toasters September 1999

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

81 participants
95 discussions

Re: NetApp versus Dell
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 13 Sep '99

13 Sep '99

On 09/13/99 14:48:27 you wrote: >At present they are re-badged systems with different shelves. They were >much cheaper here than NetApp's though I don't feel that Dell have >their routines completely sorted out yet so there can be some logistic >hassles with your purchase. IIRC their European plant is in Ireland so >you may have an advantage there. Dell seem best at delivering shrink >wrapped solutions. I have heard of problems with Dell sales & support as well. For instance, one customer who specifically said they wanted to use a Dell system to support their Microsoft SQL database wound up going with SAN and another vendor because they were not informed of Microsoft allowing NAS support for their SQL database on Netapp filers specifically. Bruce

1 0

Re: NetApp versus Dell
by Michael Salmon 13 Sep '99

13 Sep '99

+----- On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 13:11:16 BST, Colm Buckley writes: | | Quickie from someone in the last stages of speccing and sourcing filer | solutions... has anyone got any experience of the Dell PowerVault NAS | systems? They look very much like re-badged NetApp F720-F760s, with one | or two small differences. | | Anyone have any points either pro or con these systems, versus the | NetApp equivalents? At present they are re-badged systems with different shelves. They were much cheaper here than NetApp's though I don't feel that Dell have their routines completely sorted out yet so there can be some logistic hassles with your purchase. IIRC their European plant is in Ireland so you may have an advantage there. Dell seem best at delivering shrink wrapped solutions. Pro: much cheaper. Con: Dell is an uncertain quantity as yet. /Michael

1 0

Re: maxfiles increase - good rule of thumb?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 13 Sep '99

13 Sep '99

On 09/12/99 21:09:53 you wrote: > >Greetings, > >We're about to hit 100% in inode usage again and this time, I want to >increase `maxfiles' to a more reasonable level than the current 1 per 32KB >allocation. > >The average file size on our 216GB volume is ~4KB. But I think increasing >maxfiles by 8 times might be a bit risky. Or maybe not. Anyone ever >increase maxfiles from 1 per 32KB to 1 per 4KB? > >Just to play it safe, I'm thinking of doing it in 4KB increments... first >increase to 1 per 28KB and then work my way up if I need it. > >Suggestions or testimonials? I don't think this is the best approach to use. Rather, consider how full your filesystem currently is. If you're using 50% now, then a simply extrapolation is to simply double the current maxfiles number (don't think in terms of inodes/KB) and you should be fine. Or, if you don't want the hassle of monitoring your maxfiles, consider the max expansion for your filer and adjust upward based on current usage. The space/performance penalty for having a maxfiles a few times larger than you actually use is minimal. Personally, whenever I've had a filer go over 90% inode usage, I would generally just bump maxfiles up by 50% (total) if the disk is also close to getting full, or double it if I have a new filer that I am planning to add a lot more to in the near future. Bruce

1 0

maxfiles increase - good rule of thumb?
by Kevin Ying 12 Sep '99

12 Sep '99

Greetings, We're about to hit 100% in inode usage again and this time, I want to increase `maxfiles' to a more reasonable level than the current 1 per 32KB allocation. The average file size on our 216GB volume is ~4KB. But I think increasing maxfiles by 8 times might be a bit risky. Or maybe not. Anyone ever increase maxfiles from 1 per 32KB to 1 per 4KB? Just to play it safe, I'm thinking of doing it in 4KB increments... first increase to 1 per 28KB and then work my way up if I need it. Suggestions or testimonials? ~~~ Kevin Ying / Sysadmin Team Leader interQ, Inc. kevin(a)interq.or.jp Infoss Tower 10/F (vox) +81-3-5456-2555 20-1 Sakuragaoka-cho (fax) +81-3-5456-2556 Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 150-0031, JP

2 1

Re: local vs. network backup for F740's
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 11 Sep '99

11 Sep '99

On 09/10/99 10:50:46 you wrote: > >Hi all. > >We have several F740's with about 400GB each, and we are reexcamining >our backup strategy. I would prefer a centralized, network backup over >a dedicated backup network. I don't understand the difference between the two. I mean you can have both. I suppose by the former you mean doing it over your regular network instead of a new one, which is fine, so long as you have the bandwidth for it. >We've heard rumours that the only >reasonable way to backup filers is using a locally attached DLT drive, >and that we must buy an expensive ($700) NetApp SCSI controller card >before we attempt to do a local backup. AFAIK, the 740 should have come with a tape backup card that supports something like 2 tape drives. Just make sure you have the right kind of SCSI for it. >Does this make sense to you >all? What is the conventional wisdom on the ideal way to backup >multiple filers? Personally, I prefer the local backup, depending on your backup scheme. You can back up everything at once without drive or bandwidth contention and the cost is not outrageous. But if you want to use network backup, I think that is fine too. However I would be wary of using NDMP, which historically has had problems. Then again, if you are using a centralized tape robotic and want all the features and stuff, NDMP may be your only choice. Bruce

