toasters October 2000

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

90 participants
109 discussions

RE: quota report tools
by Joe Luchtenberg 04 Oct '00

04 Oct '00

Did you check the Tools and Utilities page on NOW? Joe http://now.netapp.com/NOW/tools/ Joe Luchtenberg Dataline, Inc. New number and email, please update: 757.858.0600 858.0606 fax joe.luchtenberg(a)data-line.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Manny Kaiser [SMTP:mkaiser@mmcnet.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 8:49 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: quota report tools > > Hi, > > Has anyone developed any tools that use the quota report command as > input. > I am interested in any gui/web/excel macro/etc that can be used for > several puposes: > - capacity planning and disk usage trends > - user/manager view of quota usage > - adminsitrator alarm of quota limits reached > > Thanks > > Manny

1 0

RE: Netapp vs Compaq TaskSmart
by Joe Luchtenberg 03 Oct '00

03 Oct '00

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, the Compaq box does use NTFS, so their rapid reboot capability should be comparable. Joe Joe Luchtenberg Dataline, Inc. New number and email, please update: 757.858.0600 858.0606 fax joe.luchtenberg(a)data-line.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Guy Harris [SMTP:guy@netapp.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 4:00 AM > To: Joe Luchtenberg > Cc: 'Langborg Tom'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: Re: Netapp vs Compaq TaskSmart > > > Reboot time: Compaq claims a Rapid Reboot functionality; since they > > basically run a tuned Windows 2000 OS (as opposed to NetApp's > > built-from-the-ground-up single purpose microkernal OS), I'm curious how > the > > get around fsck > > If they're running W2K, they're probably using NTFS, which is a > journaling file system and shouldn't require a file system check after > most crashes. > > NT 4.0, and presumably NT 5.0^H^H^H^H^H^HW2K, does have a file system > checker for NTFS - the NT partition on my home machine ran it after one > reboot, and it found a couple of problems and fixed them - but it's > presumably used only if there's some reason to expect file system > damage; it's sort of like "wack" (or its new politically-correct name in > 6.0, "WAFL_check"), or, I suspect, the checker on other journaling file > systems, in that regard. Most of the time, at least on my home NT > partition, either it doesn't run, or when it runs it decides no repair > is needed.

1 0

RE: Netapp vs Compaq TaskSmart
by Joe Luchtenberg 03 Oct '00

03 Oct '00

Regarding the items you indicated are important to you: Multiprotocol NFS/CIFS: both Compaq and NetApp serve data to both NFS and CIFS clients Capacity: Compaq currently scales to 1TB raw capacity (that is approx. 800GB usable, accounting for parity disks, hot spare and minimal SnapShot overhead); that is less than 1/4 of current NetApp single head unit capacity; however, Compaq does use 1" 18GB disks (granted they are SCSI), so with 14 per shelf you do get some density gains with less overhead in the same physical space (i.e. 18GB parity and hot spare overhead vs. 36GB each for NetApp) Uptime: Compaq's N2400 is a first-generation product with a limited track record, therefore difficult to predict; NetApp has maintained documented 99.99x% availability Reboot time: Compaq claims a Rapid Reboot functionality; since they basically run a tuned Windows 2000 OS (as opposed to NetApp's built-from-the-ground-up single purpose microkernal OS), I'm curious how the get around fsck and what, if any, penalty is incurred SnapShot mirror: this is really two issues 1. Snapshots: Compaq integrates their SANworks Virtual Replicator (SWVR) software in the N2400; this provides a different implementation of snapshots from NetApp; basically, once a snapshot has been taken of a volume, the next time any data block in that volume is changed the SWVR delays the write until a copy is made of the original data (subsequent changes continue with no delay); obviously, you take a write performance hit 2. Mirroring: I'm not entirely sure, but I'm not aware of an asynchronous remote mirroring product from Compaq SANworks; their Data Replication Manager supports mirroring across a long-wave FC connection (up to 100 km if implemented correctly), but this is very different from the capability to replicate across the WAN, while minimizing impact on bandwidth as with NetApp's SnapMirror Other items to consider: - Compaq's implementation uses RAID 5; this is an issue when it comes to volume expansion; the SWVR software allows online expansion by creating new RAID groups and concatenating them to existing storage "pools," in which case you use the additional disk space only once you've filled the original volume (no gain in spindle density); to expand an existing RAID set, you have to reformat, rebuild and restore from tape; RAID 4 is much more administrator-friendly. - If you have a Compaq SAN, then future upgrades to the Compaq NAS line will allow you to connect to the SAN (for centralized backup without clogging up the production network, for example) FWIW, pricing is roughly comparable b/w Compaq's N2400 and an F740 (Compaq may be a touch cheaper). If you add in things like SnapMirror or SnapManager for Exchange, then NetApp gets a lot more expensive, but then you can't get equivalent functionality of those products in a Compaq solution. HTH. Joe Joe Luchtenberg Dataline, Inc. New number and email, please update: 757.858.0600 858.0606 fax joe.luchtenberg(a)data-line.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Langborg Tom [SMTP:Tom.Langborg@smhi.se] > Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 9:58 AM > To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: Netapp vs Compaq TaskSmart > > Hi > I am a old netapp admin. > I am wonder if there is someone how can help me > with argument to choice netapp instead off compaqs tasksmart server. > From my point it looks that the tasksmart version 2.0 witch should come > next > year should work well. > We should have this server to access both nfs and cifs. > Most off the client are pc but the major files traffics are in nfs. > The volumes are for start 500gb to over 1 Tb next year. > What about > uptime? > reboot time? > snapshot mirror? > > > /Tom Langborg >

