toasters September 1999

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

81 participants
95 discussions

Veritas netbackup 3.2 and Ontap 5.3.2(D3)
by Menachem Kaiser 24 Sep '99

24 Sep '99

Hi, Has anyone started using Veritas netbackup version 3.2 with Ontap 5.3.2(D3) or just plain Ontap 5.3.2. Before upgrading our backup software, we would like to here from other sites that have experienced this upgrade. Thanks Manny

4 4

Backup formats
by Jay Orr 23 Sep '99

23 Sep '99

Hi all! I remember a spate of conversation about backup formats. Currently we have two F330's now running 5.3.2r1 and have two sun servers running budtool. One is at 4.6, the other is 4.6.1. I found out as of 4.6.1 that they are no longer supporting the "dump.FAServer" dump. I have never been able to find documentation on what exactly this is (nor could the tech I spoke with at legato), but that is how the filers have been backed up. Now, if someone could be kind enough to answer a few confused questions : 1) is the FAServer dump like a tar snapshot? One selling point on other backup software I've been pitched is that NDMP can only be restored to the toaster, it's a non-standard format and can't be restored to a host then a toaster. 2) Does NDMP save info of where on the hard disk it is? I thought I read that somewhere, which means you can't backup one filer then restore it on another... 3) Can someone give me a comparison of the different methods of backing up a toaster? I.e. what is FASserver and NDMP? Thanks! ----------- Fujitsu - Nexion, St. Louis, MO Jay Orr (314) 579-6517

1 0

RE: IIS and Netapp Compatibility
by Sam Schorr 22 Sep '99

22 Sep '99

Jay, Yes, we are doing this very thing. We have 12 IIS servers (and several others) using regular UNC path calls to user content created and stored on 2 F740's and 2 F760's. You do not, and should not, use mapped drives as these only persist with a user logged into your IIS servers. The IUSR#### NT Account user that IIS runs under will be the security context for access to the UNC. All you need do is make a share on the filer through the documented Server Manager function, make sure the NT user account IIS runs under has at least Change rights to the share, then use that in you IIS setup or ASP's, dll's, whatever. -----Original Message----- From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 1:51 PM To: Jay Querusio Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: IIS and Netapp Compatibility On Tue, Sep 21, 1999 at 01:03:15PM -0400, Jay Querusio wrote: > Hi, > > Is anyone using IIS as a front end to the Netapp. We would like to have IIS > through a mapped drive serve ASP, JavaScript, and Html pages that are stored > on the Netapp. Can this be done and is anyone doing it now? We are using a F740 as storage for two IIS4.0 Webservers (and a couple of Apache/Solaris webservers). IIS refers to the websites via UNC paths, not with a mapped drive. > If so, does anyone know if there are any bench mark tests out there that we > could try? Sorry, no. > We are currently running 5.3D20 We are using ONTAP 5.12. -- i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 721 6635 330 Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 721 6635 349 Vincenz-Priessnitz-Str. 3 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: hostmaster(a)xlink.net [ Xlink Internet Service GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe ] [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Prof. Michael Rotert ]

1 0

RE: Remote Backup Options
by Melvin, Grant 22 Sep '99

22 Sep '99

Hi Menachem, I think this link is what you are looking for. http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/contents/TIP/TIP_605.shtml <http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/contents/TIP/TIP_605.shtml> Cheers, Grant

1 0

RE: Remote Backup Options
by Melvin, Grant 22 Sep '99

22 Sep '99

Hi Benjy, Veritas added support for 3-way NDMP backups to NetBackup (NBU) 3.2. Data ONTAP has supported 3-way NDMP backups since we supported NDMP v2 in 4.x. HOWEVER, during certification of NBU 3.2 & 5.3.2 we recognized that 3-way restores weren't functioning completely in *every* scenario that we tested with NBU & we tracked this down to issues on *both* sides. These issues are being addressed, but won't be certified/supported until a follow-on release of Data ONTAP is released (currently scheduled for the end of October '99). Cheers, Grant -----Original Message----- From: Benjy Feen [mailto:benjy@feen.com] Sent: Monday, August 02, 1999 10:23 AM To: Steve Kappel Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Remote Backup Options Steve: Since you seem to know both sides of the NDMP debate here, let me ask you: is there ANY NetBackup/NetApp configuration which allows 3-way NDMP backups? On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Steve Kappel wrote: > >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) > Benjy Feen benjy(a)feen.com There is no spoon.

