toasters September 2000

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

122 participants
161 discussions

Budtool woes
by Clawson, Simon 07 Sep '00

07 Sep '00

Hi! We have Budtool 4.6.1, and are currently looking for a replacement. However... I am bacing up a single volume filer with nearly 200GB of data - my backup is constanlty failing due to the process running out of time..anyone seen this? Is there a way round it? Can I increse the allowable time? Can I split the backup into several levels? HELP! Simon Simon Clawson Renoir Group Systems Administrator Mentor Graphics Uk Rivergate London Road Newbury Berkshire RG14 2QB <<Clawson, Simon.vcf>>

4 4

question1:exportfs -au crash ORACLE daemon; question2:snapshot di r. confusion
by Li, Jack 07 Sep '00

07 Sep '00

Hi, Question#1: We have a F740 filer used as the Oracle DB storage. Our platform is : Sun-Solaris 2.7, SUN 420R,using Giga-bit private connection into filer; using recommended NFS mount options for Oracle 816. Situation: when we have a request to "expand" our filer for sharing (exportfs), and as the time the Oracle daemons were running. We changed the filer's /etc/exports, then executed "exportfs -au", "exportfs -a". And, right after those 2 command to the filer, ALL our Oracle daemons crashed and died. Is that supposed to happen? Question#2: We tried to write a SHELL script to automate our daily (filer) snapshot operation. During the course of testing, we found out a very annoying situation. (The HW/SW specification are the same as above.) There is a Q-tree called "/vol/vol01/ismis_oracle_u1" and is mounted under this machine at the mount point of "/oracle/u1". The problem happened after the snapshot was taken. One of our team member set the source PATH (wrong) to /oracle/u1/oradata/.snapshot in the script (supposed to be "/oracle/u1/.snapshot"). And, this PATH actually worked some of the time. But, when it failed , it showed the error message as "cp: can not find files /oracle/u1/oradata/.snapshot/*". Interesting thing is if we insert a "/bin/ls /orcale/u1/oradata/.snapshot/*" right before the "cp" command, the directory seems to be there after the command , hence the "cp" operation was happy. Any idea? Thanks! Jack Li UNIX System Admin. Team, Toronto Production Support, Capital Markets, Nesbitt Burns Emf!sys, Division of Bank of Montreal Group of Company 416-867-3527,(fax)416-867-7157 <mailto:Jack.Li@bmo.com> Jack.Li(a)bmo.com

3 2

RE: dlt autoloaders
by Premanshu Jain 07 Sep '00

07 Sep '00

I would like to discuss with you in detail about implementing NDMP via gig bit .Let me know the best time I should call. thanks prem Premanshu Jain IS Engineering Support Lead Nortel Networks, Carrier Packet Solutions IP Services Division 2305, Mission College Blvd, Santa Clara, CA 95054 Direct: (408) 565-3573 ESN: 655-3573 eMail: prjain(a)shastanets.com Web: http://www.nortelnetworks.com/ipservices -----Original Message----- From: Kamenzin, Marcus [mailto:kamenzin@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 1:57 PM To: Premanshu Jain; 'Stephen J. Wilcox'; neil lehrer Cc: toasters Subject: RE: dlt autoloaders Hi there, a) AIT II is really good!! b) Quick Restore is the best NDMP-Solution (best NDMP-implementation - really 3-way) c) Don't use FC-Backup, only if you really want the advantage of tape sharing. The supported FC-Backup-solution has a lot of limitations. So, use direct att. SCSI or new Libraries with implemented NDMP-Servers via GBit. Regards Marcus Marcus Kamenzin System Engineer Network Appliance GmbH Unterreut 6 D-76135 Karlsruhe Tel.: (0721) 86901-17 Fax: (0721) 86901-11 Mobile: (0170) 4464341 Mail: kamenzin(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Premanshu Jain [SMTP:PrJain@shastanets.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 6:15 PM > To: 'Stephen J. Wilcox'; neil lehrer > Cc: toasters > Subject: RE: dlt autoloaders > > a) Why don't you try AIT II instead of DLT. I am getting excellant > performance on those 8 mm. Writing more that 100 GB per tape. We are using > Qualstar and spectra logic tape libraries. > > b) Veritas seems to be OK. With lot of limitations and bugs. I have heard of > a better s/w from www.worksta.com > > c) You may use a Vixel Fibre channal switch with fibre channal interfaces on > the concerened servers and the Filers. This will enable accessing tpaes from > anywhere. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen J. Wilcox [mailto:steve@opaltelecom.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 1:07 AM > To: neil lehrer > Cc: toasters > Subject: Re: dlt autoloaders > > > Actually on that subject I am looking to buy a system soon, I'm thinking > of getting an HP surestore library and using Veritas. Theres a lot of > systems to back up altho they dont have that much data on them, then I > have (for now 1) netfiler, does anyone > > a) think surestore are good? > b) think veritas is good? > c) know if i can do anything to save time by directly connecting the tape > library to the filer hence bypassing the server but still keeping the tape > accessible from the server in order to do my network backups? > > Steve > > -- > Stephen J. Wilcox > Internet Manager, Opal Telecom > http://www.opaltelecom.co.uk/ > Tel: 0161 222 2000 > Fax: 0161 222 2008 > > On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, neil lehrer wrote: > > > hi, > > > > i'd like recommendations for a dlt autoloader to be attached to an f760 > > and controlled by legato. thanks. > > -- > >

