toasters August 1999

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

104 participants
129 discussions

Re: show_therm
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 04 Aug '99

04 Aug '99

On 08/01/99 12:11:39 you wrote: > > >On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Dave Hitz wrote: > >> One obvious concern on redesigning command UIs is >> breaking scripts, so we are especially interested in knowing which >> rc_toggle_basic commands people have built into scripts. > >Here is a short list of commands I've been caught using. I don't have any >of these in my scripts, but they are indispensable for me. >[various yp commands deleted] When they implemented yp/NIS, I told them to make these commands public. RFEs were opened. Netapp decided against it, so they were closed. Trot out the tired old "we're an appliance, it should be simple" explanation. >On a side note, is there a command to be used from the console or rsh that >allows one to log off the telnet session. This would be extremely usefull >as some of our admins telnet in from Windows making it relatively hard to >log them off. There was a bug/RFE opened on this as well, years ago. I think Netapp would find it more production, rather than doing another round of "tell us what you want" solicitation, is to go back and see what they got the last n times they asked "tell us what you want" and didn't do anything. Bruce

2 1

CIFS: No permission to rename files?
by Benjy Feen 03 Aug '99

03 Aug '99

"I didn't change anything!" :) On two of our toasters, both running 5.1.2R3P1, our CIFS-based users have found that they're suddenly unable to rename files. One user, who has administrator priviledges, doesn't have this problem. I wanted to post this short description before hauling off and gathering the full set of evidence/data. Anyone know this issue offhand? Thanks! Benjy Feen benjy(a)feen.com There is no spoon.

1 0

RE: CIFS Remote Backup Options
by Garrett Burke 03 Aug '99

03 Aug '99

Hi Matt, No we haven't tried 5.2.2P1 or 5.3 yet to solve the oplock bug. The reason is that out filer is stable at the moment and we have found in the past that we end up with some stability problems when we install another release of OnTap. We have a workaround for the oplocks bug which doesn't bite us so hard at the moment (Having said that we will be upgrading to 5.3 sometime as NTP would be nice) GB > ---------- > From: Matt Day[SMTP:mday@netapp.com] > Sent: 31 July 1999 00:21 > To: Garrett Burke > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: CIFS Remote Backup Options > > >c) oplocks. This has caused us numerous problems. We now run the > backups > >with oplocks turned off, as there some sort of interaction between > ARCServe > >and the oplock code (we tried a few D releases but never got around it) > >which means that things run very, very slowly. Like, 2 days to run the > >backup! > > Hi Garrett, > > There is an oplock bug in 5.2.1 (burt12483) that sometimes delays the > delivery of oplock break messages -- I bet that's the performance > problem you're hitting with oplocks enabled. The fix for this bug is > available in 5.2.2P1 and 5.3. Have you tried either of those releases? > > Matt >

1 0

RE: 5.3D20 and bug #16084
by Melvin, Grant 02 Aug '99

02 Aug '99

Hi Benjy, FYI, the fix for 16084 is targeted for a future release (slated for end of October) and should be made available in a 5.3.2 patch in the meantime. NetApp is working with Mark to determine what the "random_refusal_of_NDMP_connections" problem that he is seeing is. Cheers, Grant -----Original Message----- From: Benjy Feen [mailto:benjy@feen.com] Sent: Monday, August 02, 1999 10:32 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: 5.3D20 and bug #16084 Wow, I check my mail and in two consecutive e-mails I lose two clicks of faith in NetApps. Are these critical NDMP problems limited to 5.3.X, or does 5.2.X have issues I should know about? Is thered a 5.3 release that gives me the NDMP functionality I need without giving me the NDMP bugs I don't? Does NetApp have any kind of document, internal or external, of the form: "How to use NDMP with NetBackup 3.2 without making your filers reboot randomly, or refuse backups, or catch fire"? On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Stoltz wrote: > > Ok, so I've installed the latest and greatest development release that's > supposed to fix our clustered_filer_reboots_randomly_during_NDMP_dumps problem, > and now instead of randomly rebooting, our filer has gone the random_refusal > of_NDMP_connections route. Which leads me to my point, has anyone else who > installed this release to solve this problem seen similar results? > > Curious, > > Mark > Benjy Feen benjy(a)feen.com There is no spoon.

1 0

Re: Remote Backup Options
by Steve Kappel 02 Aug '99

02 Aug '99

>Speaking of remote backup, my backup team tells me that Veritas backups of >Filers via NDMP don't work with the current release (5.3.x) of DOT. Any >word on when (date please) this will be fixed? If already fixed, can >someone let me know so I could get the appropriate version from Tech. OnTap 5.3.2 will be qualified for local (not 3-way) backup/restores with NetBackup 3.2 very soon. 5.3.2 should be out "any day now". __________________________________________________________________________ Steve Kappel steve.kappel(a)veritas.com VERITAS Software steve.kappel(a)iname.com (Personal)

2 1

Re: Remote Backup Options
by Jason Middlebrooks 02 Aug '99

02 Aug '99

I have gotten it to work with DOT 5.3D14. I have done backups and restores. Jason tkaczma(a)gryf.net on 07/31/99 01:39:03 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com cc: (bcc: Jason Middlebrooks/Datalink) Subject: Remote Backup Options Speaking of remote backup, my backup team tells me that Veritas backups of Filers via NDMP don't work with the current release (5.3.x) of DOT. Any word on when (date please) this will be fixed? If already fixed, can someone let me know so I could get the appropriate version from Tech. Support? My whole organization (really, I'm not kidding) is anxiously awaiting SnapMirror which is available in 5.3.x. However, I can't install the new version if I can't backup the servers. Thanks Tom

1 0

Re: show_therm
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 01 Aug '99

01 Aug '99

On 07/30/99 21:27:32 you wrote: >Netapp - why do you do these things >to me?!?!?!?!? > >Graham Graham - why would you rely on undocumented and unsupported commands and risk disappointing your management?!?!? Bruce

6 5

Re:ISP_2100: cmd opcode 0x28, retry count 0: command timeout, aborting request error
by raster＠netapp.com 01 Aug '99

01 Aug '99

>Can anyone shed some light on the error below? It looks like it is just a >media error which was recovered from, but I wanted verification. > Thank you, > Mike > > >Wed May 12 00:13:03 EDT [isp2100_timeout]: 8.45 (cmd opcode 0x28, retry >count 0): command timeout, aborting request >Wed May 12 00:13:03 EDT [isp2100_timeout]: isp2100_reset_device: device 8.45 >(1.45) Hi Mike, The above message sequence is a symptom of SCSI command timeout. As part of timeout recovery, the device in question is reset and all pending commands are reissued. Hope this helps. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Radek Aster [ raster_at_netapp_dot_com ] | "I bike, therefore I am" http://www.nowhere.net/~raster/ | - Rene' DesBiketes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6 11

Re: show_therm
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 01 Aug '99

01 Aug '99

>As you can see, we have created a bit of a mess for ourselves. Slowly >but surely we are going to dig our way out. I don't mean to be a skeptic but you've been giving this idea the same lip service for years. I'm sure you're committed to it, but the real challenge will come in sticking with it every release. Anyway, the real problem was the disconnect between engineering and support. As another customer pointed out, support started handing out this information at first as-needed for problem troubleshooting and then later in actual courses. This issue should have been seen coming. But until it is resolved, I do think that customers who rely on such commands are making a mistake. Even Netapp's high level of support is only going to get you so far if you make too many assumptions about unsupported stuff. Bruce

2 1

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 August 1999