toasters August 2000

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

152 participants
177 discussions

Configuring Netbackup for NDMP 3.2
by Oye Akintan 15 Aug '00

15 Aug '00

We have a F230 running Data Ontap 5.2.3 with a Quantum DLT4700 directly attached to it. I'm running Netbackup for Veritas 3.2 and Netbackup for NDMP 3.2. I've installed jumbo patch 0820413. I'm having problem configuring the storage device. I ran the command set_ndmp_attr -robot . The sys admin guide says to test it using tldtest -r servername:spt0 but when I ran this command, the mode sense failed with the following error: mode_sense failed, CHECK CONDITION sense key = 0x5, asc = 0x24, ascq = 0x0, INVALID FIELD IN CDB Can anyone tell me what I can do to fix it ? -Oye

1 0

Re: Bad NFS performance with Linux.. please help
by Eyal Traitel 15 Aug '00

15 Aug '00

I can suggest you to check: 1. Network cards and switches/routers between the Linuxes and the filers - check for 100mbit full duplex settings - check in the filer and the linux for nfsstat and netstat errors. 2. I don't have experience with NFS on linux, but I know that there were a lot of nfs changes in the last kernels, so even if it worked OK before, maybe you should just consider to upgrade the linuxes - it is never bad in linux anyway... :) You'll probably get faster NFS that way, since nfs was moved to kernel level I think in 2.3 or something... Eyal. --- Henrique Pantarotto <henrique(a)corp.terra.com.br> wrote: > Hello toaster friends! > > This week I experienced a very strange NFS performance in our POP3 > servers. > We've 4 POP3 Linux clients mouting 2 netapp boxes, like this: > > /var/spool/mail1 - F760 (cluster) > /var/spool/mail2 - F760 (cluster) > /var/spool/pop - F720 > > Our Linux clients are Pentium III 650Mhz Dual with 1GB RAM running a > Red > Hat-like distribution with Kernel 2.2.14-19smp. > > This solution has worked very fine until this week, when we started > experiencing high Load Average in our Linux boxes and accumulation of > pop > processes. > > Copies from /var/spool/mail to /var/spool/pop are verrrrrrrrry > slowwwwwwwwww... so pop processes get status of "D" (Disk Waiting > right?, > and caos takes place. > > I don't know what it is. We're crazy here... > > Anyone has ever had hard times like this before with Linux? > > > Thanks a lot for any help!!!!!!! > > PS: We've Brazilian NetApp guys giving us a hand here. > > > Regards, > _______________________________________________ > Henrique Pantarotto > SysOp Site S�o Paulo > Terra Networks Brasil S/A > A Internet mais sua do que nunca > Tel: (11) 5505-5728 r.316/238 ICQ: 6934285 IT: henpa > henrique(a)corp.terra.com.br > ===== Yours, Eyal Traitel eTraitel(a)yahoo.com, Home: 972-3-5290415 (Tel Aviv) *** eTraitel - it's the new eBuzzword ! *** __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail � Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/