1 0

RE: dlt autoloaders
by Kamenzin, Marcus 07 Sep '00

07 Sep '00

Hi there, a) AIT II is really good!! b) Quick Restore is the best NDMP-Solution (best NDMP-implementation - really 3-way) c) Don't use FC-Backup, only if you really want the advantage of tape sharing. The supported FC-Backup-solution has a lot of limitations. So, use direct att. SCSI or new Libraries with implemented NDMP-Servers via GBit. Regards Marcus Marcus Kamenzin System Engineer Network Appliance GmbH Unterreut 6 D-76135 Karlsruhe Tel.: (0721) 86901-17 Fax: (0721) 86901-11 Mobile: (0170) 4464341 Mail: kamenzin(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Premanshu Jain [SMTP:PrJain@shastanets.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 6:15 PM > To: 'Stephen J. Wilcox'; neil lehrer > Cc: toasters > Subject: RE: dlt autoloaders > > a) Why don't you try AIT II instead of DLT. I am getting excellant > performance on those 8 mm. Writing more that 100 GB per tape. We are using > Qualstar and spectra logic tape libraries. > > b) Veritas seems to be OK. With lot of limitations and bugs. I have heard of > a better s/w from www.worksta.com > > c) You may use a Vixel Fibre channal switch with fibre channal interfaces on > the concerened servers and the Filers. This will enable accessing tpaes from > anywhere. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen J. Wilcox [mailto:steve@opaltelecom.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 1:07 AM > To: neil lehrer > Cc: toasters > Subject: Re: dlt autoloaders > > > Actually on that subject I am looking to buy a system soon, I'm thinking > of getting an HP surestore library and using Veritas. Theres a lot of > systems to back up altho they dont have that much data on them, then I > have (for now 1) netfiler, does anyone > > a) think surestore are good? > b) think veritas is good? > c) know if i can do anything to save time by directly connecting the tape > library to the filer hence bypassing the server but still keeping the tape > accessible from the server in order to do my network backups? > > Steve > > -- > Stephen J. Wilcox > Internet Manager, Opal Telecom > http://www.opaltelecom.co.uk/ > Tel: 0161 222 2000 > Fax: 0161 222 2008 > > On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, neil lehrer wrote: > > > hi, > > > > i'd like recommendations for a dlt autoloader to be attached to an f760 > > and controlled by legato. thanks. > > -- > >

1 0

RE: dlt autoloaders
by Premanshu Jain 07 Sep '00

07 Sep '00

a) Why don't you try AIT II instead of DLT. I am getting excellant performance on those 8 mm. Writing more that 100 GB per tape. We are using Qualstar and spectra logic tape libraries. b) Veritas seems to be OK. With lot of limitations and bugs. I have heard of a better s/w from www.worksta.com c) You may use a Vixel Fibre channal switch with fibre channal interfaces on the concerened servers and the Filers. This will enable accessing tpaes from anywhere. -----Original Message----- From: Stephen J. Wilcox [mailto:steve@opaltelecom.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 1:07 AM To: neil lehrer Cc: toasters Subject: Re: dlt autoloaders Actually on that subject I am looking to buy a system soon, I'm thinking of getting an HP surestore library and using Veritas. Theres a lot of systems to back up altho they dont have that much data on them, then I have (for now 1) netfiler, does anyone a) think surestore are good? b) think veritas is good? c) know if i can do anything to save time by directly connecting the tape library to the filer hence bypassing the server but still keeping the tape accessible from the server in order to do my network backups? Steve -- Stephen J. Wilcox Internet Manager, Opal Telecom http://www.opaltelecom.co.uk/ Tel: 0161 222 2000 Fax: 0161 222 2008 On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, neil lehrer wrote: > hi, > > i'd like recommendations for a dlt autoloader to be attached to an f760 > and controlled by legato. thanks. > -- >

