feb '99

13 Feb '99

Keith, We have struggled with this same problem. However, in our case, the "clients" are actually IIS systems in a Virtual IP site. We had tried to have 2 NICs in the IIS NT "clients", one connecting to the shared net that also had the PDC, WINS, DNS and other servers on one subnet, while we had the filer and our SQL server on another sunet. The second subnet I'll call a "backchannel", the idea being to have requests from the IIS "clients" routed to the filer or database through the "backchannel". What we ran into was that even though we put this backchannel on its own switch, and even though we specifically called the filer by the IP address via UNC (ie, \\filerIP\sharename), NT still treats this as a string, not an IP. Thus, NT would try to resolve this through WINS, which it routed through the other subnet!! (the one the WINS server could 'see'). We tried many tricks including using the NOWINS and NOBROADCAST settings on the second NIC in the filer. We still have not been able to get a second subnet going. Can you suggest what we may be missing? Sam -----Original Message----- From: Keith Brown [mailto:keith@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, February 12, 1999 2:53 PM To: Mike Ball; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Can Netapp F700 series do load balancing via NT without using a Virtual IP? >I am assuming [Windows NT] sees the filer as a multihomed server and sees all four IP's >But does it load balance between the 4 ports on the quad card? A commonly asked question. I think I used to have a pointer to a Microsoft document that described this, but apparently that has gone walk-about, so I'm afraid you're stuck with my from-memory verbage below for now... The Windows NT client usually starts out with the filer's name. It uses this name to queery WINS and gets returned a list of IP addresses (assuming the filer is multihomed). It then goes through the list of returned addresses and compares them with the address on its own, usually single interface. First it looks for an address to use that is on the same IP subnet as it finds itself on. If it finds multiple of those, it picks one at random, which will tend to balance the load to a single filer that has multiple interfaces connected to that same subnet as the client. If it doesn't find a match, it will look for an interface in the same IP network as it finds itself on. Again, if it finds multiple of those it will pick one at random, tending to balance the load to the target's interfaces. Finally, if it finds none of the above, it will just pick an address to use at random and go for it. Per our 5.1 releases of Data ONTAP and higher, you also have the ability to control which interfaces the filer will register with WINS. This gives you the ability to stop certain Windows clients from choosing interfaces on the filer which they might not be able to access for various topological and/or routing issues. Keith

1 0

RE: FW: FW: URGENT!!!! FW: NetApp Filer software versions 5.x: po ten tial har dware killer (fwd)
by Madison, Shannon 12 Feb '99

12 Feb '99

"Jason Downs" wrote: > Oh, and by the way: Keep in mind that _I am a customer_. > Attacking me or making snide comments instead of > addressing the issues that I've raised does NOT encourage > me to purchase more Network Appliance products. Please accept my humblest apologies. There was never any intention on the part of myself, Radek, or Network Appliance to insult you or your opinions. -Shannon Madison

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Older →

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 February 1999