toasters January 2000

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

120 participants
129 discussions

RE: Problem with F630 and qualified drives
by Aiello, Tony 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

Ed, Only devices tested and qualified by NetApp are allowed in the filers. There's no allowance made for "like" drives. Conditions may arrise by using these other disks. There may be mode page settings that are hidden within the vendor specific model, format changes, etc. that could cause problems in device management or reliability. As for editing /etc/qual_devices... Changes will invalidate the file. We supply this file directly from NetApp as a reference, and to allow for second source disks without having to release new software. It is not supplied as a vehicle to alter the matrix of supported devices. Tony -------------------------- mailto:taiello@netapp.com Ph:(408)822-6515 > -----Original Message----- > From: Edward Henigin [mailto:ed@texas.net] > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 5:41 AM > To: Toasters > Cc: Michael Douglass > Subject: Re: Problem with F630 and qualified drives > > > Luke, > > Thanks for the tip. This is what we've figured out so far: > > The Seagate ST15150W and the Compaq ST15150W are the same > drive. However, the "download code revision" (as indicated on > stickers on the drives, and reported by the F630) are different. > The revision # on the Seagate is 9107, and the rev # on the Compaq > is 6213. > > If it weren't for the differing version numbers, I'd be > willing to add the Compaq line to /etc/qual_devices. Since the > Compaq looks *older* than the Seagate, I'm concerned that the > Seagate may be slightly different from the Compaq. I just don't > want data loss. > > Is anyone out there using ST15150W's with a code revision > number of less than 6213? You can see it in the sysconfig -v > output, the first number following the model number (following is > revision #9107): > > 1: SEAGATE ST15150W 9107 Size=4.0GB > (8388315 blocks) > > Ed > > -- > On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 12:26:57AM +1100, Luke Mewburn said: > > > > Take a look at /etc/qual_devices on your filer; that's probably what > > you want (from the look of it). > > > > Your milage may vary, don't blame me if it trashes your > filer, etc, etc. >

5 4

RE: Problem with F540 + 5.3.4R2 (NT authentication)
by Muhlestein, Mark 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