2 1

Multiple entries in a directory
by Dave Atkin 22 Sep '99

22 Sep '99

We recently used the "rsh filer1 dump ... | rsh filer2 restore ..." method to copy lots of user files to a new filer. We got a small number of errors, like: RESTORE: Warning: cannot rename /fsb/soci/cmm104/ini/PINERC to /fsb/soci/cmm104/ini/RSTTMP01071733 (8.3 name ~MKN0100.7~0): No such file or directory and then at the end: RESTORE: bad entry: incomplete operations RESTORE: name: ./cmm104/ini/RSTTMP01071733 RESTORE: parent name ./cmm104/ini RESTORE: sibling name: ./cmm104/ini/host-news.york.ac.uk RESTORE: entry type: LEAF RESTORE: inode number: 1071733 RESTORE: flags: TMPNAME When we looked at the source directories, we found that they had two identical entries, pointing to different inodes: # cd /usr/fsa/soci/cmm104/ini # ls -li total 48 2411623 -rwxr--r-- 1 cmm104 soci 11222 Apr 21 1998 PINERC 707049 -rwxr--r-- 1 cmm104 soci 11222 Apr 21 1998 PINERC The files were all PINERC files as generated by the PC-Pine application. Some were old but others were quite recent. Anyone else seen anything like this? [We ran wacky on the source filestore a couple of months ago to fix a different problem]. We're running 5.2.2P1. Dave Atkin ------------------------------------------------------ Dave Atkin, Head of Technical Services Computing Service, University of York, YORK YO10 5DD Phone: +44-1904-433804 (ddi) Fax: +44-1904-433740 Email: D.Atkin(a)york.ac.uk ------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: tech support waits
by Skinner, Alistair 21 Sep '99

21 Sep '99

Todd, Thanks for the feedback. Glad you like the improvements on NOW! In fact we've many more in the pipeline, including realtime case updates (they're still batched up today). You should see some more changes roll out next month. Hey, don't give up on submitting your cases through NOW! yet either. As a direct result of your feedback, we've changed the process for handling them. You're right we can't expect you to use it if we don't provide consistent response. So as of yesterday (Monday 20th) all cases submitted through NOW! get expidited service, which is tracked and reported daily to me. Thanks for your continued support and feedback. Alistair -----Original Message----- From: Todd C. Merrill [mailto:tmerrill@mathworks.com] Sent: Thursday, September 16, 1999 2:02 PM To: Skinner, Alistair Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: tech support waits On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Todd C. Merrill wrote: > I am getting frustrated with the response time from tech support. [rest of diatribe deleted] On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Skinner, Alistair wrote: > Our preferred method of online access is through the web. Using the email > option from within a case view gives you a pre-formatted subject line to > make sure the email is attached to the case in our system. The comments field > can also be used. Unfortunately currently there can be up to a day delay between > you > submitting something and it getting into our system as these updates are > batched. > We expect to have an enhanced version implemented in the next two months which > will > include immediate updates directly to the case. I have a good response and a bad response to this response. First, the good. I like what has been done to the NOW site. Getting to a final destination (ONTAP updates, case searches, etc.) requires a lot less clicking and the responsiveness seems much improved. Bravo. However, I recently entered a case into the system via the NOW site for a tech support issue. *Nine* days later I got first response from an engineer on the case. (Luckily, it wasn't a critical issue.) With a response time like that, I am not encouraged to use the web/email way of calling in for tech support. [0] Throw some more manpower on the phones, 'cause that's how I'll be entering tech support cases in the future. [1] (There's not much else to say on this case, but if you want to talk to me about it, Alistair, give a call.) [0] This is generally true of most tech support calls I make, to NetApp or other companies. Email/web requests are treated as second class, lower-priority calls. If you (enter-your-favorite-company's-tech- support-organization-here) want us to save you time by entering data into your system, the least you could do is respond to the calls with equal priority. [1] [1] Forgive the attitude. Having a bad week....bad weather....bad machines....bad network....stress headaches. Grrrr.... Until next time... The Mathworks, Inc. 508-647-7000 x7792 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick, MA 01760-2098 508-647-7001 FAX tmerrill(a)mathworks.com http://www.mathworks.com ---