1 0

Re: Uses for an old Storageshelf 1?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 11 Sep '99

11 Sep '99

On 09/10/99 10:09:21 you wrote: >We have a mix of old Ss1s with some Ss2s on a F520 and -- in the >neverending quest for more diskspace -- we may need to replace the Ss1 >with something that holds more. Could a retired Ss1 be hooked up to, say, >a linux box with any old SCSI adapter? Not necessarily doing RAID, just >as a series of 4gb disks. Anyone recycled an old Ss1 in that fashion? Yes. Each disk will appear with a different SCSI ID. Bruce

1 0

local vs. network backup for F740's
by Vance Huntley 10 Sep '99

10 Sep '99

Hi all. We have several F740's with about 400GB each, and we are reexcamining our backup strategy. I would prefer a centralized, network backup over a dedicated backup network. We've heard rumours that the only reasonable way to backup filers is using a locally attached DLT drive, and that we must buy an expensive ($700) NetApp SCSI controller card before we attempt to do a local backup. Does this make sense to you all? What is the conventional wisdom on the ideal way to backup multiple filers? Vance

5 4

attaching a 7-tape stacker
by Dave Toal 10 Sep '99

10 Sep '99

Folks, Hey, all. Another question from the peanut gallery: I recently attached a Sun DLT 4700 (7-tape stacker, one dlt) to a netapp F330. The netapp appears to've recognized the dlt. troi-netapp-fddi> sysconfig -t Tape drive (9b.4) Digital DLT4700 rst0l - rewind device, format is: 42500 bpi 2.6GB nrst0l - no rewind device, format is: 42500 bpi 2.6GB ... I'm trying to set up the tape changer as a Veritas NetBackup storage device, which involves determining what the netapp believes is the robotic device name, controller number, and scsi id of the attached changer. The command syntax is set_ndmp_attr -robot <ndmp server> <robotic device name> <robot controller number> <scsi id of robotic control> <lun of robotic control>. The example given is "set_ndmp_attr -robot toaster spt0 2 3 0". The manual then goes on to say: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: The NetApp file server currently provides no method for determining robotic information. You will have to reference the vendor manuals, check the physical configuration (jumpers and so on), and try different combinations with the set_ndmp_attr command in order to determine the correct information. After each try with the set_ndmp_attr command, use tsdtest and tldtest to check communication with the robot. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is this true? Is spt0 a valid netapp robotic device name? Dave troi-netapp-fddi> sysconfig NetApp Release 5.2.1: Thu Dec 31 12:11:38 PST 1998 System ID: 0016782535 (troi-netapp-fddi) slot 0: System Board Memory Size: 192 MB slot 0: SCSI Host Adapter 0 7 Disks: 28.0GB In-Band Enclosure Services slot 0: Ethernet Controller e0 MAC Address: 00:a0:98:00:05:65 (tp-up) slot 2: FDDI Network Adapter f2 MAC Address: 00:00:f8:60:09:c1 (Fiber) slot 4: Dual SCSI Host Adapter SCSI Host Adapter 4a 7 Disks: 28.0GB In-Band Enclosure Services SCSI Host Adapter 4b 7 Disks: 28.0GB In-Band Enclosure Services slot 6: NVRAM Memory Size: 4 MB slot 9: Dual SCSI Host Adapter SCSI Host Adapter 9a 7 Disks: 28.0GB In-Band Enclosure Services SCSI Host Adapter 9b 1 Tape: DLT4700 In-Band Enclosure Services troi-netapp-fddi>

1 0

F330 & ONTAP versions
by Jay Orr 09 Sep '99

09 Sep '99

I was talking with a tech today fixing problems I experienced upgrading our F330 from 4.2a to 5.3.2r1, and I asked if this was the last release for the F330's, since after February you can't purchase a software support for these filers. He said he hadn't heard about the end-of-support on the F330's, but mentioned that 5.4 is scheduled for Feb. My question is, will 5.4 be available for the F330's or is 5.3.2r1 the last release that'll work on the F330s ?? ----------- Fujitsu - Nexion, St. Louis, MO Jay Orr (314) 579-6517

1 0

hooking up laptop to a filer
by leonard.galinsky＠philips.com 08 Sep '99

08 Sep '99

The information contained in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or reproduction is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Hello people, I've just received a new F720 and a want to hookup a laptop with hyperterminal to the filer. Can anybody tell me how to configure the laptop/hypertermial to get it started? TIA, Jan & Leonard

3 2

← 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