2 1

deleting snapshot directories
by Leigh David Heyman 03 Oct '00

03 Oct '00

Does anyone know how (if), you can prevent a deleted directory from getting "snapshotted"? We are going to be moving a 30G directory off of one of our filers, and we'd like the space actually freed. but when the nightly snapshot happens, that 30G is just going to end up in the snapshot taking up the same amount of space. I'd rather not have to start deleting snapshots wholesale (i.e. snap delete nightly.6) because I don't want to lose the snapshot data from the other directories in the volume. Is it possible to just delete the snapshots of this specific directory withing the volume without deleting the snapshots for the whole volume? Thanks, -Leigh ===================================================================== Leigh Heyman, GCIA Artificial Intelligence Lab Systems Administrator Massachusetts Institute of Technology leigh(a)ai.mit.edu 617-253-1729

2 1

Re: Netapp vs Compaq TaskSmart
by Rick Hulsey 02 Oct '00

02 Oct '00

You'll want to test the ability for the Compaq system to maintain NFS sessions across reboots and failover events (if you need failover). This is pretty important for databases and application that require continuous access to their data files. On several notable Unix operating systems used as NFS servers, you will create stale file handles on the client systems upon a reboot of the NFS server. It may be worth noting that network attached storage is a pretty new business for Compaq, and it is definitely not their major focus. Rick Hulsey Southwest Airlines 2425 Wyman Mail Stop 4DC Dallas, Tx., 75235 rick.hulsey(a)wnco.com (214) 792-7188 Office (972) 880-6882 Cell (800) 915-3747 Pager >>> Langborg Tom <Tom.Langborg(a)smhi.se> 10/02/00 08:57AM >>> Hi I am a old netapp admin. I am wonder if there is someone how can help me with argument to choice netapp instead off compaqs tasksmart server. From my point it looks that the tasksmart version 2.0 witch should come next year should work well. We should have this server to access both nfs and cifs. Most off the client are pc but the major files traffics are in nfs. The volumes are for start 500gb to over 1 Tb next year. What about uptime? reboot time? snapshot mirror? /Tom Langborg

1 0

RE: Low SMB throughput
by Hawley, Rob 02 Oct '00

02 Oct '00

Yes. Pktt uses tcp dump format. The public domain line analyzer ethereal http://ethereal.zing.org/ will directly read a trc file. It's free, but not the most complete decoding. It is sufficient to tell whether you have enough good data in your trace to warrant sending off to NetApp for more detailed analysis. Rob Hawley -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Stampes [mailto:stampes@xilinx.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 7:41 AM To: Hawley, Rob Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Low SMB throughput "Hawley, Rob" wrote: > The filer itself is a good line analyzer ( using pktt). We regularly use it > when line traces are required at customer sites. Didn't know about this before...now is there a way we can analyze the file it dumps on our own?