Puneet's suggestion is valid unless you want to enable quotas. In that case you have to have separate passwd entries for each user. That's because quotas are (currently) based only on UNIX users and groups. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Puneet Anand [mailto:puneet@netapp.com] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 12:53 PM To: Paquette, Trevor Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Problem with F540 + 5.3.4R2 (NT authentication) What does your /etc/paswd file look like ? You would need to set the wafl.default_unix_user to 'pcuser' (w/o quotes) options wafl.default_unix_user pcuser and add an entry for pcuser in your password file. like , pcuser::65534:65534::/: Hope this helps -Puneet ________ "Paquette, Trevor" wrote: > > We have an F540 that we have 're-commissioned' to internal service. > It is running OnTap 5.3.4R2 and because of the support costs, senior > management > has decided not to renew support for it.. (sigh.. not my decision..) > > Anyway.. we want to use it as a disk for internal users within our NT > domain.. > > I've configured the system as the knowledge base suggested.. but the damn > thing will NOT > authenticate users unless they have a local account in the /etc/passwd file. > This contrary to what the knowledge base says.. > > http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/contents/TIP/TIP_643.shtml > http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/contents/FAQ/FAQ_462.shtml > > Output from various commands.. > > The following command shows the system is properly registered in the NT > Domain. > > calna001> cifs sessions > Server Registers as 'CALNA001' in group 'A01AB' > Filer is using en_US for DOS users > WINS Server: 10.1.1.15 > Selected domain controller \\A01DC006 for authentication > Comment: Calgary NetApp File Server > ======================================== > PC (user) #shares #files > > The qtrees for the system (one big volume: vol0) are set properly as ntfs > calna001> qtree > Volume Tree Style Oplocks > -------- -------- ----- -------- > vol0 ntfs enabled > vol0 Common ntfs enabled > > And the shares on the system are setup properly.. > > calna001> cifs shares > Name Mount Point Description > ---- ----------- ----------- > root$ / > A01AB\a01tpaf / Full Control > Common /Common > A01AB\a01tpaf / Full Control > > When I try to mount the share.. I get the following with cifs.trace_login > turned on: > Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: Login attempt by A01AB\a01tpaf from > A05WST99 > Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: User authenticated by DC > Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: PC user name maps to UNIX user a01tpaf > Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: Unix user name not valid > > Proper login attempt, and it is authenticated by the DC.. but then the thing > looks for the user in the local /etc/passwd file.. I do NOT want this to > happen; and I should be able to do this by the knowledge base articles > listed above.. > > Virtual beer for anyone who can solve this.. > > -- > Two rights do not make a wrong. They make an airplane. > > Trevor Paquette | AT&T Canada |Work:(403)705-6390 > TrevorPaquette(a)metronet.ca |600, 205 5th Ave SW | Fax:(403)705-9601 > http://www.metronet.ca |Calgary, AB, Canada |ICBM:51'03"N/114'05"W > Senior Unix Network Architect| T2P 2V7 |Mind:In the Rockies > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael S. Keller [SMTP:mkeller@mail.wcg.net] > > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 8:43 AM > > To: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com > > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: Re: Upgrade to 534R2 - disk firmware > > > > Look in the /etc/disk_fw directory of the root volume or the 534R2 > > tarball. > > > > "Richard L. Rhodes" wrote: > > > > > > I'm currently on 5.2.2 and want to upgrade to latest recommended > > > release: 5.3.4R2. In looking at NOW and for 534R2 I find the > > > following (I have 2 F740 NetApps): > > > > > > 1) I downloaded 534R2 itself . . . .no problem. > > > > > > 2) I need to upgrade firmware from 2.1_a2 to 2.2_a2. I grabbed the > > > microcode from NOW, downloaded it . . . no problem. > > > > > > 3) I need to upgrade my ST118202FC disk drive firmware from FD99 to > > > FDF6. I searched NOW but could find no disk drive firmware. > > > > > > So . . .QUESTION: Where does one get the disk drive firmware? > > > > > > THis is the first time I've ever upgraded my NetApps, so I'm assuming > > > I've missed something simple! > > > > > > THanks > > > > > > Rick > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com > > > Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 > > > f: 330-384-2514

1 0

Problem with F540 + 5.3.4R2 (NT authentication)
by Paquette, Trevor 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

We have an F540 that we have 're-commissioned' to internal service. It is running OnTap 5.3.4R2 and because of the support costs, senior management has decided not to renew support for it.. (sigh.. not my decision..) Anyway.. we want to use it as a disk for internal users within our NT domain.. I've configured the system as the knowledge base suggested.. but the damn thing will NOT authenticate users unless they have a local account in the /etc/passwd file. This contrary to what the knowledge base says.. http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/contents/TIP/TIP_643.shtml http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/contents/FAQ/FAQ_462.shtml Output from various commands.. The following command shows the system is properly registered in the NT Domain. calna001> cifs sessions Server Registers as 'CALNA001' in group 'A01AB' Filer is using en_US for DOS users WINS Server: 10.1.1.15 Selected domain controller \\A01DC006 for authentication Comment: Calgary NetApp File Server ======================================== PC (user) #shares #files The qtrees for the system (one big volume: vol0) are set properly as ntfs calna001> qtree Volume Tree Style Oplocks -------- -------- ----- -------- vol0 ntfs enabled vol0 Common ntfs enabled And the shares on the system are setup properly.. calna001> cifs shares Name Mount Point Description ---- ----------- ----------- root$ / A01AB\a01tpaf / Full Control Common /Common A01AB\a01tpaf / Full Control When I try to mount the share.. I get the following with cifs.trace_login turned on: Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: Login attempt by A01AB\a01tpaf from A05WST99 Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: User authenticated by DC Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: PC user name maps to UNIX user a01tpaf Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: Unix user name not valid Proper login attempt, and it is authenticated by the DC.. but then the thing looks for the user in the local /etc/passwd file.. I do NOT want this to happen; and I should be able to do this by the knowledge base articles listed above.. Virtual beer for anyone who can solve this.. -- Two rights do not make a wrong. They make an airplane. Trevor Paquette | AT&T Canada |Work:(403)705-6390 TrevorPaquette(a)metronet.ca |600, 205 5th Ave SW | Fax:(403)705-9601 http://www.metronet.ca |Calgary, AB, Canada |ICBM:51'03"N/114'05"W Senior Unix Network Architect| T2P 2V7 |Mind:In the Rockies > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael S. Keller [SMTP:mkeller@mail.wcg.net] > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 8:43 AM > To: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Upgrade to 534R2 - disk firmware > > Look in the /etc/disk_fw directory of the root volume or the 534R2 > tarball. > > "Richard L. Rhodes" wrote: > > > > I'm currently on 5.2.2 and want to upgrade to latest recommended > > release: 5.3.4R2. In looking at NOW and for 534R2 I find the > > following (I have 2 F740 NetApps): > > > > 1) I downloaded 534R2 itself . . . .no problem. > > > > 2) I need to upgrade firmware from 2.1_a2 to 2.2_a2. I grabbed the > > microcode from NOW, downloaded it . . . no problem. > > > > 3) I need to upgrade my ST118202FC disk drive firmware from FD99 to > > FDF6. I searched NOW but could find no disk drive firmware. > > > > So . . .QUESTION: Where does one get the disk drive firmware? > > > > THis is the first time I've ever upgraded my NetApps, so I'm assuming > > I've missed something simple! > > > > THanks > > > > Rick > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com > > Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 > > f: 330-384-2514

