toasters June 1999

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

85 participants
118 discussions

Re: Windows NT Resource Kit partial contents
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 19 Jun '99

19 Jun '99

On 06/19/99 00:26:03 you wrote: >There are a several utilities in the Windows NT Resource Kit that will be >familiar to the UNIX user. Among them are: > >devsrv.exe As a UNIX user I can't say I'm familiar with this one. Bruce

2 1

Windows NT Resource Kit partial contents
by tkaczma＠gryf.net 19 Jun '99

19 Jun '99

For those of us who are unfamiliar with the contents of the NT RK, here is the info from WHGIII's playground: ---- Microsoft Windows NT Questions and Answers How can I ease the transition from UNIX to Microsoft Windows NT? There are a several utilities in the Windows NT Resource Kit that will be familiar to the UNIX user. Among them are: ar.exe, cat.exe, cc.exe, chmod.exe, chown.exe, cp.exe, devsrv.exe, find.exe, grep.exe, ld.exe, ln.exe, ls.exe, make.exe, mkdir.exe, mv.exe, rm.exe, rmdir.exe, sh.exe, touch.exe, vi.exe, and wc.exe. When using these from the DOS shell you do not need to type the file extension. When in the 'sh' shell the extensions must be used. Please note that these files execute in upper case. Once SH.EXE has been started, an alias can be created to change case and form e.g. alias cat=CAT.EXE. These utilities will allow you to leverage your UNIX script file investment. ---- Source: http://www.microsoft.com/SalesInfo/QA/QA5909.HTM

1 0

RE: CIFS Administrators vs file ownership
by Muhlestein, Mark 19 Jun '99

19 Jun '99

Actually, I don't think there is a "chown" in the NT reskit (as it is called by the cognoscenti :-), but there is a command called "subinacl.exe" which allows you to do various manipulations of the NT security information on files, including changing ownership. NT security folks make much of the fact that administrator privilege does not allow you to set ownership, only take it, the idea being that you can't cover your tracks if you operate on a file as administrator that you had been blocked from via an ACL. However, it turns out that you really need to do this from time to time, so there are ways to do it if you need to, as long as you have the 'backup' and 'restore' NT privileges, which Admins have by default. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: tkaczma(a)gryf.net [mailto:tkaczma@gryf.net] Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 7:56 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: CIFS Administrators vs file ownership On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Keith Brown wrote: > So.... I'll fire you my "ntchown" tool under separate cover. You'll be my > second customer for it. I haven't exactly "tested the living daylights out > of it", but I'm pretty confident it works under most scenarios, as it's > really very simple. BTW, I think there is a chown in the NT Server (?) Resource Kit, which in my opinion should have been a part of the NT Server package. If the Exploder is a part of the OS such tools certainly are. However, as I recall there might have been a problem in the fact that the ACLs would be screwed up (owner/creator permissions, etc. would be different then expected) after chowning a file. Tom

2 1

RE: Named Pipes?
by Muhlestein, Mark 19 Jun '99

19 Jun '99

The important point is that if a CIFS client is trying to open a named pipe on a server it means that it is trying to connect to a piece of software running on that server, since NT named pipes are not filesystem objects, but rather are created by server applications. Since the filer does not run NT apps, that will fail. The way Oracle on NT works is that you have an Oracle instance running on an NT server, and the Oracle clients use some protocol to connect to the Oracle server. If you want to use the filer for the back-end storage, you tell the Oracle server to use a remote disk resource, which results in a CIFS connection to the filer. Here is a write-up that may have some useful details for anyone looking at using a filer as a back-end for an NT database: http://www.netapp.com/technology/level3/3048.html Good luck, Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com BTW Tom that overview of named pipes I was looking for is at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/sdkdoc/winbase/pipes_6nqr.htm -----Original Message----- From: tkaczma(a)gryf.net [mailto:tkaczma@gryf.net] Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 7:44 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Named Pipes? On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, Muhlestein, Mark wrote: > On NT an application on the server side has to open a named > pipe in order for it to be used. With NT there is no way for two different > clients to 'open' a named pipe on a third box like you can with a UNIX named > pipe special device. I have never said this. That is what you implied. I said that you place the named pipe on the NFS filesystem and then if you access it through the same mount on the same machine it will take data from one process to another. I said that that was all that would happen as far as I knew. As for NT I said that I would not know where to begin to open a named pipe. However, if NTFS (CIFS/SMB really) supports writing named pipes it should work whether the CIFS volume is on a real NT server or a real (tic) Network Appliance. > The named pipe is actually created by the server app and > does not have an independent existence. If it doesn't have an existence aside from the server app then what is the point of putting it on a filesystem. Filesystems are usually designed to hold persistent data. > For some background on NT named pipes see > > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q101/1/50.asp > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q126/7/66.asp I read the first one, and now understand your skew. What you should have really said is that the named pipes will not be stored on the CIFS filesystem and thus the question is irrelevant. The server running the database will create the named pipe as a resource separate from the filesystem storing the database. If the database clients connecting to the server require that the named pipe and the database file reside on the same host (I don't see why the clients should look at the file at all, but some old decripid databases have no concept of server only cooperating clients) then this will not work. However, I venture to say that this is not the case and in theory if you (the original poster) can keep the database file on another NT server you should be able to keep that file on the NetApp as well with no problems. Bear in mind that, as our colleague Mark said, the NetApp is not a database server and will not act as one. You should trreat a NetApp as a very intelligent disk, that is all that it is, a file server. > There are better ones than these, but while I was looking for them Microsoft's > web site went down... If you find them please jot me a note, I'm curious about this stuff. BTW, with NT there is a way to open a named pipe between 2 processes on 2 different boxes, with UNIX it must be on the same system and mount point AFAICT. Tom