6 5

BudTool-4.6.1a problem
by Marion Hakanson 14 Aug '00

14 Aug '00

Folks, We're wanting to upgrade from BudTool-4.6 (with patch 10) to bt-4.6.1a (plus its patch 2.Jumbo), in order to enable a NetApp OS upgrade (OnTAP 5.2.3 -> 5.3.x), per the applicable compatibility matrix, and we have run into a pretty serious issue that perhaps others of you have already dealt with. As background, at our site, our BudTool host is Solaris-2.6/SPARC, which controls a tape library's robotics & uses NDMP to tell our NetApp to back itself up to a SCSI-connected tape drive in that library (other tape drives are SCSI-connected to the BudTool host, and are used to backup other clients by various BudTool methods). While reading through the BudTool-4.6.1a Release Notes, I found: Split Images If a backup request is too large to fit on one tape, BudTool can split the backup image across a maximum of three tapes. BudTool does not support backup requests that require four or more tapes. Now if you're like me, you have a NetApp filesystem which is big enough to be split across 4 or 5 DLT7k tapes. In fact, we've been backing up such a filesystem for a couple years now, and have even done a number of single-file or single-directory restores from such backups, without any problems. We also use "btcp" to make offsite copies of these backups onto a DLT4k stacker, which of course splits such a backup image across even more tapes (up to 5 or 6). Naturally, after a lot of slow, deep breaths, I immediately did a little test, and was able to successfully restore a single file from a recent full backup which is split across five tapes. As is typical of dump/restore, it had to load and read all five tapes before the restore was complete. Although the file was a pretty recent one, and has a "high" inode number, I can't be sure which of the tapes contained the file I restored. Anyway, when I called PDC (yeah, Legato has farmed out all our BudTool support calls to PDC), they checked with Legato, who told them that yes, this is a known problem, and it has "always been that way", it's not something new introduced between bt-4.6 and bt-4.6.1a (and its subsequent jumbo patch). Specifically, I was told that if I tried to restore something that resided on that 4th (or 5th) tape, the restore would fail. The PDC support person also told me that Legato would not be issuing any more patches to BudTool, so this problem will apparently not be fixed. Ain't it great what $30k worth of software purchase and $6k/year of software maintenance (over the course of 2-3 years) can buy you? And any guesses as to who we're _not_ going to use to replace our BudTool installation & maintenance? At this point, I'm not sure what to say, other than to ask if anyone else out there has used bt-4.6 or bt-4.6.1a to backup and restore a filesystem that spans more than three or four, or more tapes, and of course to please let me know your results. I'd particularly like to know how and/or under what circumstances this split-image limit comes into play. Well, I'm off to break up that backup request into smaller ones. It's a lucky thing that 200GB filesystem is mostly divided into qtrees for each of our research centers. Regards, -- Marion Hakanson <hakanson(a)cse.ogi.edu> CSE Computing Facilities

1 0

Re: Configuring Netbackup for NDMP 3.2
by Steve Kappel 14 Aug '00

14 Aug '00

Oye Akintan wrote: >We have a F230 running Data Ontap 5.2.3 with a Quantum DLT4700 directly >attached to it. I'm running Netbackup for Veritas 3.2 and Netbackup for >NDMP 3.2. I've installed jumbo patch 0820413. I'm having problem >configuring the storage device. I ran the command set_ndmp_attr -robot . >The sys admin guide says to test it using tldtest -r servername:spt0 but >when I ran this command, the mode sense failed with the following error: > >mode_sense failed, CHECK CONDITION >sense key = 0x5, asc = 0x24, ascq = 0x0, INVALID FIELD IN CDB > Can anyone tell me what I can do to fix it ? Is this a standalone drive? If so, then there is no robot to configure. tldtest -r tests the robot. If it is in a library then the SCSI controller, id, or lun that you provided to set_ndmp_attr -robot are probably not the correct ones for your configuration. __________________________________________________________________________ Steve Kappel steve.kappel(a)veritas.com VERITAS Software steve.kappel(a)iname.com (Personal)

1 0

RE: move command on filer?
by Davis, John 14 Aug '00

14 Aug '00

I have..it reqires a MS JVM be installed on the NT box in question and a proper JDK..need a twist of Java expertise but if I can do it most of this audience sure can..I have the class libraries should anyone want them..I used Borlands JavaBuilder to knit them together.. -----Original Message----- From: Agnew, Blaine [mailto:Blaine.Agnew@netapp.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 5:59 PM To: ''Nick.Mayrath(a)envoy.com' '; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com ' Subject: RE: move command on filer? NDMPCopy can be handy for this sort of application, however I don't know if someone has ported it to NT yet. It is a freeware utility that runs on the host and controls the filer via NDMP commands. It is similar to having a dump piped through to a restore, except that the data does not have to go through your host. You can get the source from www.ndmp.org if you want to get more information. -----Original Message----- From: Muhlestein, Mark To: 'Nick.Mayrath(a)envoy.com'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Sent: 8/8/00 4:23 PM Subject: RE: move command on filer? If the files are in the same qtree the moves will be fast because this is just a rename; there is no need to copy the data. If not, you will have to copy the files. There is currently no way to do that locally on the filer. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Nick.Mayrath(a)envoy.com [mailto:Nick.Mayrath@envoy.com] Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 4:07 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: move command on filer? This weekend I need to move alot of files around of my F720. Is there any "move" command locally on the filer that I can use instead of using my NT machine? My concern is that using the NT machine will cause the moves to take longer since they have to "pass through" my NT box. Thanks