2 1

Upgrade to 534R2 - disk firmware
by Richard L. Rhodes 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

I'm currently on 5.2.2 and want to upgrade to latest recommended release: 5.3.4R2. In looking at NOW and for 534R2 I find the following (I have 2 F740 NetApps): 1) I downloaded 534R2 itself . . . .no problem. 2) I need to upgrade firmware from 2.1_a2 to 2.2_a2. I grabbed the microcode from NOW, downloaded it . . . no problem. 3) I need to upgrade my ST118202FC disk drive firmware from FD99 to FDF6. I searched NOW but could find no disk drive firmware. So . . .QUESTION: Where does one get the disk drive firmware? THis is the first time I've ever upgraded my NetApps, so I'm assuming I've missed something simple! THanks Rick ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 f: 330-384-2514

4 3

Re: problems mixing 18/9 GB disks?
by Graydon Dodson 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

David Schairer <njal(a)concentric.net> writes: > It will kill your performance, not now, but once you get things > filled up. This has not historically been part of NetApps docs > but I believe it's becoming so (Hi, Sam!). > > Make a separate volume of 18s, migrate data, do what you have to, > but don't mix your shelves. It's like crossing the streams. I too would like to understand this comment. We have a F630 with three 9G shelves and three 18G shelves on the same FC-AL chain. We never mix drive sizes in the same volume, but have had no problems at all with them sharing the same FC-AL or filler. What kinds of problems do you feel this configuration would have? We also have a heavily loaded F760 that I will soon be adding a 36G shelf on the same channel as some 18's. If there are any performance implications with this I need to know now. Thanks. Graydon Dodson (606) 232-6483 grdodson(a)lexmark.com Lexmark International Inc.

1 0

RE: problems mixing 18/9 GB disks?
by Barrett,Eric 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

http://now.netapp.com/NOW/cgi-bin/bol?Display=13880&Type=Detail Though it's not clear from the description on that page, the problem occurs only when mixing different-sized disks in a single VOLUME. Having different-sized disks on the same filer, even on the same SCSI or fibrechannel adapters, is not a problem, as long as the different disks are kept in different volumes. Also, there's no performance impact when right-sizing an oversized spare, i.e. using a spare 18GB disk as a replacement for a failed 9GB disk. > -----Original Message----- > From: dnb(a)ccs.neu.edu [mailto:dnb@ccs.neu.edu] > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 10:00 AM > To: David Schairer > Cc: mats.oberg(a)tietoenator.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: problems mixing 18/9 GB disks? > > Howdy- > Could I ask for a little more clarififcation about this (either from > you or the folks at NetApp)? The way I read this message was he was > going to add 9G disks to a volume composed of 9GB disks and and 18GB > disks to a volume composed of 18GB disks. Are you saying that: > > a) having both 9GB and 18GB disks on the same *filer* is bad? > b) mixing 9GB and 18GB drives in the same *volume* is bad (I would > guess this would be true if one didn't watch out for the parity > & spare drive gotchas)? > c) having a volume served from two different *shelves* is bad > (can't believe this is the case)? > > Thanks! > > Respectfully, > David N. Blank-Edelman > Director of Technology > College of Computer Science > Northeastern University > >

