toasters March 2000

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

125 participants
147 discussions

re: nas support
by Yael Hellmann 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

Regardless of a specific application and configuration, I am looking for an architecture that will support nas. Setting all components equal, comparing apples to apples, you end up with either going through a server for each operation or accessing a disk directly and an architecture that lets you access the disk directly must be faster. If you could have fast disk channels, getting information from that disk must be faster than getting the information through the server. It is not completely true for all applications. You still need the server for co-ordination and then it is a trade off. But I believe that each storage vendor will need this capability to be competitive. Some applications that would need this capability are publisher consumers messaging model, backup, source control. -----Original Message----- From: Josh McCormick [mailto:jmccorm@mail.wcg.net] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 9:02 AM To: mkeller(a)mail.wcg.net Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: nas storage > Necessary to yell? > I use what I received. I am required to stick with it for a while yet. > You make a blanket statement without supporting facts. Here's what I'm wondering, Michael. When they are comparing the Netapp Filers to local storage, what exactly are they comparing? * Are they comparing 100mbit NFS delivery to a SCSI variant? * Are they comparing their raid and caching to a(n anonymous) local disk solution? JBOD or something else? * Are they comparing their NFS filesystem implementation to UFS and/or VxFS? Are the comparing the whole solution against something when it is claimed to be on par with local disks, and if so, what solutions are they comparing against? Of course, it would be a surprise is the Netapp Filers were on par with local storage in all cases. What I want to know is, what are the edge cases? What are the filers particually better at, and what are they particularly worse at? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com

2 1

5.3.5
by Dave Atkin 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

1. We just started to run 5.3.5 on one of our 740s in order to test compatibility with Windows 2000. Is anyone else doing this successfully? 2. With 5.3.5 we are getting lots of messages on the console like: GMT [CIFSAdmin]: oplock break timed out to station CST209 for file \\NTCR2\w95apps\APPLICATIONS\SPSS\9\spssprod.inf We support some 1200 Windows 95 PCs, and at peak times we get several messages per minute for different files and PCs. Does anyone know what this means, should we care about it, and if not, can we turn them off! 3. Finally, I still don't think NetApp have quite got their early access releases sorted out properly. I looked at the NOW site and downloaded 5.3.5, but when I talked to a support engineer today he said "Why aren't you running 5.3.5P2?" Dave Atkin ------------------------------------------------------ Dave Atkin, Head of Technical Services Computing Service, University of York, YORK YO10 5DD Phone: +44-1904-433804 (ddi) Fax: +44-1904-433740 Email: D.Atkin(a)york.ac.uk ------------------------------------------------------

3 3

RE: mini-core
by Watanabe, Steve 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

> From: Jeff Krueger [mailto:jkrueger@qualcomm.com] > > >From "Watanabe, Steve" on Thu, 23 Mar 2000 06:05:13 PST: > > > >In a coming release compression of the core will be deferred > >if there is enough space available on the disk. In addition > > Cool. So in 5.3.5, does it check to see if an uncompressed dump is > possible, or does it compress regardless of available space? In 5.3.5 the core is always compressed. The "coming release" I refer to doesn't have a number yet. -steve > > >the core will be sprayed to multiple disks in parallel (it > >currently is written synchronously to one disk at a time). > > Sweet! That's what we like to hear! =) > > -- Jeff > >

1 0

RE: mini-core
by Watanabe, Steve 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

> From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] > > Ethan Torretta <ejt(a)tellme.com> writes: > > "Michael J. Tuciarone" <tooch(a)netapp.com> wrote: > > > As filers have received more main memory, we began running out of > > > reserved disk areas before the whole core was dumped. The actual > > > ratio of memory to disk depends on memory size and disk model; > > > the larger the ratio the more likely you'll be unable to dump the > > > whole core. In response, we implemented the compressed > core feature. > > > Now if the filer computes there isn't enough disk space > to save the > > > entire core uncompressed, we compress the core before > writing it out. > > > > This makes me very interested in providing enough disks to allow > > uncompressed cores. However, looking at the documentation > I don't think > > that's going to happen. According to the SAG, each disks > provides only > > 20 MB of dump space, so for an F760 with 1024 MB of main > memory, fifty-two > > disks will be necessary for an uncompressed dump. Is this > correct? > > The chart still says only fourteen for "256 or more." I've > got fourteen > > on each filer; if twenty, say, would do it, I'd rearrange > filers so that > > the most sensitive ones had twenty, but fifty-two is out of > the question. > > The problem would seem to be that the 20 MB reserved area > hasn't altered > from the days of 2 GB, maybe 1 GB, discs, and so things have > got out of > proportion. > > How about using the space wasted by "right-sizing" for dumps? > Only if it > exists, of course, but in practice it will, and will be a lot > more than > 20 MB per disc! > As you said above, the 20MB reserved area is the same on all sized disks. However we do use the space that is left over after right-sizing. The size of the space varies with the capacity of the disk. In a coming release compression of the core will be deferred if there is enough space available on the disk. In addition the core will be sprayed to multiple disks in parallel (it currently is written synchronously to one disk at a time). This is for fibre channel disks only. -steve