1 0

CIFS Administrators vs file ownership
by Gregory M. Paris 19 Jun '99

19 Jun '99

Toasters, We've recently received our first filer, an F740 with NFS and CIFS. We're in the process of working out all the issues and procedures before we deploy the device. The issue we're struggling with at the moment involves people with NT Administrator access. In the NT world, we admins are used to having accounts with Administrator access (by virtue of being Domain Admins). It never matters to us that our files get created with ownership of "Administrators". In the UNIX world, we're used to using "su" to get root access when we need it. All of our own files are owned by our respective accounts, not root. We intend to merge our UNIX and NT home directories, but life is not smooth for we admins. When we create files on the filer from the NT world, they're owned by Administrator; that's OK. But on the UNIX side, they show up as being owned by root; that's not. We'd like to have our admin access cake and eat it too. In other words, what we'd like is to have our NT Administrator access, but have files get created with our respective ownerships, not root's. How do the rest of you work this issue? Greg -- Gregory M. Paris CIS Engineering Systems Bose Corporation Email: paris(a)bose.com The Mountain Phone: +1 508 766-6080 Framingham, MA 01701-9168 FAX: +1 508 820-0173

3 2

Spares kits.
by Shaun T. Erickson 19 Jun '99

19 Jun '99

Do the F720, F740 & F760 filers use the same spares kit, or are there different ones for each one? -ste -- Work: (908) 582-7629 Pager: (800) 756-1133 Cell: (201) 310-9941

2 4

RE: Named Pipes?
by tkaczma＠gryf.net 19 Jun '99

19 Jun '99

On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, Muhlestein, Mark wrote: > On NT an application on the server side has to open a named > pipe in order for it to be used. With NT there is no way for two different > clients to 'open' a named pipe on a third box like you can with a UNIX named > pipe special device. I have never said this. That is what you implied. I said that you place the named pipe on the NFS filesystem and then if you access it through the same mount on the same machine it will take data from one process to another. I said that that was all that would happen as far as I knew. As for NT I said that I would not know where to begin to open a named pipe. However, if NTFS (CIFS/SMB really) supports writing named pipes it should work whether the CIFS volume is on a real NT server or a real (tic) Network Appliance. > The named pipe is actually created by the server app and > does not have an independent existence. If it doesn't have an existence aside from the server app then what is the point of putting it on a filesystem. Filesystems are usually designed to hold persistent data. > For some background on NT named pipes see > > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q101/1/50.asp > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q126/7/66.asp I read the first one, and now understand your skew. What you should have really said is that the named pipes will not be stored on the CIFS filesystem and thus the question is irrelevant. The server running the database will create the named pipe as a resource separate from the filesystem storing the database. If the database clients connecting to the server require that the named pipe and the database file reside on the same host (I don't see why the clients should look at the file at all, but some old decripid databases have no concept of server only cooperating clients) then this will not work. However, I venture to say that this is not the case and in theory if you (the original poster) can keep the database file on another NT server you should be able to keep that file on the NetApp as well with no problems. Bear in mind that, as our colleague Mark said, the NetApp is not a database server and will not act as one. You should trreat a NetApp as a very intelligent disk, that is all that it is, a file server. > There are better ones than these, but while I was looking for them Microsoft's > web site went down... If you find them please jot me a note, I'm curious about this stuff. BTW, with NT there is a way to open a named pipe between 2 processes on 2 different boxes, with UNIX it must be on the same system and mount point AFAICT. Tom

