toasters March 1999

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

138 participants
192 discussions

RE: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Thompson, Arnold 22 Mar '99

22 Mar '99

You're gonna *love* SnapMirror & SnapRestore! > -----Original Message----- > From: Mohler, Jeff [mailto:jeff.mohler@wilcom.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 1999 10:36 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: NetApp/Auspex killer? > > > You forgot "you cant touch that without an expensive service call". > You forgot "How many millions for a 1TB array??" > > A year ago I demanded a MIB for the EMC, our local EMC guy waffled for > months..never got it. > A year ago I demanded an NFS solution from EMC, our regional > guy waffled for > months..eventually EMC officially backed out. > > The -only- reason we still uses -some- EMC, is that EMC does > have a better > DR concept than NetApp does. When NetApp can deliver a Telco-Reliable > remote DR data solution, we'll be replacing EMC there too. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com [SMTP:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] > > Sent: Friday, March 19, 1999 10:18 PM > > To: Adams_Christian(a)emc.com; askaquestion(a)iname.com; > > toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Cc: watson(a)netapp.com > > Subject: RE: NetApp/Auspex killer? > > > > On 03/19/99 19:26:02 you wrote: > > > > > >Hey Toasters - > > > > > >How about: > > >[List of things snipped] > > > > > >Please excuse the plug, but I couldn't resist. > > > > > >/Christian Adams > > >Systems Engineer > > >South San Francisco, CA > > >EMC Corporation > > > > Er, I assume this means your claiming EMC can do these things > > and Netapp can't? > > > > Netapp can do just about all of the things you mention that > > anyone would *want* to do. > > > > They don't do RAID in hardware, but that's because they do > > RAID-4 which is better than RAID-5. And they still beat you > > on performance. Why would you want them to beat you even > > easier? > > > > When EMC can provide both NFS and CIFS support in a NAS box, on > > the same filesystem, same files, with coherent locking, which > > full support of all NT permissions, with a RAID level as easily > > expandable as RAID-4, with your own OS (not on the back end > > of a UNIX server), with better throughput *and* response time > > than Netapp (with published SFS results), for a *lower* price, > > email me. > > > > Until then, go pick on Sun. > > > > Bruce >

1 0

RE: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Adams, Christian 22 Mar '99

22 Mar '99

Hey Sir Bruce - Thanks for the invitation. What is your contact information so that I can put together the sales call? /Christian Adams > -----Original Message----- > From: sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com [SMTP:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Friday, March 19, 1999 8:18 PM > To: Adams_Christian(a)emc.com; askaquestion(a)iname.com; > toasters(a)mathworks.com > Cc: watson(a)netapp.com > Subject: RE: NetApp/Auspex killer? > > On 03/19/99 19:26:02 you wrote: > > > >Hey Toasters - > > > >How about: > >[List of things snipped] > > > >Please excuse the plug, but I couldn't resist. > > > >/Christian Adams > >Systems Engineer > >South San Francisco, CA > >EMC Corporation > > Er, I assume this means your claiming EMC can do these things > and Netapp can't? > > Netapp can do just about all of the things you mention that > anyone would *want* to do. > > They don't do RAID in hardware, but that's because they do > RAID-4 which is better than RAID-5. And they still beat you > on performance. Why would you want them to beat you even > easier? > > When EMC can provide both NFS and CIFS support in a NAS box, on > the same filesystem, same files, with coherent locking, which > full support of all NT permissions, with a RAID level as easily > expandable as RAID-4, with your own OS (not on the back end > of a UNIX server), with better throughput *and* response time > than Netapp (with published SFS results), for a *lower* price, > email me. > > Until then, go pick on Sun. > > Bruce >

2 1

Legatto Backup
by Jay Querusio 21 Mar '99

21 Mar '99

Does anyone have any experience using Legatto server on an AIX machine with an NT agent to back up there netapp. If so, could you share how this is working for you and any tricks or techniques needed to make it work Thanks in advance, Jay Querusio

