toasters December 2000

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

112 participants
116 discussions

Network interface "vh"?
by Jeffrey Krueger 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

Does anyone know what the interface "vh" is? Could it stand for "virtual host"? I don't think there's anything in the DOT manuals regarding it. broiler> ifstat vh -- interface vh (47 days, 7 hours, 4 minutes, 18 seconds) -- RECEIVE Packets: 0 | Bytes: 0 | Errors: 0 Queue full: 0 TRANSMIT Packets: 0 | Bytes: 0 | Errors: 0 Collisions: 0 broiler> netstat -I vh Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Collis Queue vh* 1536 none none 0 0 0 0 0 0 broiler> ifconfig vh vh: flags=40<RUNNING> mtu 1536 Thanks! -- Jeff -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Krueger, NetApp CA E-Mail: jeff(a)qualcomm.com Senior Engineer Phone: 858-651-6709 NetApp Filers / UNIX Infrastructure Fax: 858-651-6627 QUALCOMM, Inc. IT Engineering Web: www.qualcomm.com

1 1

RE: Veritas & Filers, or: to NDMP or not to NDMP ...
by Braunschweiger, Udo 13 Dec '00

13 Dec '00

there are some points worth to think about before you decide how to do backups. Using ndmp instead of nfs has the follwing impacts: ndmp is blocklevel based, nfs of course is filebased If we backing up a volume that is holding a database, usually the "minimal read ahead" option is set to meet the needs for accessing the database-files. This impacts nfs backup performance dramatically. On the other hand, in order to use ndmp, we need expensive client software for our backup software. But even if we use ndmp to send the data over the network (not a local tapedrive) this backup method is not affecting cached data in the readcache of the filer. This can be a very important reason for ndmp, especially if we are running a database with 7 times 24 hours uptime. On On-Tap Releases 5.3.5 or newer, the ndmpd version-behaviour can be set using the "ndmpd version [2,3]" command on the filers console. -----Original Message----- From: Francett, Robert D (SAIC) [mailto:FranceRD@bp.com] Sent: Dienstag, 12. Dezember 2000 01:35 To: 'Shaun T. Erickson'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Veritas & Filers, or: to NDMP or not to NDMP ... Shaun, We use Veritas Netbackup via NDMP and it has worked well. Therefore no worries impacting net with backups. Never used BudTool. Upgrades to DOT have never been a problem. NOW keeps a page which lists NB versions sanctioned with the various DOT releases. I double-check it when considering upgrade. Hope that helps, Bob Francett BP Exploration/Alaska -----Original Message----- From: Shaun T. Erickson [mailto:ste@research.bell-labs.com] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 5:55 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Veritas & Filers, or: to NDMP or not to NDMP ... ... that is the question. I am switching from BudTool to Veritas Netbackup. It seems, if I understand things correctly, that I can either back up my filers over NFS, or I can use NDMP and back them up to a locally attached tape drive, or to another filer with a locally attached tape drive. NDMP seems the way to go, for performance and speed reasons. However, I stopped using NDMP with BudTool, because everytime I had to upgrade either BudTool or OnTap, I ran into compatability problems between the differing NDMP implimentations. What has been the experience of those of you who are using Veritas and have tried the above solutions? Which method do you suggest I use, and why? -ste -- Office: (908) 582-7629 Cell: (908) 672-6456 Pager: (888) 290-2057

1 0

Samba sharing an NFS mounted drive (netapp)
by Stoo Davies 13 Dec '00

13 Dec '00

I posted this on the Samba mailing list earlier, but if anyone here has tried Samba sharing an NFS mounted drive info would be appreciated. Thanks Stoo Hi, I hope someone will be able to help me with a strange problem that started after an upgrade. A Redhat 6.1 based file server running Samba 2.0.5a has been sharing /home for a number of months. The /home mount was from a SCSI attached RAID array. We ran out of space recently so copied the files across to a netapp filer, and mounted /home from there. I know the filer can do CIFS, but due to existing file references and other services we need to maintain the Samba shares. Since the move we've started having some file locking problems, the M$ Access "Too many active users" message makes this look like the glibc 64bit file locking problem. My question is wether anyone knows of problems sharing NFS mounted drives with Samba? Thanks Stoo

1 0

unsubsribe
by Girish Ahuja 12 Dec '00

12 Dec '00

unsubsribe ============================================ Girish Ahuja

1 0

SnapManager and tape backups
by Loux, Linda 12 Dec '00

12 Dec '00

We are going to move our Exchange database onto a filer. I have gone through the SnapManager System Administrator's Guide, and have some questions about getting the SnapManager snapshots backed up to tape. Does anyone have any additional documentation pointers? Linda Loux Systems Administrator Rosetta Inpharmatics ********************************************************************** This email message is the property of Rosetta Inpharmatics and contains confidential information that may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying, or communication of the contents of this message is prohibited. If this message was received in error, please forward a copy to mail_admin(a)rii.com and delete the message and any attachments from your computer. Thank you. **********************************************************************

