toasters March 1999

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

138 participants
192 discussions

RE: NAC SAN
by Adams, Christian 27 Mar '99

27 Mar '99

Hey Will Harper - The discussion of SAN - or ESN as EMC likes to call it - IMO should address the issues of management. The EMC offerings do include both NAS and direct SCSI connections, but more importantly there is software bundled with the Fibrechannel switches and with the disk arrays which support such functions as dynamic reallocation of drives and bandwidth. The intention of all this additional technology is to give you choices on how you deploy and re-deploy your storage rather than enforcing a traditional static model. And just in case you missed the recent EMC announcement, the file server product supports the Alteon Gigabit Ethernet NIC. But I do agree with you that the term SAN is being used freely without much precision. /Christian Adams EMC > -----Original Message----- > From: Will Harper [SMTP:willh@infi.net] > Sent: Friday, March 26, 1999 6:47 AM > To: NetApp Toasters (E-mail) > Cc: Tri N. Barsell [Barsellt(a)Infi.Net] (E-mail) > Subject: NAC SAN > > Tom's statement below (to a NAC SAN when we build one) brings up a > familiar > argument between myself and my boss. My boss contends that NetApp is NOT > capable of migrating to a "real SAN." > > He bases this statement on his definition of SAN as "direct-attached > storage (as in a direct SCSI connection) via a network of FiberChannel > switches - but with the capability of also supporting NFS, CIFS, and HTTP > mounts." > > For instance, in a capability matrix of several vendors, which we recently > > compiled, he responds "yes" to the question of future SAN migration to an > EMC, and to an EMC lookalike, Network Computers. To the same question, he > > responds "no" to the question of future SAN migration to a NetApp 740 > cluster. > > My position is -- when I see a SAN, I'll tell you what it is, but right > now > it's just an acronym for "Still Ain't None." I also contend that ALL of > the storage vendors will implement SAN technology, if and when the > technology gets fully defined and if and when the market demands it. In > the meantime, I believe that NetApp is closer to being able to implement a > > SAN, than EMC and all of it's clones. > > I also contend that SAN does NOT NECESSARILY imply FiberChannel. In fact, > > I see near-time SAN technology taking the route of 1000BaseT, because > studies indicate that more (normal, read "small") data I/O's can be moved, > > much more cheaply, over Gigabit than over 100-base FiberChannel. > > I expect in the future (when and if FiberChannel prices come down, and > 1000-base, or 10,000-base FiberChannel is standard), it may become the > defacto standard, but, for now, SCSI is the limiting factor on moving > data, > not the media speed. > > Are there any experts out there who can shed some light on the subject? > > Will Harper, MCSE > > -----Original Message----- > From: tkaczma(a)gryf.net [SMTP:tkaczma@gryf.net] > Sent: Friday, March 26, 1999 1:30 AM > To: NetApp Toasters (E-mail) > Subject: Re: NDMP backup speeds > > > On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Jason D. Kelleher wrote: > > > That sounds slow. We're readying an F740 for production and our > > tests show ~3MB/s (~11GB/hr) over a 110mb full-duplex connection to > > a Sun "backup server" with a DLT4000 jukebox. > > Wow, I'm glad we back up to a locally attached tape library. I'd be even > more glad to attach a bigger library to a NAC SAN when we build one. > > Tom

1 0

RE: NDMP backup speeds
by Kelly Wyatt 27 Mar '99

27 Mar '99

The top comment was mine. That figure was the average speed we are getting backing up our filers (10 760's, 300-600Gb each. We are backing up each volume separately). So, the number I used (15, but I think we actually average around 17.5), was for one tape stream. So, since we have two tape streams, we actually achieve twice that per hour. Note that our times vary from 12gb/hour to 23gb/hour, depending on the filer. We believe this to be due to the nature of the data on the various filers. Looking forward to seeing what we can accomplish with two tape drives/four tape streams. By the way, we are using NetBackup with NDMP to a StorageTek 9710 with DLT7000 drives and are using the compressed tape devices. Kelly -- Kelly Wyatt Systems Programmer SAS Institute Inc. Kelly.Wyatt(a)SAS.com <mailto:Kelly.Wyatt@SAS.com> www.sas.com -----Original Message----- From: Will Harper [mailto:willh@infi.net] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 1999 9:16 AM To: NetApp Toasters (E-mail) Subject: NDMP backup speeds Can I have the users' opinions? The top statement was from an unnamed NetApp 740 filer user. The bottom part is NetApp's rebuttal. I see this as two questions. (1) can a 740 support two tape adapters? and (2) who is right(er) about NDMP backup speeds on a 740, with one tape drive adapter? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------- [USER] > With a (potentially) 1.4Tb filer, can it be backed up with two drives > reasonable amount of time???? At 15gb/hr (conservative with > NDMP), that's > lots of hours to back em up..." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ [NetApp] Two tape adapter support was certified (tested) only on the F760 and the F630. It was a matter of testing resources with our latest release. Dump speeds run at up to 25 GB/hr with 1 dump and up to 45 GB/hr with two dumps to two tape drives on a single tape adapter.

