toasters January 2000

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

120 participants
129 discussions

RE: Connecting to Netapps via additional domains
by Bond, Andrew 25 Jan '00

25 Jan '00

Hi Simon, You should open a call with NetApp support. However, before you do that, you might find it helpful to enable the "cifs.trace_login" option and watch the console when the new users try to access the filer - you should get some useful error messages. I suspect your problem is the Windows account names do not map to existing Unix UID/GID's. If you do need to speak to support, you would need to clarify exactly what you mean by "I cannot create CIFS shares for this domain". Regards, Andrew > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dl-toasters(a)netapp.com > [mailto:owner-dl-toasters@netapp.com]On Behalf Of Clawson, Simon > Sent: 25 January 2000 09:06 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Connecting to Netapps via additional domains > > > Hi Guys! > > I am trying to set out F520 up to see users on an additional > NT domain. We > have a domani with a PDC that "TAP" sees OK. USers from this > domain can > login and access data on the filer. Then we have a second > domain, with its > own PDC, which has a trusting and trusted relationship with > the first PDC. I > am now trying to add a third domain to this complicated loop. > This domain > has trustings and trusted relationships with both the exiting > PDC's but > still users on this domain cannot see TAP. > > I cannot create CIFS shares for this domain either, which > suggests that TAP > cannot see the third PDC. Any help would be greatly appreciated. > > Bye for now > > Simon > > > Simon Clawson > System Administrator (Renoir Group) > > Mentor Graphics > Rivergate > Newbury Business Park > Newbury > Berkshire > 44 (0)1635 811409 (tel) > 44 (0)1635 810102 (fax) > > 0410 508221 (mobile) > 01523 166385 (pager) > > > >

1 0

Connecting to Netapps via additional domains
by Clawson, Simon 25 Jan '00

25 Jan '00

Hi Guys! I am trying to set out F520 up to see users on an additional NT domain. We have a domani with a PDC that "TAP" sees OK. USers from this domain can login and access data on the filer. Then we have a second domain, with its own PDC, which has a trusting and trusted relationship with the first PDC. I am now trying to add a third domain to this complicated loop. This domain has trustings and trusted relationships with both the exiting PDC's but still users on this domain cannot see TAP. I cannot create CIFS shares for this domain either, which suggests that TAP cannot see the third PDC. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Bye for now Simon Simon Clawson System Administrator (Renoir Group) Mentor Graphics Rivergate Newbury Business Park Newbury Berkshire 44 (0)1635 811409 (tel) 44 (0)1635 810102 (fax) 0410 508221 (mobile) 01523 166385 (pager)

1 0

RE: Adding a spare to a Volume
by Bond, Andrew 23 Jan '00

23 Jan '00

If the addition happens instantly it means the disks were pre-zeroed. If the disks are not pre-zeroed but support fast-zero, then the time taken will be much less than if they don't. As far as I am aware, none of the 4GB drives support fast-zero. The difference is significant - either in the region of 30 minutes (fast-zero) or anything up to several hours (depends on the filer they are attached to). When you initialise a filesystem, a 2-disk FS is created and all other disks are zeroed and configured as spares. Regards, Andrew > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dl-toasters(a)netapp.com > [mailto:owner-dl-toasters@netapp.com]On Behalf Of mark > Sent: 23 January 2000 04:14 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Adding a spare to a Volume > > > On Fri 21 Jan, 2000, "Bruce Sterling Woodcock" > <sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Stephen C. Woods <scw(a)seas.ucla.edu> > > To: toasters <toasters(a)mathworks.com> > > Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 12:10 PM > > Subject: Adding a spare to a Volume > > > > > The seems to be a big difference in how a 5.1.2R3 > system with 4GB disks > > > and a 5.3.4R2 system with 36BG disks adds a spare disk > to a volume. > > > > > > With 5.1.2R3 you get a message to the effect of: > > > Zeroing disk, this will take forever, check progress > with sysconfig -r > > > > > > With 5.3.4R2 it happens right away, no delay. > <snip> > > <what Bruce said> > > 4) It's also conceivable that the 36GB disks have a fast-zero > capability > that the 4GB disks did not. I seem to recall, when zeroing a filer for > a complete rebuild, seeing a message to the effect that if was lucky > the disks would do the trick for me, and if I wasn't that it > would take > forever. They were 4GB disks and took forever. > > >-- End of excerpt from "Bruce Sterling Woodcock" > > -- > -Mark ... an Englishman in London ... >