1 0

RE: Veritas & Filers, or: to NDMP or not to NDMP ...
by Kelly Wyatt 12 Dec '00

12 Dec '00

I'm pretty sure that backing up over NFS won't get any NT ACLS that might be in the filesystem. That may or may not be an issue for you. There have been ONTAP/NetBackup integration issues. I've seen upgrades of ONTAP totally break backups and I've seen versions of ONTAP that cause unexplained downing of tape drives on just a handful of my filers (roughly 6 out of 14, different robots, so it is not hardware issue -- we use a cron job to up the drives regularly). Things have improved since we began using NetBackup for NDMP 2 1/2 years ago. I understand that VERITAS has a standard test suite they run against major releases of ONTAP. They don't check the minor releases as far as I know, nor the patch releases. We users tend to do that :-). Unfortunately, often we can't wait until NetBackup is qualified on a particular version of ONTAP. We are heavy users of the multiprotocol features of the filers and often require the latest version of ONTAP for bug fixes or features. We have a backup lab where we test things as thoroughly as we can... and still things slip by. But it is not all bad. VERITAS with NDMP seems to be pretty rock solid for backing up filers. We are happy with the throughput of our backups, etc. I'd do the same thing again. Kelly -- Kelly Wyatt, Kelly.Wyatt(a)SAS.com Senior Systems Programmer Strategic Recovery SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Drive / Cary, NC 27513 http://www.sas.com SAS... The Power to Know -----Original Message----- From: Shaun T. Erickson [mailto:ste@research.bell-labs.com] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 9:55 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Veritas & Filers, or: to NDMP or not to NDMP ... ... that is the question. I am switching from BudTool to Veritas Netbackup. It seems, if I understand things correctly, that I can either back up my filers over NFS, or I can use NDMP and back them up to a locally attached tape drive, or to another filer with a locally attached tape drive. NDMP seems the way to go, for performance and speed reasons. However, I stopped using NDMP with BudTool, because everytime I had to upgrade either BudTool or OnTap, I ran into compatability problems between the differing NDMP implimentations. What has been the experience of those of you who are using Veritas and have tried the above solutions? Which method do you suggest I use, and why? -ste -- Office: (908) 582-7629 Cell: (908) 672-6456 Pager: (888) 290-2057

1 0

RE: cifs testdc problem and 1D registration conflict
by Walsh, Warren (MN65) 12 Dec '00

12 Dec '00

This sounds a lot like bug 16355, which we ran into earlier this year. The filer incorrectly registers itself with WINS using a workstation(00), messenger (03), and server (20) that matches the domain name (1c). IE, there's the correct entries for a machine named FILER with 00, 03, and 20; then there's additional entries of DOMAIN with 00, 03, and 20. NetApp's support didn't have a solution, but someone on the list here did. NetApp support later confirmed that yes, it was bug number 16355, and the solution was fixed by upgrading to a newer version on OnTap. -warren Warren M. Walsh Honeywell Laboratories -----Original Message----- From: Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau [mailto:MadDog@fool.com] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 1:18 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: cifs testdc problem and 1D registration conflict We'd been seeing a problem where a cifs testdc would yield the following results: filer> cifs testdc Using Established configuration Current Mode of NBT is H Mode Netbios scope "" Registered names... FILER < 0> WINS FILER < 3> WINS FILER <20> WINS DOMAIN < 0> WINS Testing Primary Domain Controller found 1 addresses trying 192.168.0.10...192.168.0.10 is alive found PDC DC-001 Testing all Domain Controllers found 3 addresses trying 192.168.0.10...192.168.0.10 is alive trying 192.168.0.10...192.168.0.10 is alive trying 192.168.0.13...192.168.0.13 is alive found DC DC-001 at 192.168.0.10 Not able to communicate with DC 192.168.0.10 found DC DC-002 at 192.168.0.13 NetApp was perplexed, had me re-run CIFS setup, etc. to no avail. Today we rebooted our PDC because we noticed that the master browser registration was in conflict: NetBIOS Remote Machine Name Table Name Type Status --------------------------------------------- PDC <00> UNIQUE Registered PDC <20> UNIQUE Registered DOMAIN <00> GROUP Registered DOMAIN <1C> GROUP Registered DOMAIN <1E> GROUP Registered PDC <03> UNIQUE Registered DOMAIN <1D> UNIQUE Conflict ..__MSBROWSE__.<01> GROUP Registered DOMAIN <1B> UNIQUE Registered After the PDC rebooted, the cifs testdc problem went away. I know I've corresponded with some folks from toasters who were having this cifs testdc problem. If you're having the problem, can you do an nbtstat -a on your PDC, and see if you see a <1D> entry in conflict? Thanks, Mad Dog For your enjoyment: http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q163/4/09.asp