1 0

Re: gigabit ethernet performance
by Marcus Smiley 07 Sep '00

07 Sep '00

two of 'em (450MHZ), with 2GB RAM. On Wed, 06 Sep 2000, Jim Patterson wrote: ! Marcus, ! ! How many CPUs do you have in your 220R? We have found that a single CPU ! is needed just to keep the network interface busy so the minimum ! configuration to get better than 10MB/sec is two CPUs. ! ! Jim ! -- ! Jim Patterson ! Pfizer Global Research and Development, La Jolla ! ! Marcus Smiley | Ericsson Wireless Communications, Inc. Unix Sys Admin | 6210 Spine Rd. Boulder, CO 80301 | Ph (303) 473-6903

1 0

Re: gigabit ethernet performance
by Darrell Fuhriman 07 Sep '00

07 Sep '00

Premanshu Jain <PrJain(a)shastanets.com> writes: > Oh..That's even better. We got a max of 8 mbytes/sec. Never more than that. > Interestingly, we get the same throughput between any sun boxes as well... No offense, but you must be doing something wrong. Our Suns (E450s) can do at least 60MB/second over gigabit. Darrell

1 0

RE: gigabit ethernet performance
by Premanshu Jain 07 Sep '00

07 Sep '00

Oh..That's even better. We got a max of 8 mbytes/sec. Never more than that. Interestingly, we get the same throughput between any sun boxes as well... prem -----Original Message----- From: Marcus Smiley [mailto:marcus.smiley@ericsson.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 2:41 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: gigabit ethernet performance Does anyone have any benchmarks/suggestions for poor performace with gigabit ethernet between Sun enterprise 220R and NetApp 740 with Intel GBII card? I have an open ticket w/Netapp and it's been open forever. These machines are directly attached (private network), and I've tried a mkfile and copying that file back during the day and at night (no load) and it makes no difference. The performance is ~ 10 MB/s, no matter what. The Sun is running Solaris 8, with latest GB Ethernet 3.0 drivers and patches. Also, the Sun box's only function is Legato server, so I've even stopped all nsr daemons while the test copy/mkfile is in progress, & it makes no difference. I've tried NFSv2 vs. NFSv3, with 32k size packets and 8k size packets. I've tried tcp and udp, with the same results. The /etc/system file on the E220R looks like this, for the ge adapter: * Increase size of STREAMS syncronized queues to increase network * performance. Release notes for qfe card recommends setting this * to 25 per 64Mbytes of RAM in the system. It also prevents * receive overrun on the GbE interface. msmiley 7/20/00 set sq_max_size=775 set ge:ge_adv_1000autoneg_cap=0 set ge:ge_adv_1000fdx_cap=1 set ge:ge_adv_pauseTX=1 Also, I've set tcp/udp specific stuff per the Netapp tech suppt. folks: ndd -set /dev/udp udp_recv_hiwat 65535 ndd -set /dev/udp udp_xmit_hiwat 65535 ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_recv_hiwat 65535 ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_xmit_hiwat 65535 The netapp is a 740 (5.3.6R1P1) with over 100GB of free space available on the volume I'm copying to/from. Interestingly enough, I have done a packet trace (pktt) on the GBII card and it looks OK. Also, the throughput from my 100BaseT card to the netapp (thru a catalyst 5500) does ~ 7.5 MB/s. *Any* input here would be much appreciated. -Marc Marcus Smiley | Ericsson Wireless Communications, Inc. Unix Sys Admin | 6210 Spine Rd. Boulder, CO 80301 | Ph (303) 473-6903