2 1

RE: nas storage
by Cormier, Darleen 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

Gentlemen, I really must protest. Network Appliance plays very nicely in a SAN environment and is working very actively on solutions and with partners in that area. May I respectfully refer you all to www.netapp.com/news/press to the announcement dated 02/02/2000. Six leading Storage Vendors Introduce the first NAS & SAN Data Protection Solution for Network Attached Storage Solutions, and may I respectfully refer you to www.vixel.com/NAS_SAN_EVENT/NAS_html which has a variety of articles and white papers, discussing their relationship with Network Appliance and how they work with us in SAN enviroments, and may I repectfully refer you to www.spectralogic.com/NetApp which also explains their relationship to Network Appliance and our integrated SAN solutions, and may I respectfully refer you to www.legato.com/News/index.html which has articles explaining their relationship with Network Appliance and our combined SAN-based architecture and solutions, and may I respectfully refer you to www.snia.org which has a new NAS work group and is also working on developing SAN standards. I would also like to reassure those of you, who have expressed a concern that Network Appliance is not planning future competitive products, that you are mistaken. Network Appliance is continuing to develop products which will compete sucessfully in both NAS and SAN environments. -----Original Message----- From: Yael Hellmann [mailto:yael_hellmann@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 6:56 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: re: nas storage Jeff probably hit the point - NetApp do not have a solution for SAN and I think that NetApp should re-think their direction. With more and more vendors competing in the nas /san domain, these products will be better and provide more functionality and better performance. The current connectivity limitations will be eliminated. With fibre fabric you will not be limited to the current limited implementation. I think that NetApps products are great but I am disappointed that they don't plan for future competitive products. -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Van Cleave [mailto:jeffvc@icopyright.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 6:13 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: nas storage NetApp is not designed to compete with SAN - and yes, you cannot say that 100mb ethernet will compete with fiber channel. However, direct attach has limitations in the number of servers it can connect to. At last check, EMC can connect with 32 systems. Hitachi can connect to a large number with a channel box (I don't know the high end limit). But you are limited by the length of cable between the SAN and the server. Basically we approached using NetApp as a replacement for all of our NFS servers, and to some extent our data servers. For direct attach, we will probably go with Hitachi. I think in any environment, both SAN and NetApp can be used effectively. It is not really an argument of which one is better, but what is your functional requirement and how will those needs be met. Jeff __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com

1 0

RE: nas storage
by Kirschner, Lewis 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE DESPITE WHAT THE GENTLEMAN SAYS BELOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE'VE GOT SEVERAL THOUSAND CUSTOMER WHO WILL TELL YOU OTHERWISE!!! -----Original Message----- From: Yael Hellmann [mailto:yael_hellmann@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 2:59 PM To: michael.alvarado(a)netapp.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: nas storage You are still limitted by the network and netapp will not be able to compete with products which provide direct disk attachment. Products in mind are SANergy and CXFS. Below is a message from a user who supports my assumtion that you cannot get local performance over a network link. "From: Michael S. Keller [mailto:mkeller@mail.wcg.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 10:56 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: nas storage I do not get performance on par with my perception of local disk storage. Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by "on par with local disk storage"? When I run Usenet news spools from Solaris 2.6 on a NetApp filer, I must throttle NFS to get it to work reliably. " --- "Alvarado, Michael" <michael.alvarado(a)netapp.com> wrote: > Network Appliance's current customer experience is > that they do get performance > on par with local disk storage already. > > Our current plans do not include any interoperation > with the SANenergy products. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yael Hellmann [mailto:yael_hellmann@yahoo.com] > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 6:02 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: nas storage > > > I am currently investigating the market for nas > storage. What is netapp plans in providing a > solution > which will deliver local disk performance for nas > storage? Does netapp have plans for products with > SANergy functionality or performance? > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com

6 7

RE: nas storage
by Yael Hellmann 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