2 1

RE: Snapshots and Oracle
by Browning, Jeff 14 Aug '00

14 Aug '00

All: The TR refers to the major Oracle backup and recovery guide and assumes that the reader has access to that material. As such, there is no attempt to elaborate on items which are thoroughly covered in that medium. Backing up an Oracle database which is stored on a filer using hot backups is very comparable to doing so with conventional local disk - other than the fact that the period during which the affected tablspaces are in hot backup mode is dramatically shorter on a filer, due to the functionality of snapshots. Issues such as backing up the control file, switching log files, etc., are identical to local disk. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Clarke, Bruce Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 7:20 PM To: Browning, Jeff Subject: FW: Snapshots and Oracle As you are the author of the mentioned paper, would you care to respond? Bruce -----Original Message----- From: X X [mailto:gynt@post.com] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 2:37 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Snapshots and Oracle >1. Does a hot backup (as described on >http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3049.html) present any >restoration problems? Has anyone done a restore from a hot >backup? How about handling of the control files? In other hot-backup schemes I have seen, there are a lot of stuff on how and when to do the "ALTER DATABASE BACKUP CONTROLFILE ... ..." command. Also also some stuff on "ALTER SYSTEM SWITCH LOGFILE" or "ARCHIVE LOG NEXT" None of these are mentioned in the above TechLibrary article. /Gynt ______________________________________________ FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup ______________________________________________ FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

1 0

Quota command for users
by Dawn Hamel 14 Aug '00

14 Aug '00

Hi All, Anyone out there have code to allow users to check their own quotas which can not only run on HP-UX 10.20 and 11.0, but also under NT4? I have code from Guy Harris that compiled under Solaris ... but I need portable code Just thought I would check to make sure I am not re-inventing the wheel Thanks, Dawn Systems Programmer SAS Institute, Inc

1 0

Re: Bad NFS performance with Linux.. please help
by Darrell Fuhriman 13 Aug '00

13 Aug '00

chris_good(a)webtop.com (Chris Good) writes: > Unless someone fixes the problem pretty soon our strategy is > going to move away from filers everywhere to just a couple of filers at > the centre of the network. Anyone else think it would be worth netapp Heh, that smacks of shooting the messenger. It silly to blame the server, when it's clearly the client's fault. Darrell

4 3

RE: Filer storage for databases, seriously? (Was: Re: NetApp ques tions)
by Pesce, Nicholas (FUSA) 12 Aug '00