2 1

RE: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Mohler, Jeff 20 Mar '99

20 Mar '99

You forgot "you cant touch that without an expensive service call". You forgot "How many millions for a 1TB array??" A year ago I demanded a MIB for the EMC, our local EMC guy waffled for months..never got it. A year ago I demanded an NFS solution from EMC, our regional guy waffled for months..eventually EMC officially backed out. The -only- reason we still uses -some- EMC, is that EMC does have a better DR concept than NetApp does. When NetApp can deliver a Telco-Reliable remote DR data solution, we'll be replacing EMC there too. > -----Original Message----- > From: sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com [SMTP:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Friday, March 19, 1999 10:18 PM > To: Adams_Christian(a)emc.com; askaquestion(a)iname.com; > toasters(a)mathworks.com > Cc: watson(a)netapp.com > Subject: RE: NetApp/Auspex killer? > > On 03/19/99 19:26:02 you wrote: > > > >Hey Toasters - > > > >How about: > >[List of things snipped] > > > >Please excuse the plug, but I couldn't resist. > > > >/Christian Adams > >Systems Engineer > >South San Francisco, CA > >EMC Corporation > > Er, I assume this means your claiming EMC can do these things > and Netapp can't? > > Netapp can do just about all of the things you mention that > anyone would *want* to do. > > They don't do RAID in hardware, but that's because they do > RAID-4 which is better than RAID-5. And they still beat you > on performance. Why would you want them to beat you even > easier? > > When EMC can provide both NFS and CIFS support in a NAS box, on > the same filesystem, same files, with coherent locking, which > full support of all NT permissions, with a RAID level as easily > expandable as RAID-4, with your own OS (not on the back end > of a UNIX server), with better throughput *and* response time > than Netapp (with published SFS results), for a *lower* price, > email me. > > Until then, go pick on Sun. > > Bruce

1 0

Re: stupid SMTP questions
by tkaczma＠gryf.net 20 Mar '99

20 Mar '99

On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Allan Burrington wrote: > You must be a Unix sysadmin - presumably, that is why transposing SNMP and > SMTP is such an issue to you. Before we get into a religious war, let me paraphrase some Dilbert for you "Here sonny have a nickel. Go get yourself a better operating system." Take YOUR condescending posture someplace else, with statements like, "The person is obviously a Unix sysadmin - take it easy on him..." > Pointing out the obvious is non-helpful to the other 10,000 people on the > mailing list. Are you sure there are exactly 10,001 people on this list? Why do YOU waste the other 10,000 people's bandwidth, not to mention time? > Pointing out that the funny numbers were in the MIB without > telling him where to find the Netapp MIB. Perhaps you should re-read your mail spool. He referenced the filename of the mib. > Then telling him what a tree > structure is. Looking at a SNMP id and being bewildered is a standard > newbee experience. That's why I suggested that he should read a book on TCP/IP so he can distinguish SMTP from SNMP before contemplating more delicate distinctions. > Telling the poor soul to buy a book is beyond > unhelpful - digests are so you do not have to buy something, and you do not > have to call tech support. No, I didn't just tell him to buy a book. I told him which book he should purchase. In addition, I mentioned that he should read the SNMP RFCs since SNMP is a very simple protocol. If he didn't feel up to it, then he should get a book on SNMP. O'Reilly usually has very palatable books. > The reference to Unix Sysadmin was to account for their approach to life - > they're Unix Sysadmins because they couldn't pass the civil servent exam. Apparently proper spelling was not tested on the civil _servant_ exam. Tom P.S. I hope this letter provided some comedic relief to this mail list.

