toasters August 1999

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

104 participants
129 discussions

Re: Parts source for end of life products?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 31 Aug '99

31 Aug '99

On 08/30/99 16:41:59 you wrote: > > > >On Mon, 30 Aug 1999 sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > >> A cautionary note - much of the supposedly "in-spec" memory Kingston >> or other vendors sell is not capable of handling the strict timing >> and loading requirements of a Netapp filer. > >This sounds like FUD. In fact it sounds like something Kingston would say >about other memory vendors. Do you have data to substantiate this? I'm sure Netapp might provide the data under NDA if you asked. I was speaking personally, however. I have *personally* seen tested Kingston memory come in and fail during internal testing on a filer. I have *personally* seen Netapp test filers they build for customers and have the memory in them fail and have to be replaced and re-tested before shipping to the customer. I have *personally* seen filers experience crashes and spontaneous reboots due to having the right memory in the right slots. I have *personally* seen the poor timing traces on oscilliscopes as EE's examines the problem. >I'm >not saying don't buy memory from NetApp. We buy it there and will >continue to buy it there because we want to maintain our service >agreements. However, since you're making claims that memory sold by >NetApp is superior please show me the data from an independent source. How could an independent source exist? You ask the impossible. But if you could get the data from all customers and somehow verify the source of the memory in them, I think you'd see a difference. It just stands to reason. Kingston sells memory to Netapp that has a certain known possibility of failure. Kingston sells that same memory to you, the consumer. Netapp does additional testing and gets some memory to fail before selling it to you, the consumer. Statistically the memory you get from Netapp has to have a lower failure rate. If the testing didn't do anything, why would Netapp bother? The same goes for the disk drives. Jeff Sloan has said they've now certified certain "direct from vendor" parts to be as good as Netapp supplied memory. My guess is either they have stepped down their internal testing, or the difference in failure rate has become too minimal to matter. Bruce

3 2

Re: OS releases
by Tom Yates 31 Aug '99

31 Aug '99

On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Graham C. Knight wrote: > I suppose i could start my own NetApp OS mailing list and call tech > support for a weekly OS status. :-) Whaddya think? it's not worth the pain. trust me on this. that being said, a periodic "new release" announcement strikes me as very useful. once every week or two, a tiny summary of what's come out of the ONTAP mothership, say. anyone? Tom Yates - Network Chap - Gatekeeper Technology, Ltd. - 07050 368852

1 0

RE: Parts source for end of life products?
by Jeff Sloan 31 Aug '99

31 Aug '99

Hello, I am in the CSR team which monitors the filer crashes that result from using non-Network Appliance approves SIMMs. The purpose of this message is to clarify the discussion that is going on with regards to Network Appliance certifying Kingston Memory for use in Netapp Filers. We have not certified ALL Kingston memory for use in Netapp filers. In fact there are only a select few that meet the demands inside our boxes. Also note that this entire discussion is in regards to the F/C200/300 line of filers only. These are the only models of Netapp Filers that we have approved third party memory for, except for our older 450/1400 models (to my knowledge). Netapp has not recommended sub standard memory. If the memory is not listed on the Network Appliance Qualified Memory list, then it is not recommended, or more importantly, not supported, in any Netapp Filer. I, personally, have had to deny support to individuals who are using non approved SIMMs. The below listed SIMMs are qualified to give the same quality service as memory that is purchased from Network Appliance directly. For reference, I have attached the list in Excel format. Here's the text version of the list: Netapp F200/300 Qualified Memory Manufacturer and Model # Data Chipset Parity Chipset (16 per SIMM) (8 per SIMM) Kingston KTM8X36L-60G Samsung KM44C4100AK-6 SAMSUNG KM41C4000CJ-6 Kingston KTM8X36L-60G NEC 4217400-60 Hitachi HM514100CS6 or Hitachi HM514100BS6 or Hitachi HD56D836BR-7A Hitachi HM5117400AS6 Hitachi HM514100CS6 or Hitachi HM514100BS6 or Hitachi HD56D836BR-6A Hitachi HM5117400AS6 Hitachi HM514100CS6 or Hitachi HM514100BS6 or Unigen UG18M83602KBG-60 Siemens HYB5117400BJ-60 Toshiba TC5117440BSJ-60 Jeff Sloan Network Appliance 408.822.4754 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dl-toasters(a)netapp.com > [mailto:owner-dl-toasters@netapp.com]On Behalf Of Shaun T. Erickson > Sent: Monday, August 30, 1999 11:55 AM > To: sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Parts source for end of life products? > > > sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > > > > On 08/30/99 23:49:43 you wrote: > > >However, the price of RAM from NetApp was 3-5x the price > (I forget exactly > > >how much) of the approved Kingston SIMM. So, we just > purchased 16 SIMMs > > >from our Kingston supplier, saving significant amounts of > cash, and we > > >kept the 4 excess SIMMS in our `hot spare' store. It > works like a charm. > > > > A cautionary note - much of the supposedly "in-spec" memory Kingston > > or other vendors sell is not capable of handling the strict timing > > and loading requirements of a Netapp filer. The reason the SIMMs > > you get from Netapp cost more is because they are tested for proper > > tolerance and inoperability. If you decide to use another source, > > you should be prepared for the chance of crashes or spontaneous > > reboots and be prepared to go through several cycles of swapping > > various SIMMs in various combinations to figure out the problem. > > Then NetApp shouldn't certify them. If I buy memory NetApp approved > memory from Kingston (and I have), I expect it to perform as well as > NetApp supplied memory. I don't expect NetApp to recommend > sub-standard > memory for me to buy. > > -ste > > -- > Work: (908) 582-7629 Pager: (800) 756-1133 Cell: (908) 672-6456 >