1 0

Re: gigabit ethernet performance
by Marcus Smiley 06 Sep '00

06 Sep '00

no there is no switch between the filer and Sun box, using crossover fiber jumper scenario. yes, both machines are set to FULL flow control. Here's a sysstat 1 before, during & after I create a 100MB file, using mkfile: CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 3% 52 0 0 19 43 0 0 0 0 38 3% 65 2 0 11 10 0 0 0 0 38 4% 35 2 0 51 13 0 0 0 0 38 3% 6 23 0 167 10 0 0 0 0 38 4% 36 23 0 14 5 0 0 0 0 38 4% 29 79 0 72 28 52 0 0 0 38 38% 10 260 0 22 57 4412 10316 0 0 38 6% 20 2 0 36 136 3 0 0 0 38 59% 601 1 0 13398 374 0 0 0 0 38 82% 398 16 0 9009 291 4684 14874 0 0 38 73% 572 23 0 12229 363 2972 7208 0 0 38 87% 457 2 0 10112 326 3688 16404 0 0 38 80% 327 0 0 9509 284 5980 14176 0 0 38 73% 520 15 0 14158 405 1093 5053 0 0 38 93% 342 0 0 8070 269 7148 18589 0 0 38 68% 356 2 0 9640 283 5428 11073 0 0 38 82% 591 0 0 11667 346 4112 9208 0 0 38 88% 562 3 0 8520 506 6740 15836 0 0 38 32% 135 1 0 4585 271 1077 4032 0 0 38 3% 19 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 38 CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 3% 64 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 38 3% 48 0 0 14 12 0 0 0 0 38 3% 17 2 0 13 10 0 0 0 0 38 3% 4 12 0 30 5 0 0 0 0 38 3% 4 12 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 38 On Wed, 06 Sep 2000, Paul Albers wrote: ! Marcus, ! ! Do you have flow control enabled on both Rx and Tx on the ! port the filer is connected to on the switch? If not, try enabling ! it and retest. How does the filer look during writes and ! reads ( sysstat 1 )? Also, what is the configuration of the ! filer ( cards in what slots? ). ! ! Regards, ! ! -paul ! ! Marcus Smiley wrote: ! ! > slot 8 ! > ! > On Wed, 06 Sep 2000, Larry Armstrong wrote: ! > ! > ! Howdy! ! > ! ! > ! Out of curiousity, what slot do you have your GbE card in? ! > ! ! > ! ---larry >:) ! > ! _ ! > ! * Marcus Smiley (marcus.smiley(a)ericsson.com) done spit this rhetoric: ! > ! > Does anyone have any benchmarks/suggestions for poor performace with ! > ! > gigabit ethernet between Sun enterprise 220R and NetApp 740 with Intel ! > ! > GBII card? I have an open ticket w/Netapp and it's been open ! > ! > forever. These machines are directly attached (private network), and ! > ! > I've tried a mkfile and copying that file back during the day and at ! > ! > night (no load) and it makes no difference. ! > ! > ! > ! > The performance is ~ 10 MB/s, no matter what. ! > ! > ! > ! > The Sun is running Solaris 8, with latest GB Ethernet 3.0 drivers ! > ! > and patches. Also, the Sun box's only function is Legato server, ! > ! > so I've even stopped all nsr daemons while the test copy/mkfile ! > ! > is in progress, & it makes no difference. ! > ! > ! > ! > I've tried NFSv2 vs. NFSv3, with 32k size packets and 8k size packets. ! > ! > I've tried tcp and udp, with the same results. ! > ! > ! > ! > The /etc/system file on the E220R looks like this, for the ge adapter: ! > ! > ! > ! > * Increase size of STREAMS syncronized queues to increase network ! > ! > * performance. Release notes for qfe card recommends setting this ! > ! > * to 25 per 64Mbytes of RAM in the system. It also prevents ! > ! > * receive overrun on the GbE interface. msmiley 7/20/00 ! > ! > ! > ! > set sq_max_size=775 ! > ! > set ge:ge_adv_1000autoneg_cap=0 ! > ! > set ge:ge_adv_1000fdx_cap=1 ! > ! > set ge:ge_adv_pauseTX=1 ! > ! > ! > ! > Also, I've set tcp/udp specific stuff per the Netapp tech suppt. folks: ! > ! > ! > ! > ndd -set /dev/udp udp_recv_hiwat 65535 ! > ! > ndd -set /dev/udp udp_xmit_hiwat 65535 ! > ! > ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_recv_hiwat 65535 ! > ! > ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_xmit_hiwat 65535 ! > ! > ! > ! > The netapp is a 740 (5.3.6R1P1) with over 100GB of free space available on the ! > ! > volume I'm copying to/from. ! > ! > ! > ! > Interestingly enough, I have done a packet trace (pktt) on the GBII ! > ! > card and it looks OK. Also, the throughput from my 100BaseT card to ! > ! > the netapp (thru a catalyst 5500) does ~ 7.5 MB/s. ! > ! > ! > ! > *Any* input here would be much appreciated. ! > ! > ! > ! > -Marc ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > Marcus Smiley | Ericsson Wireless Communications, Inc. ! > ! > Unix Sys Admin | 6210 Spine Rd. Boulder, CO 80301 | Ph (303) 473-6903 ! > ! > ! > ! ! > ! -- ! > ! Larry Armstrong ! > ! <surfer(a)netapp.com> ! > ! ! > ! bovarism n. - A magnified opinion of one's own abilities. ! > ! > Marcus Smiley | Ericsson Wireless Communications, Inc. ! > Unix Sys Admin | 6210 Spine Rd. Boulder, CO 80301 | Ph (303) 473-6903 ! ! -- ! "Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances of survival ! of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." ! ! -Albert Einstein !