1 0

RE: CIFS Administrators vs file ownership
by Muhlestein, Mark 18 Jun '99

18 Jun '99

I just noticed I neglected to 'cc' this to toasters: -----Original Message----- From: Muhlestein, Mark Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 2:43 PM To: 'Gregory M. Paris' Subject: RE: CIFS Administrators vs file ownership What version are you running? If it's 5.3 or greater you should turn off the wafl.nt_admin_priv_map_to_root option. See http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/index.s… and in particular http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/usermap… l Let me know if that helps or if you have other problems. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Gregory M. Paris [mailto:paris@bose.com] Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 2:29 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: paris(a)bose.com Subject: CIFS Administrators vs file ownership Toasters, We've recently received our first filer, an F740 with NFS and CIFS. We're in the process of working out all the issues and procedures before we deploy the device. The issue we're struggling with at the moment involves people with NT Administrator access. In the NT world, we admins are used to having accounts with Administrator access (by virtue of being Domain Admins). It never matters to us that our files get created with ownership of "Administrators". In the UNIX world, we're used to using "su" to get root access when we need it. All of our own files are owned by our respective accounts, not root. We intend to merge our UNIX and NT home directories, but life is not smooth for we admins. When we create files on the filer from the NT world, they're owned by Administrator; that's OK. But on the UNIX side, they show up as being owned by root; that's not. We'd like to have our admin access cake and eat it too. In other words, what we'd like is to have our NT Administrator access, but have files get created with our respective ownerships, not root's. How do the rest of you work this issue? Greg -- Gregory M. Paris CIS Engineering Systems Bose Corporation Email: paris(a)bose.com The Mountain Phone: +1 508 766-6080 Framingham, MA 01701-9168 FAX: +1 508 820-0173

1 0

RE: Backup a filer using Omniback
by Muhlestein, Mark 18 Jun '99

18 Jun '99

If OmniBack can backup an NT server via CIFS you can use that method to backup the filer and perserve both UNIX and NT metadata. Mark Muhlestein -----Original Message----- From: Palinckx, Gregory [mailto:gregory.palinckx@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 7:45 AM To: Schepers, Jan; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: Backup a filer using Omniback Hello Jan, In case you are not aware of it, there is a group within HP over in Germany that is working on the NDMP solution for OmniBack - Last update I received was late last year and they were shooting for a June 99 early release date. You might want to check with HP on the status - Let me know if your HP reps are unaware of the project and I'll see if I can track down a contact and/or the latest release date. To answer your question though, I know you can back up a filer with OmniBack over a NFS mount, but am not sure if it will back up a share or UNC path - if so, I would *suspect* that it will retain ACLs as well as UNIX permissions. Regards, Greg ----------------------------------------------------- Greg Palinckx Phone: 303.770.9158 System Engineer Mobile: 303.882.5996 Network Appliance Email: palinckx(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Schepers, Jan [mailto:Jan.Schepers@nl.origin-it.com] Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 2:37 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Backup a filer using Omniback Hello people, it is very likely that there is somebody who has experience to backup a Netapp filer using HP/Omniback. Questions are: o is it possible ? o Is it possible to backup/restore both CIFS and UNIX meta data like ACL's ? o What about performance ? o What configuration (of the backup client) is required ? TIA, Jan Schepers =============== Origin - Sharing The Power Of Knowledge =============== Jan Schepers Building HCZ 4B.20 Computer Systems & Architectures Vonderweg 11 Origin/Technical Automation 5611 BK Eindhoven mailto:Jan.Schepers@nl.origin-it.com The Netherlands SERI schepers@nlorigin FAX :(+31-40-27)56171 Mobex :(+31-40-27)96025 Phone :(+31-40-27)57503 =======================================================================

1 0

RE: files that differ by case only (via CIFS); forced 8.3 notatio
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 18 Jun '99

18 Jun '99

On 06/18/99 09:26:24 you wrote: >Once a file is detected as having a name conflict we do not reexamine it once >the duplicate file is deleted. We do that for performance reasons and >functionality reasons. The performance reason is that we do not wish to revist >the 8.3 name generation every time we delete a file. The functionality reason >is that something may now depend on the name of the file being FOOBAR~1. Don't feel bad, Todd, when I first encountered the issue I thought the same thing as you. Rob gave me the same explanation and although counterintuitive at first you realize in the long run it makes sense to do it this way. Bruce

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
12
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 June 1999