toasters March 2000

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

125 participants
147 discussions

Server capacity and performance
by Brian Hostetter 30 Mar '00

30 Mar '00

Hello, I am running into a problem where I am getting NFS not responding errors from our f740 (512M ram, 32M nvram). After the error pops up it is immediatly available again, but performance is getting really bad on our filer. My question is does the amout of disk space used effect filer performance substantially? Yesterday we got to 96% full (2x18G shelves). I trimmed it down as much as possible, but am still seeing horrible performance. I have ordered a new 36G shelf, but that may be a few weeks away and I would like to find a stop gap solution. Could my performance problems be related to space, or are they probably just sheer volume of ops problems. TIA, --Brian

4 3

RE: benchmark
by Dani Tal 30 Mar '00

30 Mar '00

I think the original quotation is : There are two reasons why standards are wonderful: a. There are so many of them b. You can choose. Dani Tal -----Original Message----- From: Mitch Wright [mailto:mitch@larionov.netline.com] Sent: Thu, March 30, 2000 3:23 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: benchmark /* Karl Swartz [kls(a)netapp.com] writes: */ >Aren't standards wonderful? :-) > I wish I could remember whom to attribute this quote to, but it goes: The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from. -- do svidaniya, ~mitch

1 0

RE: add/remove users from NT4 domains [from unix]?
by Muhlestein, Mark 30 Mar '00

30 Mar '00

Check out "rpcclient" in the Samba stuff. Especially in the TNG branch. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: James N. Maze [mailto:mazejn@ornl.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 8:38 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: add/remove users from NT4 domains [from unix]? Does anyone know of a library or set of utilities for Unix [commercial/free] that lets you add/remove users from NT4 global groups? Such would allow me to move a Web application from a NT Web server to my Unix/Apache/NetApp Web server. Thanks!

1 0

RE: Permissions
by Muhlestein, Mark 29 Mar '00

29 Mar '00

What version are you running? You may be hitting the issue described in bug 21019. If so, you need to get a version that supports the cifs.perm_check_ro_del_ok option (probably 5.3.4R3P2 or 5.3.5P2). The issue here is that some customers consider it a bug to allow a read-only file to be deleted, since that violates NT delete semantics, while others (like yourself) consider it to be a bug not to obey UNIX delete semantics (i.e. you just need w-x in the parent). The option was introduced to allow this behavior to be customized. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Stampes [mailto:Jeff.Stampes@xilinx.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 1:27 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Permissions Situation: touch a file from a UNIX box chmod 444 file from UNIX box rm -f file from NT box over CIFS share Result: Permission Denied..Booooooo touch a file from a NT box chmod 444 file from UNIX box rm -f file from NT box over CIFS share Result: file is quietly removed...Yeeeeeah! The former behavior is undesirable, as we have multiple platforms in our compile releasing the same platform independent files at different times. Any suggestions? -Jeff

1 0

RE: NIS and netgroup file
by Nagaraj, Devi 29 Mar '00

29 Mar '00

We are looking into ways of improving the NIS implementation to be more efficient. We are not planning on implementing the slave functionality on the filer though. We are currently focussing on better response to netgroup queries. -Devi Netapp Engineering. -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Sterling Woodcock [mailto:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 1:34 AM To: Bond, Andrew; Timothy Demarest Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: NIS and netgroup file > The filer does not copy the NIS maps into /etc. NIS group information is > cached, but otherwise the filer acts as a NIS client only, and will query the > NIS server it has bound to ("nis info" will tell you which this is). Is full server (non-master) functionality going to be included in the future? It would be very useful and would allow the filer to be more robust. Bruce

7 8

Fwd: Re: NIS and netgroup file
by Jeff Innis 29 Mar '00

29 Mar '00

Sure why not add NIS server, why stop there though lets add DNS too. Hey these things are so reliable, let's put a full blown kernel in there, and start running user apps as well. Anyone ever hear of a little box called Auspex??? I actually thought the concept of "dedicated" NFS appliance was a good one. Jeff > > > We are looking into ways of improving the NIS implementation to be more > > efficient. We are not planning on implementing the slave functionality >on > > the filer though. > >That's too bad, because it essentially makes a network less robust. >See, if you rely on NIS files so you don't have to copy files to the >filer locally, then lets say you have a power outage. The filer comes >up and then can't do anything because it's waiting to talk to the NIS >server (it's probably the DNS server too). The NIS server can't do >anything because it's waiting to mount the filer. Stalemate. There are >ways around this, like having your NIS/DNS server hold the data on a >local disk, but then you have a kink in your whole centralized network >storage scheme. Altenatively, you can copy everything to the filer, but >then you've defeated the whole purpose of NIS. > >Making filers slave servers is an ideal solution. You don't have to >allow other clients to bind to them, but this way they can get data >updated from a master and still have a local copy in the event of >network problems. > >Bruce > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

Permissions
by Jeff Stampes 29 Mar '00

29 Mar '00

Situation: touch a file from a UNIX box chmod 444 file from UNIX box rm -f file from NT box over CIFS share Result: Permission Denied..Booooooo touch a file from a NT box chmod 444 file from UNIX box rm -f file from NT box over CIFS share Result: file is quietly removed...Yeeeeeah! The former behavior is undesirable, as we have multiple platforms in our compile releasing the same platform independent files at different times. Any suggestions? -Jeff

1 0

HP-UX R11 L2000 / F740 NFS Performance
by Dave Mills 29 Mar '00

29 Mar '00

Has anyone tried maximizing file loading performance in the above environment. I will be installing the F740 with 18 - 36GB drives soon and want to solve the problem before it exists. We will be loading aobut 200GB on each of 2 consecutive weekends. Subsequent daily processing will be very heavy batch sequential. Any comments appreciated. Dave Mills Cypress Systems, LTD

1 0

Re: Server capacity and performance
by Brian Hostetter 29 Mar '00

29 Mar '00

2-3K usually. The total number of OPS has not increased very much, it seems like writes are taking forever. I was thinking it may have soemthing to do with WAFL looking for the next open block and when the filer is pretty full it is hard to find. --Bian >>> Mike Horwath <drechsau(a)tiny.net> 03/29 9:32 AM >>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 08:46:14AM -0600, Brian Hostetter wrote: > Could my performance problems be related to space, or are they > probably just sheer volume of ops problems. What are the numbers for the # of ops per second? -- Mike Horwath Admin & Manager @ VISI.com WORK: drechsau(a)visi.com IRC: Drechsau http://www.visi.com/ HOME: drechsau(a)geeks.org The only Minnesota ISP with public statistics: http://noc.visi.com/ Garbage In -- Gospel Out. - berkeley fortune(6)

2 1

rc registry registry rc
by Jenkinson, John P (SAIC) 29 Mar '00

29 Mar '00

we get these messages on reboot of one netapp ** Option wafl.default_unix_user is being set to "pcuser" in /etc/rc, ** and this conflicts with a value - "root" - loaded from the registry. ** Commands in /etc/rc always override the registry at boot time, ** so the value of wafl.default_unix_user is now "pcuser". Fri Mar 24 16:15:10 AKS [rc]: Option wafl.default_unix_user with value "pcuser" in /etc/rc is overri from the registry. ** Option wafl.default_unix_user is being set to "root" in /etc/rc, ** and this conflicts with a value - "pcuser" - loaded from the registry. ** Commands in /etc/rc always override the registry at boot time, ** so the value of wafl.default_unix_user is now "root". the option line is not in the /etc/rc file anyone know what causes such schizo behaviour? wher is a netapp's registry? ======================== John Jenkinson BP Exploration (Alaska)

1 0

Jump to page:

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 March 2000