1 0

Re: gigabit ethernet performance
by Marcus Smiley 06 Sep '00

06 Sep '00

slot 8 On Wed, 06 Sep 2000, Larry Armstrong wrote: ! Howdy! ! ! Out of curiousity, what slot do you have your GbE card in? ! ! ---larry >:) ! _ ! * Marcus Smiley (marcus.smiley(a)ericsson.com) done spit this rhetoric: ! > Does anyone have any benchmarks/suggestions for poor performace with ! > gigabit ethernet between Sun enterprise 220R and NetApp 740 with Intel ! > GBII card? I have an open ticket w/Netapp and it's been open ! > forever. These machines are directly attached (private network), and ! > I've tried a mkfile and copying that file back during the day and at ! > night (no load) and it makes no difference. ! > ! > The performance is ~ 10 MB/s, no matter what. ! > ! > The Sun is running Solaris 8, with latest GB Ethernet 3.0 drivers ! > and patches. Also, the Sun box's only function is Legato server, ! > so I've even stopped all nsr daemons while the test copy/mkfile ! > is in progress, & it makes no difference. ! > ! > I've tried NFSv2 vs. NFSv3, with 32k size packets and 8k size packets. ! > I've tried tcp and udp, with the same results. ! > ! > The /etc/system file on the E220R looks like this, for the ge adapter: ! > ! > * Increase size of STREAMS syncronized queues to increase network ! > * performance. Release notes for qfe card recommends setting this ! > * to 25 per 64Mbytes of RAM in the system. It also prevents ! > * receive overrun on the GbE interface. msmiley 7/20/00 ! > ! > set sq_max_size=775 ! > set ge:ge_adv_1000autoneg_cap=0 ! > set ge:ge_adv_1000fdx_cap=1 ! > set ge:ge_adv_pauseTX=1 ! > ! > Also, I've set tcp/udp specific stuff per the Netapp tech suppt. folks: ! > ! > ndd -set /dev/udp udp_recv_hiwat 65535 ! > ndd -set /dev/udp udp_xmit_hiwat 65535 ! > ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_recv_hiwat 65535 ! > ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_xmit_hiwat 65535 ! > ! > The netapp is a 740 (5.3.6R1P1) with over 100GB of free space available on the ! > volume I'm copying to/from. ! > ! > Interestingly enough, I have done a packet trace (pktt) on the GBII ! > card and it looks OK. Also, the throughput from my 100BaseT card to ! > the netapp (thru a catalyst 5500) does ~ 7.5 MB/s. ! > ! > *Any* input here would be much appreciated. ! > ! > -Marc ! > ! > ! > ! > Marcus Smiley | Ericsson Wireless Communications, Inc. ! > Unix Sys Admin | 6210 Spine Rd. Boulder, CO 80301 | Ph (303) 473-6903 ! > ! ! -- ! Larry Armstrong ! <surfer(a)netapp.com> ! ! bovarism n. - A magnified opinion of one's own abilities. Marcus Smiley | Ericsson Wireless Communications, Inc. Unix Sys Admin | 6210 Spine Rd. Boulder, CO 80301 | Ph (303) 473-6903

1 0

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 September 2000