3 2

Re: Does the netapp support etherchannel/trunking?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 31 Aug '99

31 Aug '99

On 08/30/99 16:37:05 you wrote: >I don't believe that the NetApp implementation rememebers the interface on >which the request came in. I think that it simply remembers the last >interface on which a packet came in from a certain host. A sort of "arp" >table. I've been told in the past by software coders "in the know" that at least for some NFS/CIFS packets, Netapp indeed remembers the interface on which the request came in, and that generall the request would go out the same interface. However, certain unusual circumstances with CIFS or ATM could change that. The information I had at the time was not as strong as the statement posted here that it *always* went back out the same interface for all packets. Either the code has been beefed up to ensure this feature, or it's really more complicated than that. Bruce

1 0

Re: Parts source for end of life products?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 30 Aug '99

30 Aug '99

On 08/30/99 14:54:59 you wrote: >Then NetApp shouldn't certify them. If I buy memory NetApp approved >memory from Kingston (and I have), I expect it to perform as well as >NetApp supplied memory. I don't expect NetApp to recommend sub-standard >memory for me to buy. I don't think you understand. Even the *best* memory vendor has some memory in their "quality" bin that isn't good enough. Their testing simply isn't sufficient for the 99.9x% uptime figures that Netapp wants for their filers. Similarly, Netapp's own testing can't catch everything, and some bad apples still slip through. I suppose if Netapp was big enough, they could partner with a provider to do more quality testing for the memory. They may be big enough now, but even so it's not clear that the deal would be good for the memory provider. I don't think Netapp gaurantees that vendor supplied memory will perform as well as Netapp supplied memory, but I could be wrong. Bruce

1 0

Re: Parts source for end of life products?
by tkaczma＠gryf.net 30 Aug '99

30 Aug '99

On Mon, 30 Aug 1999 sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > A cautionary note - much of the supposedly "in-spec" memory Kingston > or other vendors sell is not capable of handling the strict timing > and loading requirements of a Netapp filer. This sounds like FUD. In fact it sounds like something Kingston would say about other memory vendors. Do you have data to substantiate this? I'm not saying don't buy memory from NetApp. We buy it there and will continue to buy it there because we want to maintain our service agreements. However, since you're making claims that memory sold by NetApp is superior please show me the data from an independent source. Tom

1 0

Does the netapp support etherchannel/trunking?
by Jaye Mathisen 30 Aug '99

30 Aug '99

Can I combine 2 100mbit pipes from a 540 or 630 to something like a Foundry switch to make a 200mbit connection? Can't get gigabit for a 540, but need a bit more oomph than 100...

6 6

Re: SUMMARY: really bad NFS write performance but NFS reads are OK
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 30 Aug '99

30 Aug '99

On 08/26/99 15:41:50 you wrote: >the fix was simple. i didn't realize that things were set up for >synchronous writes. once i set it to asynchronous mode, write performance >skyrocketed. This sounds like such a mode doesn't commit the write to stable storage before responding to the client. Sure, performance will be great, but you'll lose data and have potential corruption the first time the machine goes down. This is hardly a winning quality. >to Bruce: the performance of this box is quite good actually. NetApp >isn't the only game in town. If you price/performance, multiprotocol, and ease of use are on your agenda, Netapp *is* the only game in town. With other vendors you only get to pick 2. >i sent my question to this list because from >time to time people talk about systems from auspex, emc, and many others. Well, people on the list are free to talk about what they chose, but I think the general idea is to discuss such systems only in relation to Netapp. Not "My Auspex isn't working, any ideas?" questions. Bruce

6 5

Re: Parts source for end of life products?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 30 Aug '99

30 Aug '99

On 08/29/99 18:48:09 you wrote: > >Greetings. > >I waded through the "toaster" archives hoping to get a list of vendors >which sell parts for EOL'ed toasters but had no such luck. > >Specifically, I have an F210 which has 64Mb RAM and one shelf full of 4Gb >hard disks. I'd like to upgrade it to the lastest OS release and get some >more disk on it. Upgrading will require an additional 64Mb of RAM and for >storage I either have to find a storage shelf and some more 4Gb disks, or >replace the 4Gb disks I have with 9Gb drives. Since rack space is at a >premium, I'd just as soon move to 9Gb disks but cost and availability are >likely to be the deciding factors in the end. Well, I don't have any help to offer on finding old parts, but there may be reasons why you should upgrade to a newer filer anyway. Was the F210 ever approved to support 9GB drives? (Or for that matter, 128MB memory?) I don't recall. (Is there a maximum disk space limit on the F210?) You should also consider the load on your filer; if doubling the space will support more clients then the low-end F210 may not be able to handle it. Another thing to keep in mind is in order to move to the larger drives you will have to do something like a backup/restore. Bruce

2 1

Re: SUMMARY: really bad NFS write performance but NFS reads are OK
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 28 Aug '99

28 Aug '99

On 08/27/99 14:00:26 you wrote: > >On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > > Well, people on the list are free to talk about what they chose, but I > think the general idea is to discuss such systems only in relation to > Netapp. Not "My Auspex isn't working, any ideas?" questions. > > >I thought the list was named 'toasters', not 'netapps' for a reason. >We wouldn't want to leave the Yahoo! folks out in the cold, would we? Welcome to the toasters mailing list! Please save this message for future reference. Thank you. If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, you can send mail to <lists(a)mathworks.com> with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe toasters sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com Here's the general information for the list you've subscribed to, in case you don't already have it: This is a totally unofficial mailing list for people who have Network Appliance toasters. It is not sanctioned by Network Appliance; it is, in true Internet spirit, a pure resource and grapevine for toaster administrators. It's presently administered by Tom Yates, <owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com>. He has two F330s, in case you were wondering. 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