toasters May 1999

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

90 participants
122 discussions

RE: Running CIFS
by Muhlestein, Mark 05 May '99

05 May '99

A mixed qtree already works exactly as you want it to. In a mixed qtree the security of a file is based on the last security-setting operation. If an ACL is set which denies you access, but you still need to do something with a file, then as root you can change the security on any files/dirs in that qtree (using chmod, chown, or chgrp), which changes the security-style to UNIX. After that, those files follow regular UNIX rules, which allows root full access. If the user wants to put an ACL back on afterwards, no problem. We have found that using ACLs in a mixed qtree can be helpful in a number of situations. That's because ACLs are enforced even for NT Admins and root. For example, we found that some files were being accidentally deleted by root/Admin users, so we put an ACL on those files which allows only READ access to all users. That prevents deleting, even by root or NT Admins. Of course, if we actually want to delete the files we just change the permissions to allow that, since in a mixed qtree both root and NT Admins have a special dispensation to change the permissions. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Jason D. Kelleher [mailto:kelleher@susq.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 11:13 AM To: Muhlestein, Mark Cc: 'Mark D Fowle'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: Running CIFS In message <7F608EC0BDE6D111B53A00805FA7F7DA03A83931(a)TAHOE.netapp.com>, "Muh lestein, Mark" writes: >There is a document on the NOW site that should help: > >http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ > >This is primarily for 5.3, but it is also useful for earlier releases. It h >as a >lot of explanations of our approach, a security FAQ, and a bunch of other >(hopefully useful) security-related stuff. > >Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com This is nice. Especially since the System Administrator's Guide doesn't talk about the usermap.cfg file. (Even though the sample file refers you to it. Just 'cause the filer is _usually_ simple to setup and maintain is no excuse for poor/missing documentation.) I've been trying to setup access to a "mixed" quota tree such that no NT admin as access to it, but a UNIX root user can over-ride NTFS permissions. I know this sounds weird, but there are _way_ too many NT admin accounts floating around. That's why I don't want NT admins to have access to (read: be able to screw up) the filer. But because I'm one of those "pesky UNIX admins" I can't get and admin account, so I need root to be able to over-ride NTFS permissions. Is this even possible? I'm not having much luck. jason >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark D Fowle [mailto:Fowle_Mark_D@CAT.com] >Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 6:58 AM >To: toasters >Subject: Running CIFS > > >I am trying to set up a mixed environment on 2 720's. I have created a test > share and a usermap.cfg file that has >domain\user unix-user mapped out. My problem is that only 2 our 7 peo >ple > can get access to the share. What >else might I be missing? > >Mark Fowle >Caterpillar - BCP >fowelmd(a)cat.net

1 0

Re: Running CIFS
by Jason D. Kelleher 05 May '99

05 May '99

In message <7F608EC0BDE6D111B53A00805FA7F7DA03A83931(a)TAHOE.netapp.com>, "Muh lestein, Mark" writes: >There is a document on the NOW site that should help: > >http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ > >This is primarily for 5.3, but it is also useful for earlier releases. It h >as a >lot of explanations of our approach, a security FAQ, and a bunch of other >(hopefully useful) security-related stuff. > >Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com This is nice. Especially since the System Administrator's Guide doesn't talk about the usermap.cfg file. (Even though the sample file refers you to it. Just 'cause the filer is _usually_ simple to setup and maintain is no excuse for poor/missing documentation.) I've been trying to setup access to a "mixed" quota tree such that no NT admin as access to it, but a UNIX root user can over-ride NTFS permissions. I know this sounds weird, but there are _way_ too many NT admin accounts floating around. That's why I don't want NT admins to have access to (read: be able to screw up) the filer. But because I'm one of those "pesky UNIX admins" I can't get and admin account, so I need root to be able to over-ride NTFS permissions. Is this even possible? I'm not having much luck. jason >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark D Fowle [mailto:Fowle_Mark_D@CAT.com] >Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 6:58 AM >To: toasters >Subject: Running CIFS > > >I am trying to set up a mixed environment on 2 720's. I have created a test > share and a usermap.cfg file that has >domain\user unix-user mapped out. My problem is that only 2 our 7 peo >ple > can get access to the share. What >else might I be missing? > >Mark Fowle >Caterpillar - BCP >fowelmd(a)cat.net

1 0

RE: Running CIFS
by Muhlestein, Mark 05 May '99

05 May '99

There is a document on the NOW site that should help: http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ This is primarily for 5.3, but it is also useful for earlier releases. It has a lot of explanations of our approach, a security FAQ, and a bunch of other (hopefully useful) security-related stuff. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Mark D Fowle [mailto:Fowle_Mark_D@CAT.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 6:58 AM To: toasters Subject: Running CIFS I am trying to set up a mixed environment on 2 720's. I have created a test share and a usermap.cfg file that has domain\user unix-user mapped out. My problem is that only 2 our 7 people can get access to the share. What else might I be missing? Mark Fowle Caterpillar - BCP fowelmd(a)cat.net