2 1

RE: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 20 Mar '99

20 Mar '99

On 03/19/99 19:26:02 you wrote: > >Hey Toasters - > >How about: >[List of things snipped] > >Please excuse the plug, but I couldn't resist. > >/Christian Adams >Systems Engineer >South San Francisco, CA >EMC Corporation Er, I assume this means your claiming EMC can do these things and Netapp can't? Netapp can do just about all of the things you mention that anyone would *want* to do. They don't do RAID in hardware, but that's because they do RAID-4 which is better than RAID-5. And they still beat you on performance. Why would you want them to beat you even easier? When EMC can provide both NFS and CIFS support in a NAS box, on the same filesystem, same files, with coherent locking, which full support of all NT permissions, with a RAID level as easily expandable as RAID-4, with your own OS (not on the back end of a UNIX server), with better throughput *and* response time than Netapp (with published SFS results), for a *lower* price, email me. Until then, go pick on Sun. Bruce

1 0

Fibre Channel and 5.2.1 issues
by Diptish Datta 20 Mar '99

20 Mar '99

There have been a lot of concerns expressed on this list regarding two issues - Fibre Channel drive stability and the current Data ONTAP release 5.2.1 stability. I just wanted to take a moment to address these concerns. Fibre Channel Drive Stability: There have certainly been some problems we faced with stability and that obviously is the source of all the concern expressed in this exchange. But quality data that we monitor tells me that the stability of FC-AL systems have been good. One indication of the quality is the initial field failure rate of FC-AL drives. It has been a maximum of 0.3% for 18G drives and a maximum of 1.19% for 9G drives. That means that less than 3 out of 1000 18G drives and less than 12 out of 1000 9G drives shipped failed within 30 days. In the course of diagnosing and addressing the issues that have come up we have found a couple of things that everyone should be aware of. The following are the things to watch out for: 1. Disk driver and firmware upgrade We discovered some problems in the FC-AL drive firmware with the implementation of the FC-AL protocol. This was corrected by newer firmware. Data ONTAP 5.1.2 or higher and drive firmware FB37 is *required* for FC-AL drive stability. A lot of people have upgraded to 5.1.2 or 5.2.1 but have not taken the time to upgrade the firmware on their disks. 2. New memory DIMMs on F760 systems with FC-AL It was discovered that the original DIMMs we were shipping systems with was causing noise on the bus and affecting FC-AL signal integrity. NetApp has launched (and concluded) an effort to proactively contact and upgrade all F760 customers with the new DIMMs that were qualified to address this problem. If you feel that you have not been contacted or know that you have not upgraded the DIMMs on a F760 FC-AL system, you should contact Support immediately. 3. Environmental temperature and system ventilation In some instances we have diagnosed a higher than normal failure rate on storage down to overtemperature conditions. This is not unique for FC-AL drives but Fibre Channel allows for denser storage pools and therefore, air flow and cooling is even more critical. Inadequate ventilation where the vents are blocked or shelves are placed such that the exhaust is being directed back into shelves can cause the drives to deteriorate over time. We have proven cases where correcting such situations has reduced the failure rates. 4. Disk seating In some cases we have found that drives not being properly seated in the shelves can cause spurious errors. This is a physical seating problem that NetApp is addressing by considering new designs in next generation shelves. But for now checking that the drives are fully seated by firmly pressing down the drives to make sure there is no play is recommended. With these precautions and corrective actions FC-AL systems should be stable. Of course, there is always the case of a disk not operating within acceptable parameters. These require us to diagnose the problem and remove the disk to gain stability. But that is the exception. Overall, the metrics we collect indicate that FC-AL drives have been very stable. 5.2.1 Stability: The current recommended release is 5.2.1. This release has a lot of bug fixes over previous releases and metrics leads me to believe that it is a release we should feel comfortable with. Based on autosupport logs it looks like there are over 650 systems out there running 5.2.1 or a patch release on it. Patch releases are available for some of the common bugs that are known to exist on 5.2.1 and Tech Support will recommend one if a customer needs it. In another effort to improve stability Engineering is launching a process to release regularly scheduled Maintenance Releases. These will offer you the advantage of predictability (scheduled and planned releases) and thorough QA with bug fixes to address customer crashes. The primary release driver will be bug fixes and increased stability. A pareto of the problems found on 5.2.1 showed that a couple of bugs have caused the most downtime and Engineering is working on the first maintenance release on 5.2.1 so that new systems shipped out from the factory will be protected against these bugs. If you have any questions on any of the above feel free to contact Tech Support. Diptish Datta Director, Product Support Network Appliance

1 0

Quad Ethernet
by Shaw, Kevin 20 Mar '99

20 Mar '99

I am installing quad fast ethernet cards in my F330 and F630 filers. 1) What version of ON-TAP should the filers be running? 2) What configurations issues should I be aware of, and how are multipule default gateways configured? Thanks in advance.