1 0

Used machines
by scw＠seas.ucla.edu 27 Mar '99

27 Mar '99

We currently have 2 machines (F220 W/14X4Gb, F330 W/21x4GB) that MAY become surplus to our requirements. Is there are market in used toasters (we'll sweep out the crumbs)? If so are there any guesses as to what we can expect to get for these machines? ----- Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASnet; 2567 Boelter hall; LA CA 90095; (310)-825-8614 Finger for public key scw(a)cirrus.seas.ucla.edu,Internet mail:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU

1 0

RE: MAC Name Volumes
by Benn, Paul 26 Mar '99

26 Mar '99

Yes, NT Server does ship with Services for Macintosh. The problem with it is, it does not support mapped ("mounted") drive letters. -----Original Message----- From: Will Harper [mailto:willh@infi.net] Sent: Friday, March 26, 1999 3:30 PM To: 'Jim Sanford' Cc: NetApp Toasters (E-mail) Subject: RE: MAC Name Volumes Can you use an NT server to provide file and print service for the Macs? NT sees Mac as a native client. The NetApp box should see the NT server's file area as just one more standard NTFS mount. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Sanford [SMTP:JSanford@rsinc.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 1999 5:21 PM To: 'Toasters' Subject: MAC Name Volumes Hello everyone, I am trying to setup MAC Naming Services on a NTFS volume on our NetApp. Not sure how this works and if it can be done. The objective is allow our MAC users access for file storage and retrieval on this volume. Anyone have any ideas ??? Thanks, ********************************* Jim Sanford IS Department Research Systems, Inc. *********************************

1 0

RE: MAC Name Volumes
by Will Harper 26 Mar '99

26 Mar '99

Can you use an NT server to provide file and print service for the Macs? NT sees Mac as a native client. The NetApp box should see the NT server's file area as just one more standard NTFS mount. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Sanford [SMTP:JSanford@rsinc.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 1999 5:21 PM To: 'Toasters' Subject: MAC Name Volumes Hello everyone, I am trying to setup MAC Naming Services on a NTFS volume on our NetApp. Not sure how this works and if it can be done. The objective is allow our MAC users access for file storage and retrieval on this volume. Anyone have any ideas ??? Thanks, ********************************* Jim Sanford IS Department Research Systems, Inc. *********************************

1 0

MAC Name Volumes
by Jim Sanford 26 Mar '99

26 Mar '99

Hello everyone, I am trying to setup MAC Naming Services on a NTFS volume on our NetApp. Not sure how this works and if it can be done. The objective is allow our MAC users access for file storage and retrieval on this volume. Anyone have any ideas ??? Thanks, ********************************* Jim Sanford IS Department Research Systems, Inc. *********************************

1 0

RE: Logical Volumes or Partitions
by Val Bercovici (NetApp) 26 Mar '99

26 Mar '99

One quick correction re: > > Maximum number of logical volumes, or partitions > > Max number of *physical* volumes is 23. I consider qtrees to be > *logical* volumes or partitions and if you make each qtree a > share then you can have a max of 14,400 on a F740. > The maximum number of qtrees is 254 (per volume I think). The maximum number of CIFS shares is 14,400 per F740. -Val. ============================================== Val Bercovici Office: (613)724-8674 Systems Engineer Pager: (800)566-1751 Network Appliance valb(a)netapp.com Ottawa, Canada FAST,SIMPLE,RELIABLE ==============================================

3 5

NDMP backup speeds
by Will Harper 26 Mar '99

26 Mar '99

Can I have the users' opinions? The top statement was from an unnamed NetApp 740 filer user. The bottom part is NetApp's rebuttal. I see this as two questions. (1) can a 740 support two tape adapters? and (2) who is right(er) about NDMP backup speeds on a 740, with one tape drive adapter? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------- [USER] > With a (potentially) 1.4Tb filer, can it be backed up with two drives > reasonable amount of time???? At 15gb/hr (conservative with > NDMP), that's > lots of hours to back em up..." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ [NetApp] Two tape adapter support was certified (tested) only on the F760 and the F630. It was a matter of testing resources with our latest release. Dump speeds run at up to 25 GB/hr with 1 dump and up to 45 GB/hr with two dumps to two tape drives on a single tape adapter.

5 5

RE: Migration to NetApp 740 from AlphaServer 2100
by Smith, Gil 25 Mar '99

25 Mar '99

this paper, on our external WWW, describes what WAFL does regarding directory hashing, http://www.netapp.com/technology/level3/3006.html -----Original Message----- From: Strange, Steve [mailto:steve.strange@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 1999 4:31 PM To: 'Joanna Gaski'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Migration to NetApp 740 from AlphaServer 2100 If you're used to AdvFS' performance with large directories, I think you'll be quite happy with WAFL in that regard. Last I knew, I don't think AdvFS did any directory hashing at all, so having 10K or more files in a single directory was not much fun. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Joanna Gaski [mailto:jgaski@WPI.EDU] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 1999 9:14 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Migration to NetApp 740 from AlphaServer 2100 2) Large directory constraints Also, for the user areas, what are the practical constraints on the number of files in a directory? I am most used to AdvFS, under which large directories can be slow to open and read, if a user tries to do something like tab completion on a filename in a directory of 1000 entries. Will I see the same kind of behavior with WAFL, and if so, does anyone have a good suggestion on breaking up the user space? We were thinking of using directory structure organization (nothing at logical partition level) for this.

1 0

RE: Migration to NetApp 740 from AlphaServer 2100
by Strange, Steve 25 Mar '99

25 Mar '99

If you're used to AdvFS' performance with large directories, I think you'll be quite happy with WAFL in that regard. Last I knew, I don't think AdvFS did any directory hashing at all, so having 10K or more files in a single directory was not much fun. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Joanna Gaski [mailto:jgaski@WPI.EDU] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 1999 9:14 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Migration to NetApp 740 from AlphaServer 2100 2) Large directory constraints Also, for the user areas, what are the practical constraints on the number of files in a directory? I am most used to AdvFS, under which large directories can be slow to open and read, if a user tries to do something like tab completion on a filename in a directory of 1000 entries. Will I see the same kind of behavior with WAFL, and if so, does anyone have a good suggestion on breaking up the user space? We were thinking of using directory structure organization (nothing at logical partition level) for this.

1 0

Jump to page:

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 1999