1 0

Re: NetApp Warranty
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 05 May '99

05 May '99

On 05/05/99 11:11:34 you wrote: >Is there a way to purchase this level of support? We have some >non-critical F540s that _if_ they fail, I'd like to get them fixed, >but it doesn't have to happen same day and I don't have a problem >paying for the parts. > >The only hardware support I'm aware of covers cost of repair, so it is >priced accordingly. I'm looking for a more cost-effective level of >support on these non-critical filers. Sorry... I should have said that I'm not speaking from authority here; I was just trying to reconcile what the rep supposedly said with what the web site supposedly said. Either could be wrong and there really could be 1 year of hardware support. As to if you can just purchase software/phone support for additional years, I don't know, but I would assume you can. Surely Netapp wants you to buy more support, yes? I suppose it's possible that any extension includes hardware support too. Bruce

2 1

Re: F540 F520...
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 05 May '99

05 May '99

On 05/04/99 23:43:32 you wrote: >Hmmmm, I have an F540 filer. I'm sure it's a 540. Positive. Says 540 on >it somewhere. I'm sure. > >No such thing as a 540 on www.netapp.com. There's a 520, which looks >pretty darn similar. Can I just s/540/520/g, and be a happy camper? Note to Netapp - All filer models, no matter how old, should still have information accessible off the web site. The price of keeping this information on there is minimal. By not keeping this information someone is just going to wind up doing it third-party with some sort of filer FAQ. Note to Jaye - If you actually have a older file model like the F540, you will need access to more than just general information. Most of the technical details *should*, in an ideal world, be available off now.netapp.com. Have you tried looking there? Bruce

2 1

Re: NetApp Warranty
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 05 May '99

05 May '99

On 05/05/99 09:27:28 you wrote: > ><color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>My Sales rep is saying that a netapp comes with a 3 months hdwr warranty - >that I need to purchase 9mo hdwr support in the first year. Netapp's web >site says the following: > > > "NetApp's hardware warranty program provides customers with free 24x7 > telephone support for one year from the date of purchase along with same > day shipment of replacement parts." > >This sounds like a 1yr warranty. No, it sounds like you get free phone support for 1 year, and if you need a replacement part, they'll ship it same day. However, whether or not you have to pay for that replacement part depends on your hardware warranty. Your Sales rep is saying you've only got 3 months; you need to purchase more if you want more. If you don't, that doesn't mean your 1 year free support is worthless. You can still call them and get help with software issues, or even determine if the problem is in the hardware. They just won't replace it for you for free. Bruce

2 1

Anybody have any comment on this article, as relating to FCAL reliability?
by Jaye Mathisen 05 May '99

05 May '99

(Long night tonight waiting on formatting RAID array.s :() I do not have an FC-AL arrays at this time, although I know it is something that is rolling out. The comments on reliability concern me a bit, at least for me, my NetApps have been "plug" and go. No muss, no fuss. http://www.performance-computing.com/features/9903sra.shtml Just curious if people are having trouble with their FC-Al disks on their Netapps...

2 1

NetApp Warranty
by Richard L. Rhodes 05 May '99

05 May '99

<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>My Sales rep is saying that a netapp comes with a 3 months hdwr warranty - that I need to purchase 9mo hdwr support in the first year. Netapp's web site says the following: "NetApp's hardware warranty program provides customers with free 24x7 telephone support for one year from the date of purchase along with same day shipment of replacement parts." This sounds like a 1yr warranty. Question: Just what is NetApp's hdwr warranty? Thanks rick <nofill> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 f: 330-384-2514

2 1

Running CIFS
by Mark D Fowle 05 May '99

05 May '99

I am trying to set up a mixed environment on 2 720's. I have created a test share and a usermap.cfg file that has domain\user unix-user mapped out. My problem is that only 2 our 7 people can get access to the share. What else might I be missing? Mark Fowle Caterpillar - BCP fowelmd(a)cat.net

1 0

Re: Anybody have any comment on this article, as relating to FCAL reliability?
by Jason D. Kelleher 05 May '99

05 May '99

In message <Pine.BSF.4.10.9905050123350.249-100000(a)schizo.cdsnet.net>, Jaye Mathisen writes: > >(Long night tonight waiting on formatting RAID array.s :() > > > >I do not have an FC-AL arrays at this time, although I know it >is something that is rolling out. > >The comments on reliability concern me a bit, at least for me, my NetApps >have been "plug" and go. > >No muss, no fuss. > >http://www.performance-computing.com/features/9903sra.shtml > >Just curious if people are having trouble with their FC-Al disks on their >Netapps... No trouble so far (only had 'em since Feb). It's nice not having to run "disk swap". Just pull a bad drive out and slide in a replacement. Much better than the SCSI shelves. jason

1 0

← Newer
1
...
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
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 May 1999