1 0

RE: cifs testdc problem and 1D registration conflict
by bentele＠mtu-friedrichshafen.com 12 Dec '00

12 Dec '00

Hi, I've got the same problems after our wins/dns environment was upgraded to win2k. ... "Not able to communicate with DC ...." nbtstat -a 'PDC' shows all records registered ( even 1D ) since then my filers deny resolving each others hostnames by using dns/wins, a call is open at netapp since 27-nov. Thanks Mit freundlichen Grüßen Markus Bentele MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH * 07541-90-2654 * 07541-90-5510 * bentele(a)mtu-friedrichshafen.com -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau [mailto:MadDog@fool.com] Gesendet: Montag, 11. Dezember 2000 20:18 An: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Betreff: cifs testdc problem and 1D registration conflict We'd been seeing a problem where a cifs testdc would yield the following results: filer> cifs testdc Using Established configuration Current Mode of NBT is H Mode Netbios scope "" Registered names... FILER < 0> WINS FILER < 3> WINS FILER <20> WINS DOMAIN < 0> WINS Testing Primary Domain Controller found 1 addresses trying 192.168.0.10...192.168.0.10 is alive found PDC DC-001 Testing all Domain Controllers found 3 addresses trying 192.168.0.10...192.168.0.10 is alive trying 192.168.0.10...192.168.0.10 is alive trying 192.168.0.13...192.168.0.13 is alive found DC DC-001 at 192.168.0.10 Not able to communicate with DC 192.168.0.10 found DC DC-002 at 192.168.0.13 NetApp was perplexed, had me re-run CIFS setup, etc. to no avail. Today we rebooted our PDC because we noticed that the master browser registration was in conflict: NetBIOS Remote Machine Name Table Name Type Status --------------------------------------------- PDC <00> UNIQUE Registered PDC <20> UNIQUE Registered DOMAIN <00> GROUP Registered DOMAIN <1C> GROUP Registered DOMAIN <1E> GROUP Registered PDC <03> UNIQUE Registered DOMAIN <1D> UNIQUE Conflict ..__MSBROWSE__.<01> GROUP Registered DOMAIN <1B> UNIQUE Registered After the PDC rebooted, the cifs testdc problem went away. I know I've corresponded with some folks from toasters who were having this cifs testdc problem. If you're having the problem, can you do an nbtstat -a on your PDC, and see if you see a <1D> entry in conflict? Thanks, Mad Dog For your enjoyment: http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q163/4/09.asp

1 0

RE: Veritas & Filers, or: to NDMP or not to NDMP ...
by Francett, Robert D (SAIC) 12 Dec '00

12 Dec '00

Shaun, We use Veritas Netbackup via NDMP and it has worked well. Therefore no worries impacting net with backups. Never used BudTool. Upgrades to DOT have never been a problem. NOW keeps a page which lists NB versions sanctioned with the various DOT releases. I double-check it when considering upgrade. Hope that helps, Bob Francett BP Exploration/Alaska -----Original Message----- From: Shaun T. Erickson [mailto:ste@research.bell-labs.com] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 5:55 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Veritas & Filers, or: to NDMP or not to NDMP ... ... that is the question. I am switching from BudTool to Veritas Netbackup. It seems, if I understand things correctly, that I can either back up my filers over NFS, or I can use NDMP and back them up to a locally attached tape drive, or to another filer with a locally attached tape drive. NDMP seems the way to go, for performance and speed reasons. However, I stopped using NDMP with BudTool, because everytime I had to upgrade either BudTool or OnTap, I ran into compatability problems between the differing NDMP implimentations. What has been the experience of those of you who are using Veritas and have tried the above solutions? Which method do you suggest I use, and why? -ste -- Office: (908) 582-7629 Cell: (908) 672-6456 Pager: (888) 290-2057

1 0

netapp-top.pl
by Traitel, Eyal 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

Hi ! Can the person who published the script in toasters contact me ? Can the author (Daniel Quinlan) contact me as well ? Thanks, Eyal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- eTraitel - I'm the new eBuzzword around !!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Eyal Traitel - Filer Escalation Engineer CNA, MCSE, CSA, NACA Network Appliance BV Holland Office Center Kruisweg 799b 2132 NG, Hoofddorp The Netherlands Office: +31 23 567 9685 Cellular: +31 6 5497 2568 Email: eyal(a)netapp.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Get answers NOW! - NetApp On the Web - http://now.netapp.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
12
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 December 2000