1 0

Re: Adding a spare to a Volume
by mds＠gbnet.net 23 Jan '00

23 Jan '00

On Fri 21 Jan, 2000, "Bruce Sterling Woodcock" <sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Stephen C. Woods <scw(a)seas.ucla.edu> > To: toasters <toasters(a)mathworks.com> > Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 12:10 PM > Subject: Adding a spare to a Volume > > > The seems to be a big difference in how a 5.1.2R3 system with 4GB disks > > and a 5.3.4R2 system with 36BG disks adds a spare disk to a volume. > > > > With 5.1.2R3 you get a message to the effect of: > > Zeroing disk, this will take forever, check progress with sysconfig -r > > > > With 5.3.4R2 it happens right away, no delay. <snip> <what Bruce said> 4) It's also conceivable that the 36GB disks have a fast-zero capability that the 4GB disks did not. I seem to recall, when zeroing a filer for a complete rebuild, seeing a message to the effect that if was lucky the disks would do the trick for me, and if I wasn't that it would take forever. They were 4GB disks and took forever. >-- End of excerpt from "Bruce Sterling Woodcock" -- -Mark ... an Englishman in London ...

1 0

Re: by the way......
by dnb＠ccs.neu.edu 23 Jan '00

23 Jan '00

Linda Walton <lwalton(a)reasoning.com> writes: > I just found out this afternoon that the HW/SW support contract > for our filers had expired on 12/31/1999. Hmmm, I assumed that > someone would have contacted us before it expired instead of > finding out while trying to download OS on the now.netapp website. We had something similar happen (except ours had been out for 2 mos. before *I* noticed it). I was pretty peeved. Luckily our brandy-new sales rep hopped right on the ball when I called him (maybe it was the rep switch which caused the problem, dunno). Luckily we had no problems which forced a support call, or I would have been livid. > To the Network Appliance Corp. readers; is there some way to > find out when the support expires without contacting my sales rep? Yes, the now.netapp.com has a support contract area. I was idly browsing it when I came upon our lapse. I agree, it would be a good thing if the mothership mailed people before their contracts ran out. This leads me think I might want to write a generalized agent which checked the web sites of my vendors looking for this sort of thing (we had this lapse in Cisco-land once as well). Shouldn't be too hard. If I did, would someone be interested in this? > By the way, I would not trade my filers for all the money in > world but this kind of nonsense makes me crazier. Ditto (well, ok, I probably have my price). Peace, dNb

1 0

slow copies from Netapp, very fast to copy up to the Netapp
by adam-s＠pacbell.net 22 Jan '00

22 Jan '00

Hello, We are new to the Netapp and are having the problem that while copying from the Netapp to either an NT (CIFS) or Sun Solaris 2.6 box (NFS), the throughput ranges from 24K/sec to 79K/sec. Copying from an NT or Sun is wonderfully fast (we have trunked the Quad Ethernet). I only know NFS but am working with the NT guys. On the NFS side, I tried a larger packet size (32K instead of 8K), I tried vers 2 and 3, I tried UDP and TCP, and I tried various combos and permuations. I tried all this even though I believe it must be some configuration parameter on the Netapp *common* to both the CIFS stuff and NFS. We are currently running 5.3.1 so please let me know if you think 5.3.4 will help or even fix it. The two of us both searched NOW and found CIFS or NFS specific troubleshooting stuff which we tried. We also looked through the archives. We are stumped. I am wondering if we forgot to configure something obvious. We have not done a lot of "tuning" on the NetApp, most of the posts here refer to tuning tips on the client side and I am going to try some of that too but first the basic problem needs to be resolved. I have included the output of the options command in the hopes that something there. thanks for any help/advice you can give Adam netapp1> options autosupport.doit DONT autosupport.enable on autosupport.from adamh(a)my.dom.ain autosupport.mailhost mailhost.my.dom.ain autosupport.noteto autosupport.to autosupport@netapp.com,adam@my.dom.ain,etc. cifs.access_logging.enable off cifs.access_logging.file_name /etc/log/adtlog.evt cifs.bypass_traverse_checking on cifs.guest_account cifs.home_dir /vol/vol0/home cifs.idle_timeout 1800 cifs.netbios_aliases cifs.oplocks.enable on cifs.perm_check_use_gid on cifs.save_case off cifs.scopeid cifs.search_domains cifs.show_snapshot off cifs.symlinks.cycleguard on cifs.symlinks.enable on cifs.trace_login off console.encoding nfs dns.domainname my.dom.ain dns.enable on ftpd.enable off httpd.admin.enable on httpd.enable off httpd.log.max_file_size 2147483647 httpd.rootdir XXX httpd.timeout 900 httpd.timewait.enable off https.admin.enable off ip.match_any_ifaddr on ip.path_mtu_discovery.enable on nfs.mount_rootonly on nfs.per_client_stats.enable on nfs.tcp.enable on nfs.udp.xfersize 32768 nfs.v2.df_2gb_lim off nfs.v3.enable off nfs.webnfs.enable off nfs.webnfs.rootdir XXX nfs.webnfs.rootdir.set off nis.domainname nis.enable off pcnfsd.enable off pcnfsd.umask 22 raid.reconstruct_speed 4 raid.scrub.enable on raid.timeout 24 rsh.enable on snmp.enable on ssh.enable off telnet.enable on telnet.hosts * timed.enable off timed.log off timed.max_skew 30m timed.proto ntp timed.sched hourly timed.servers vol.copy.throttle 10 wafl.convert_ucode off wafl.create_ucode off wafl.default_nt_user wafl.default_unix_user pcuser wafl.maxdirsize 10240 wafl.nt_admin_priv_map_to_root on wafl.root_only_chown on wafl.wcc_minutes_valid 20 netapp1> email: a d a m - s (a t) p a c b e l l d o t n e t