1 0

Re: problems mixing 18/9 GB disks?
by dnb＠ccs.neu.edu 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

David Schairer <njal(a)concentric.net> writes: > It will kill your performance, not now, but once you get things > filled up. This has not historically been part of NetApps docs > but I believe it's becoming so (Hi, Sam!). > > Make a separate volume of 18s, migrate data, do what you have to, > but don't mix your shelves. It's like crossing the streams. Howdy- Could I ask for a little more clarififcation about this (either from you or the folks at NetApp)? The way I read this message was he was going to add 9G disks to a volume composed of 9GB disks and and 18GB disks to a volume composed of 18GB disks. Are you saying that: a) having both 9GB and 18GB disks on the same *filer* is bad? b) mixing 9GB and 18GB drives in the same *volume* is bad (I would guess this would be true if one didn't watch out for the parity & spare drive gotchas)? c) having a volume served from two different *shelves* is bad (can't believe this is the case)? Thanks! Respectfully, David N. Blank-Edelman Director of Technology College of Computer Science Northeastern University

2 1

problems mixing 18/9 GB disks?
by Öberg Mats 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

Hi, has anyone out there run into any problems while mixing 18G and 9G -disk-shelves? Just wondering since I'm going to ad 2 shelves to one of our 740's tomorrow. Our current configuration is as follows: First volume has Four 9GB-shelves in 2 raid groups. (I'm adding one 9GB shelf to this volume) Second volume has 1 shelf with 18GB disks (1 more 18G-shelf ) Anything special to have in mind?? Best regards Mats Oberg TietoEnator

3 2

Budtool and NetWorker
by Jay Orr 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

Has anyone that uses Budtool to backup gotten any details about the option to upgrade to NetWorker? I got info from PDC about things, but other then the usual marketing hype as to how wonderful everything is the only substantial detail about upgrading and costs are : "Companies that buy BudTool can upgrade to the NDMP Connection and a similarly configured NetWorker Server within one year after general availability, at no additional cost." Ok, what about existing customers? I looked on their web site, about the same marketing fluff with no substance. Before many companies consider migrating, the very first question will always be "HOW MUCH??". My question too - we all try to avoid the fight of the budgets. ;p ----------- Jay Orr Systems Administrator Fujitsu Nexion Inc. St. Louis, MO

7 14

Problem with F630 and qualified drives
by Michael Douglass 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

First, we are running: NetApp Release 5.2.3: Sat Jul 17 04:35:28 PDT 1999 We have a minor problem that we are hitting with an F630 of ours. The drives that we have historically used is as follows: 1: SEAGATE ST15150W 9107 Size=4.0GB (8388315 blocks) The spares that we have in-house are purchased from Compaq, the exact same drive, except that the label has COMPAQ in place of SEAGATE. When we try to use the drive, it gives us the following error: The following drive has not been qualified by Network Appliance. For a list of qualified drives, please contact Network Appliance. 8b.1: COMPAQ ST15150W 6213 At this point it halted itself. Is there any way that this drive can be relabeled to say SEAGATE and not COMPAQ? Is there any way for Netapp to 'approve' this drive (since it really is the same drive, it's just been 'OEM Branded')? Is there some type of backdoor/techprompt method of telling the filer that this drive is, indeed, a trusty drive? Failing that, what drives can we put in this box? -- Michael Douglass Texas Networking, Inc. Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable for a feature. -- from some indian guy

1 0

← Newer
1
...
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
...
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