1 0

RE: tech support waits
by Mohler, Jeff 21 Sep '99

21 Sep '99

>Furthermore, the customer information is not going to be kept up to date >by many sites. IT professionals have too much to do as it is; one reason >why *you* are paid for *support* is so that *you* do some of that work. >It is not unreasonable for support to try to keep their records updated. --- I dont know the entire structure behind the technical support data dug out of the autosupport messages, but if when you got your filer, you registered on the NOW site, your system serial number should be cross referenced with the latest/greatest contact data your organization has provided us. Now, if the automated scripting, or in-place procedures do not cross reference that data..then it should be (knock knock on GSC..can you clarify this please) updated. Critical information such as who you are, and how we can best reach you isnt something any support team can be asked to proactively consult a customer for. You know best when your environment changes. I am a former customer of NetApp, and now an employee..so..dont flame on me too hard *grin* and if you must, flame me as Id flame anything else. Medium rare, charred, and with a nice dousing of HP sauce please. *grin* --- Jeff Mohler Professional Services Engineer jmohler(a)netapp.com

4 3

IIS and Netapp Compatibility
by Jay Querusio 21 Sep '99

21 Sep '99

Hi, Is anyone using IIS as a front end to the Netapp. We would like to have IIS through a mapped drive serve ASP, JavaScript, and Html pages that are stored on the Netapp. Can this be done and is anyone doing it now? If so, does anyone know if there are any bench mark tests out there that we could try? We are currently running 5.3D20 Thanks for your help in advance, Jay

2 1

autosupport mail (Was RE: tech support waits)
by Garrett Burke 21 Sep '99

21 Sep '99

Hi Diptish, With regards to NetApp starting to use the autosupport mail for automated suggestion of bug fixes might I suggest two things: a) That the contents of the autosupport mail be made configurable For example I like autosupport mail, but I don't like the NT Share ACLs, usernames nor connected hosts being included as this leaks internal security information (running 5.2.1). The mails are already in sections so your automated system could use these to see what info is avalable in the mail. I understand that the more information that I provide to support the quicker the fix, but it's a shame that it might be an all or nothing decision as regards auto support. b) Provide your customers with the same scripts that you use to process autosupport so it can be done on site or at least provide a 'what to look for in autosupport mails' guide right down to the nitty gritty like 'If nbt disconnects are more than .1% of your total CIFS operations then you should investigate for possible network problems' (Given the info & the time I'd write my own scripts and use qpage to page me when things got nasty. I'd happily share such scripts) Providing the customers with the scripts would allow those sites that don't want to run autosupport mails the ability to place a support call and be able to give more info than at present e.g. 'I'm running 5.3.2 and autosupport processing script v1.3 is giving a problem #44 - disk showing recurring errors' It's in our (i.e. filer users) interest to provide as much info as possible to help CS solve the problem and NetApp can help us to provide that info. Support is a two way thing. Thanks for taking the time to listen to users comments Regards, GB. > ---------- > From: Datta, Diptish[SMTP:diptish.datta@netapp.com] > Sent: 21 September 1999 07:11 > To: 'sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com' > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: tech support waits > >

2 1

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
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 September 1999