8 9

RE: slow copies from Netapp, very fast to copy up to the Netapp
by Fox, Adam 22 Jan '00

22 Jan '00

> I believe this is a limitation of all the current trunking > technologies > (at least, the one that Sun, Cisco, NetApp, and 3Com use for 100bT in > any case). > > IMHO, if the filer is to be primarily used as a backend for one large > ORACLE box, and you need bandwidth between them, put gigabit NICs in > at each end. You could even just cross-over the fibre cable for a > point-point connection if you didn't need gigabit between anything > else at the start (and use the 100bT onboard to talk to the other > clients). Exactly. Many EtherChannel and EtherChannel-style trunking algorithms use MAC addresses to distribute the data down the pipes of a trunk. Therefore, if you only have 1 client, these implementations will only use one pipe. NetApp simply reflects the response down the same pipe the request came in on. So if you only have 1 client, Gbit is the way to go...nice big pipe. You get no throughput advantadge from a multi-trunk due to these switch algorithms. Hope this helps. -- Adam Fox, CCNA, CNX - Ethernet NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com

2 1

Adding a spare to a Volume
by Stephen C. Woods 21 Jan '00

21 Jan '00

The seems to be a big difference in how a 5.1.2R3 system with 4GB disks and a 5.3.4R2 system with 36BG disks adds a spare disk to a volume. With 5.1.2R3 you get a message to the effect of: Zeroing disk, this will take forever, check progress with sysconfig -r With 5.3.4R2 it happens right away, no delay. Clearly this is great, however we wonder exactly when the zeroing took place (this is a brand new system just installed yesterday). Do the disks come zeroed from the factory? Or, does the system zero the drive when the drive is installed as a spare? ----- Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASnet; 2567 Boelter hall; LA CA 90095; (310)-825-8614 Finger for public key scw(a)cirrus.seas.ucla.edu,Internet mail:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU

2 1

NetApp tests with postmark
by E Hunter 21 Jan '00

21 Jan '00

Does anyone have experience with postmark giving negative numbers when reporting performance? Heres an example: Time: 311 seconds total 281 seconds of transactions (35 per second) Files: 5903 created (18 per second) Creation alone: 1500 files (50 per second) Mixed with transactions: 4403 files (15 per second) 2833 read (10 per second) 4486 appended (15 per second) 5903 deleted (18 per second) Deletion alone: 2289 files (2289 per second) Mixed with transactions: 2903 files (10 per second) Data: -1614.75 megabytes read (-5.19 megabytes per second) -2023.98 megabytes written (-6.51 megabytes per second) pm>finished at Wed Jan 12 04:27:17 EST 2000 -5.19 MB /s ?! What's up with that and how can I fix it? -- Eric Hunter System Administrator _______________________ Gigaton.com, Inc. 1200 Brickell Ave. STE 680 Miami, FL 33131 Ph: +1 (305) 373 2002 Fax: +1 (305) 373 2034 _______________________ eric(a)gigaton.com

3 3

Replacement disk not in /etc/qual_devices -- caused both filers of a failover pair to halt?
by Dave Toal 21 Jan '00

21 Jan '00

Folks, Not to detract from the nfs tuning discussion that's shaping up, but... one quick question on failover pair behaviour. Like the subject says: the 'unqualified disk' error showed up on the lcd of both filers (740's) when we swapped the replacement disk. Both filers halted. This is normal and good, yes? Or not? The fix worked, but I still wonder if disk-failover config is 100% correct. Dave

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...
13
Older →

2025

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 January 2000