12 Aug '00

I'm sorry Keith. But I've heard this argument before. NFS versus Direct attatch storage? I'm going to have to vote for a good direct attach solution. Why? NFS and CIFS have huge overhead. Also, I took a look at the link you provided. The information was incomplete at best snip: .The following results were obtained with Bluecurve's Dynameasure SQL Professional product. We were running MS SQL Server 6.5 on a Dell 4200 with two 200 Mhz Pentium Pro CPUs and 512 Mb of RAM. The local disk was on a Dell PowerEdge RAID adapter with 6 9Gb UltraSCSI disks. The filer was an F630 with 512 Mb of RAM, and 14 9Gb UltraSCSI disks. The Dell was running RAID 0. The Filer, needless to say, was running RAID 4. snip What were the speeds of the drives? The CPU information here is important but not compared to drive information. Also I'd like to point out that writing to 3 disks (you are using raid 0 so the 6 disks are now effectively 3) spindles is most likely going to be slower than writing to 14 spindles. Following the logic of this link. (ignoring obvious disk information questions) Netapp would like me to believe that a machine running a non-parity raid platform (mirroring) and having a low protocol overhead (scsi) is slower that a Network appliance running a parity system (raid 4) and running NFS or CIFS (I'm assuming it was CIFS because it was a MS sequel server, but I could be incorrect). I think I would like to see a test where the Disk sizes and number were similar, I sincerely doubt the Netapp would do as well. I believe that Network Appliances are solid machines that perform their functions effectively, but they are NOT a replacement for direct attach where speed is essential. -----Original Message----- From: rdobbins(a)netmore.net [mailto:rdobbins@netmore.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 8:47 PM To: keith(a)netapp.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Filer storage for databases, seriously? (Was: Re: NetApp ques tions) No one thoughout recorded history, apart from assorted nuts, has ever believed that the Earth was flat; Eratosthenes calculated both its circumference to within 1% of the true value as well its tilt relative to the plane of the ecliptic no later than 200 B.C. The only real problem was that of terra incognita - i.e., nobody knew exactly where the landmasses were located until a) someone sailed there, and b) accurate chronometers were developed by John Harrison in the 18th Century, enabling navigators to calculate longitude with a high degree of accuracy, and then relay that information to cartographers. Advances in spherical geometry a la Mercator assisted the latter group, of course. Historical canards aside, let me restate that I'm very interested in hearing about production experience with NetApp filers and Oracle over NFS. I've a 740 with a Gigabit Ethernet interface, plugged into a Catalyst 5509 doing MPLS, and so would be willing to entertain the notion if someone can give me anything beyond benchmarks. I know all about snapshots and all that, by the bye. It's -performance- which is the question. Thanks for the pointer to the link, I'll be sure and check it out. ----------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins(a)netmore.net> // 818.535.5024 voice -----Original Message----- From: Keith Brown [mailto:keith@netapp.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 5:48 PM To: rdobbins(a)netmore.net; Perry.Jiang(a)bmo.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Filer storage for databases, seriously? (Was: Re: NetApp questions) > As to running Oracle with the data and logfiles on a filer via NFS, > I should think that even with a NetApp using Gigabit Ethernet, > you'd take a -huge- performance hit as compared to a local > disk array. Beware conventional wisdom Roland. People used to think the Earth was flat too. :-) While I wouldn't be so bold as to *guarantee* performance boosts in utilizing the filer storage approach for every database application under the Sun, the simple fact is that filers contain a myriad of features that are very attractive to the database market, and NetApp now draws a significant and growing portion of its revenues from this space. Snapshots & SnapRestore greatly simplify and enhance database backup and restore environs. The WAFL RAID design puts failure resiliancy into the disk subsystem without forcing you take the performance hits inherent in general purpose RAID-5 designs or going to disk-doubling RAID-1 approaches. SnapMirror gives you database replication to offsite locations for disaster recovery purposes. WAFL's ready expandibility lets you make room for growing databases without disrupting their operation. The list goes on... Oh.. and yes... performance very often gets a shot in the arm too! > I've no empirical data > to back this up, mind you; Don't worry. Nobody ever does, not even our direct-attach competitors, not that they can be too harshly criticized. Meaningful performance comparisons are tricky to architect, usually have a short shelf life, and customers have an understandable tendency not to believe vendor funded benchmarks anyway (due to the fact that the vendor performing and/or funding the benchmark almost always wins!). Nevertheless, we did publish a relatively innocuous one some time ago, which can be viewed here: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3044.html > it's just that there's so much overhead > associated with NFS even on an optimized platform > like the NetApp filer, I can't see it as being a win. There are certainly some "swings-and-roundabouts"-type things to consider when looking at the two approaches, and some people do conclude that there is more overhead in the network attach approach, dismissing it offhand. However, as far as performance goes, all the theory in the world is no substitute for the practical experience that could be gained by trying a solution for the application you have and actually bearing witness to how well it works and what it performs like. > If there's anyone out there with Oracle experience on filers > via NFS, either pro or con, I'd love to hear from you. I'm hoping there will be some on this list. As I mentioned, beware conventional wisdom. America might have been discovered hundreds of years before Columbus sailed over the horizon, if only all his ancestors hadn't been terrified of falling off the edge of the world! Keith

5 4

Re: Bad NFS performance with Linux.. please help
by Mohan Srinivasan 12 Aug '00

12 Aug '00

--- Chris Good <chris_good(a)webtop.com> wrote: > Unless someone fixes the problem pretty soon our strategy is > going to move away from filers everywhere to just a couple of filers at > the centre of the network. Anyone else think it would be worth netapp > sponsoring someone to fix up the linux nfs client to perform well under > load? I'm guessing that the cost-benefit to netapp would be pretty > convinving. Did you pick up NFSv3 client support and the latest NFS performance/stability patches from nfs.sourceforge.net ? Client performance (and stability) improved considerably after I picked up these patches (I use NFSv3/UDP with 32KB xfer sizes). __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail � Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/

1 0

← Newer
1
...
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
...
18
Older →

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 August 2000