You are still limitted by the network and netapp will not be able to compete with products which provide direct disk attachment. Products in mind are SANergy and CXFS. Below is a message from a user who supports my assumtion that you cannot get local performance over a network link. "From: Michael S. Keller [mailto:mkeller@mail.wcg.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 10:56 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: nas storage I do not get performance on par with my perception of local disk storage. Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by "on par with local disk storage"? When I run Usenet news spools from Solaris 2.6 on a NetApp filer, I must throttle NFS to get it to work reliably. " --- "Alvarado, Michael" <michael.alvarado(a)netapp.com> wrote: > Network Appliance's current customer experience is > that they do get performance > on par with local disk storage already. > > Our current plans do not include any interoperation > with the SANenergy products. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yael Hellmann [mailto:yael_hellmann@yahoo.com] > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 6:02 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: nas storage > > > I am currently investigating the market for nas > storage. What is netapp plans in providing a > solution > which will deliver local disk performance for nas > storage? Does netapp have plans for products with > SANergy functionality or performance? > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com

5 4

NOW website
by Jay Orr 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

Dunno if anyone had noticed, but as of the 11th they got rid of JavaScript. I just logged in with LYNX and it let me. Still gives lots of cookies, though. I'm going to check it out some more, but nice to see they finally took care of this. ----------- Jay Orr Systems Administrator Fujitsu Nexion Inc. St. Louis, MO

1 0

RE: Solaris 7 & NFS2/NFS3/TCP/UDP....
by Fox, Adam 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

> -----Original Message----- > From: Justin [mailto:Justin.Acklin@sv.sc.philips.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 7:21 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Solaris 7 & NFS2/NFS3/TCP/UDP.... > > > I just looked at our main filer and realized we are using 8k NFS > packets. With almost exclusively > solaris 2.6 and 2.7 clients. I bet we would see a significant speed > increase if we upped it, particularly > with the large regressions being done on this Netapp. But, can I just > log in and change the value? > Will that affect existing mounts, and at what point would the new > blocksize take effect? > Or, can I only set it on reboot -- but even then the clients > would have > to remount > the filesystem right? Someone help me out on the proper way > to do this, > and let me > know if doing this causes harm in any way. Looking at nfsstat most of > our operations are indeed > nfs3. In my real-world experience, some sites do well with 32K transaction sizes, some do better with 8K. It depends on the typical amounts of retransmissions you have on your network. What people need to remember is that regardless of how big your transaction size is, if you are using Ethernet, you are bound to a 1500 byte packet size. So with a larger transaction size you are generating fewer NFS requests, but layers 2 and 3 still have to deal with the consequenses. Layer 3 has to break the requests into multiple IP packets, and layer 2 is responsible for holding those packets until the transaction is complete in the case of retransmission. Now let's add UDP to the mix. UDP doesn't have a concept of a packet count. Therefore, retransmissions are more expensive in a UDP environment because you have to start from the beginning. Now, with 8K transactions you're only talking about a small number of packets that would have to be retransmitted. What with 32K, you can have many more (in the range of 16-18 packets) and this can be expensive. So what's the bottom line? You may want to experiment with a client or two and see how these parameters affect your network. In some cases, 32K/UDP works great. In others, it's not so great. Use what works on your network. Hope this helps. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com

1 0

re: nas storage
by Yael Hellmann 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

Jeff probably hit the point - NetApp do not have a solution for SAN and I think that NetApp should re-think their direction. With more and more vendors competing in the nas /san domain, these products will be better and provide more functionality and better performance. The current connectivity limitations will be eliminated. With fibre fabric you will not be limited to the current limited implementation. I think that NetApps products are great but I am disappointed that they don't plan for future competitive products. -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Van Cleave [mailto:jeffvc@icopyright.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 6:13 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: nas storage NetApp is not designed to compete with SAN - and yes, you cannot say that 100mb ethernet will compete with fiber channel. However, direct attach has limitations in the number of servers it can connect to. At last check, EMC can connect with 32 systems. Hitachi can connect to a large number with a channel box (I don't know the high end limit). But you are limited by the length of cable between the SAN and the server. Basically we approached using NetApp as a replacement for all of our NFS servers, and to some extent our data servers. For direct attach, we will probably go with Hitachi. I think in any environment, both SAN and NetApp can be used effectively. It is not really an argument of which one is better, but what is your functional requirement and how will those needs be met. Jeff __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com

4 3

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
15
Older →

Jump to page:

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 March 2000