4 3

RE: Legato Backup
by Benn, Paul 20 Mar '99

20 Mar '99

Hi Jay, As long as the AIX version of NetWorker supports NT clients, you should have no problem. I have the procedure (NT to NT) documented at: http://www.netapp.com/technology/level3/3052.html <http://www.netapp.com/technology/level3/3052.html> Legato Section: http://www.netapp.com/technology/level3/3052.html#Sect2.3 <http://www.netapp.com/technology/level3/3052.html#Sect2.3> -----Original Message----- From: Jay Querusio [mailto:jq@opensystems.com] Sent: Friday, March 19, 1999 2:27 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Legatto Backup Does anyone have any experience using Legatto server on an AIX machine with an NT agent to back up there netapp. If so, could you share how this is working for you and any tricks or techniques needed to make it work Thanks in advance, Jay Querusio

1 0

RE: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Adams, Christian 20 Mar '99

20 Mar '99

Hey Toasters - How about: 1. Dual redundant design to allow for online servicing and upgrading of all components incurring no down time A. dual redundant Fast/Wide/Differential SCSI channels with software based load balancing B. dual redundant battery for both cache and disks (enough to spin down all disks) C. dual redundant power inputs D. redundant "head"s 2. In box failover design to reduce the price of such ideas as clustered filer heads with 2 minute or less failover 3. Fast packet switching based protocol "head" with 256MB for read cache 4. Pentium/PCI hardware architecture "head" design 5. 16GB shared write cache and 750MByte/second internal bus design in front of JBOD 6. All RAID and disk management handled in the "disk shelf" architecture 6. World wide customer service with 2 hour response time based on soft errors phone'ed home automatically 7. Metadata logging design such that locks are maintained in the event of a failover 8. Metadata logging design such that file system integrity is maintained allowing for fast boot/reboot time of 2 minutes 9. Multi protocol support (NFS, CIFS, FTP, etc.) provided as part of the protocol layer in the "head" 10. Full support of NT and UNIX network based locking 11. Freedom to direct connect hosts via SCSI or FibreChannel to "disk shelf" architecture with dymanic disk management Please excuse the plug, but I couldn't resist. /Christian Adams Systems Engineer South San Francisco, CA EMC Corporation P.S. As Andy Watson and other ex-Auspexians at NetApp may tell you, I am an ex-Auspexian also. > -----Original Message----- > From: Weeks, Thomas [SMTP:Thomas.Weeks@mirage.brooks.af.mil] > Sent: Monday, March 15, 1999 1:48 PM > To: 'askaquestion(a)iname.com'; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: NetApp/Auspex killer? > > I would probably go with a multi-x86 box (low cost) running > Linux (kernel 2.2), SAMBA, hardware RAID, etc. > > I have seen some very good comparative SMB numbers on these boxes. And > now > that > the processor archetecture is scalable with Linux's kernel, the sky's > the limit and the cost is VERY low! > > Tom Weeks > > -----Original Message----- > From: askaquestion(a)iname.com [mailto:askaquestion@iname.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 06, 1999 4:36 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: NetApp/Auspex killer? > > > Yes, NetApps are fine boxes but... > > If you started a company to build a NAS box, what > would you build that would be better than what > NetApp, Auspex, etc. has? > > I'm looking for serious responses here - to improve > the market with competition! > > I don't view the kind of very-low $ suggestions on > this list recently as the kind of thing that most > of us are interested in. > > Don't let my anonymous query lead you into thinking > that I'm not 100% serious. If anything it should > illustrate just how serious I am. > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Get free personalized email at http://www.iname.com

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
20
Older →

Jump to page:

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 1999