1 0

RE: Low SMB throughput
by Hawley, Rob 02 Oct '00

02 Oct '00

The filer itself is a good line analyzer ( using pktt). We regularly use it when line traces are required at customer sites. -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@remedy.com] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 10:43 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Low SMB throughput Have you run any network analyzers on the network? This is the kind of thing where a good sniffer (or a fluke, damn I love those) can be invaluable. "If it works, it must be a Fluke." -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services, BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: chris_good(a)webtop.com [mailto:chris_good@webtop.com] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 6:56 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Low SMB throughput andrew-m.webster(a)db.com wrote: > Where is the delay? Is it that the inital connection to the Filer takes a long time? This would indicate that the Filer is having problems authenticating users via the domain controller. People log on OK, intermittently files just will not save, transfers take forever while nfs is still screaming. Netapp engineers have had a look at it and are as baffled as we are. >BTW: We never rely on autonegotiate (AUTO), but set each Filer interface to 100meg/Full Duplex. We force everything as a matter of course. -- Chris Good WebTop.com http://www.webtop.com Tel: +44 (0) 1223 715000 Fax: +44 (0) 1223 715001

2 1

Netapp vs Compaq TaskSmart
by Langborg Tom 02 Oct '00

02 Oct '00

Hi I am a old netapp admin. I am wonder if there is someone how can help me with argument to choice netapp instead off compaqs tasksmart server. From my point it looks that the tasksmart version 2.0 witch should come next year should work well. We should have this server to access both nfs and cifs. Most off the client are pc but the major files traffics are in nfs. The volumes are for start 500gb to over 1 Tb next year. What about uptime? reboot time? snapshot mirror? /Tom Langborg

1 0

Re: Difference in resources?
by Tuc 01 Oct '00

01 Oct '00

> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, TTSG wrote: > > > Maybe a CPU % of 8-12, NFSops of 400-600. (I haven't gotten > > That's nothing. I don't think the filer is to blame for the > load. Cache ages? > Varies. I've seen >60, 7, etc. > > > I tried it on Sif. Sif went nuts with file locking. CGI's that need > > to do file lock seem to take FOREVER (7-10 seconds). If I change the CGI to > > point to a local filestore, the load goes from maybe 2.X to 6-7.X . The > > CPU goes 100% with an increased user and kernel. > > I don't know how much time you have to spend on this, but you > might try mounting a set of disk from one of your U1's to the other, to > see if the problem is with NFS in general or with the filer's > implementation of NFS. > Don't I just introduce another unknown, the 2nd U1s ability to serve the content? I don't have time to futz, since this is a production system, but I need to do whats necessary. I'm afraid also that making the 2nd U1 a NFS server will impact ITS performance. I'm already getting a 15-20% I/O wait outta it, which is why we are looking towards the Filer. > > > Thats what I figured. I need to throw 2 of them, serving 7-8Mb/s > > content out the front end. > > Hmmm...I don't know how much cache a F720 has, but maybe you > need something with more cache to serve out that much data. > I've got 4 BSDI's, each pushing 7-8Mb/s out the front, to another F720 with no hassles. If it wasn't for the fact that the BSDI dropped in and went well, I wouldn't even CONSIDER this as a solution. > > > > What network pieces are between Thor and the F720? > > > > > Thor -> 4 ft network cable -> Cisco 2924 switch -> 8 ft network > > cable -> Cisco 5505 -> 6 inch network cable -> RJ45/Punchdown block -> > > 200ft network cable -> RJ45/Punchdown block -> 6 inch network cable -> > > RJ45/Punchdown block -> 24 ft network cable -> RJ45/Punchdown block -> > > 8 ft network -> Cisco 2924 -> 8 ft network cable -> F720 > > 200 ft of network cable? Is that legit, i.e., within the CAT5 > specification? > Yea, and there aren't any collisions or symptoms of problems between the Cat5505 and remote 2924. > > Also, are all the speed negotiations fixed? Many people post of > bad performance which is due to either the filer or the switches being > set to auto-negoatiate. Force both to be fixed. > I don't let ANYTHING in our network auto-negotiate. To me, thats a non-truth. ESPECIALLY with Sun equipment around. 8-) > > > > NFS v2 or v3? If v3, over TCP or UDP? > > You say NFS v3 over UDP. You might also try to force this to be > NFS v2, just to see what happens with the locking, which seems to be the > source of the bottleneck. > Maybe on the Sol 7, not 5.5.1 . I'll try V2 at some point. > > You can disable v3 complete on the filer with > the nfs.v3.enable option, or force a vers=2 mount with the mount > command. > > Until next time... > Thanks, Tuc/TTSG

1 0

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 October 2000