toasters October 2001

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

136 participants
184 discussions

RE: Ack! I can't take it anymore!
by Joe Luchtenberg 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

Following the thread from '99, I noticed a link to the following post in a concurrent thread (http://teaparty.mathworks.com/toasters/2305.html). Notice the poster, the date/time stamp of his post and the date/time stamp of the post to which he was responding. I don't think I have ever felt so assured that a company stood behind their product. (It probably wasn't very fun to be in the customer service or OnTAP patch development teams in Sunnyvale on March 3, 1999.) Joe > -----Original Message----- > From: kevin graham [mailto:kgraham@dotnetdotcom.org] > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 3:11 PM > To: Greg Collins > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Ack! I can't take it anymore! > > > > > Correct me if Im wrong but I seem to recall a certain > > conversation about a "Patent Leather" bezel with Brass Studs... > > Yep, several of us have had to hold off on new installations because > NetApp's just not producing the features we've been > requesting for some > time, holding back our purchases (well, ok, maybe lack of > cash in the .com > environment is a bigger factor, but *shrug*) For anyone > somewhat new to > the list, check out the thread starting at: > > http://teaparty.mathworks.com/toasters/2271.html > > (don't let the subject throw you off). Even with the Burnt Sienna face > plates, I doubt even the 3-letter trolls on the list would claim > superiority over NTAP in visual performance. > > ..kg.. >

2 1

Problem with Clearcase on NetAPP/EMC NAS with Solaris servers [Rational CaseID:V0919657]
by Steve Gremban 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

FYI: > > Tech Note 21806 > > PRODUCT: ClearCase > OS: Solaris > DEFECT #: N/A > PATCH #: > REFERENCES: > > CREATED: 1-OCT-2001 > REVISED: > > SYMPTOM:Problem when views or vobs are on NetAPP/EMC NAS with Solaris > servers. > > CAUSE: SUN has caused a defect in synchronous I/O via a series of > patches. > > ClearCase sites that use a certified Network Attached > Storage device to hold VOB or view databases served by > a ClearCase host running Solaris 6, 7, or 8 must not > apply Solaris patch number 105720-17 to the VOB or view > server host. This patch introduces a defect in Solaris, > documented in Sun case number 36381458 (close, EAGAIN), > which causes protocol failures that could put VOB or > view data at risk. > > Sun has acknowledged the defect and made the following fixes available: > > OS Version Fix > ----------------------------------------------- > Solaris 8 Solaris patch # 108727-06 (or later) > Solaris 7 binary fix > Solaris 6 binary fix > > RESOLUTION: > The Solaris bug which is actually getting fixed is 4349744. > There are others out there, but they're all basically duplicates of > this one. > > The bug is fixed in Solaris 8 with patch 108727-06, and the current > version of > this patch is 108727-08. > > Patches for Solaris 7 and Solaris 2.6 should be coming > shortly. If you, or your customers are running into this issue on either > 5.7 or 5.6, > I would strongly recommend opening a case with SUN and asking for the > binary > fix, or t-patch to provide relief until the 'real' patch is released. > > For more information, contact Rational Software Technical Support. > -- Steve Gremban MGTS,CCNA Texas Instruments, SC Design Systems Strategy and Development Team gremban(a)ti.com 214-480-7888

1 0

Tracking logins
by David C Baumgardner 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

My boss has ask me to track who accesses one share using cifs on our Netapp my admin host is a unix box and the qtrees are setup as unix. Is there any native way to do this or any programs that perform this function? Dave

2 1

RE: NetApp response on Microsoft Support for SQL Server and Exchange
by Clark Turner 06 Oct '01

06 Oct '01

Ken, I know how you feel. I am in the same boat with the Netapp 840. We where about to migrate 150 DB's from SQL and oracle. I hope my email did not scare you to much. I know people are running SQL with success. Others are not. I wanted to explain what I learned so Netapp could understand why I am worried. It was not meant to freak out others. I would test and test and test and test to be Damn sure you do not have the problems we did. C >>> "Bunce, Ken" <KBunce(a)JunoLtg.com> 10/5/2001 8:55:02 AM >>> Reading e-mails like one from Clark is really making me nervous, I just convinced my corporation to migrate our SQL 7.0 database to a F840 based on assurances from Sandy and our local representatives from NetApp of MS support for SQL in a NAS environment. I, too, have gotten my email from NetApp regarding signing a NDA. Quit worrying about protecting your tails and give us an honest answer. Ken Bunce -----Original Message----- From: Clark Turner To: toasters(a)mathworks.com; sandra.lake(a)netapp.com Sent: 10/5/01 10:25 AM Subject: Re: NetApp response on Microsoft Support for SQL Server and Exchange Thanks for the information Sandy. I just read the QB article 5 times. Towards the end of the article is states: Limited support is extended to only the SQL server application and DOES NOT extend to any issues that may occur as a result of the use of non windows Logo qualified products: EMC Clariion server Network Appliance Filers (specifically the Netapp F760 and F800) Nowhere in the article does it say that NAS is supported on The Netapp products. There is a line stating "limited" support for NAS devices. "Limited" is not a good enough reason for me to put my Job on the line running SQL on this 840. Here is another quote: "Microsoft generally recommends that you store Database files either on local disk subsystems or on storage area networks (SAN)." That's the one that grabs my attention. Add the lines about data corruption and I am scared. Then add in a posts that passed through this list: "It is confirmed from our Microsoft Rep. that they will not support SQL or Exchange on NAS. But it is supported on SAN. We are moving our SQL databases and exchange from NAS to a SAN. Leaving the F740 to do file services at a rather expensive cost." and "We have also noticed that some of the databases have gone suspect when there was a hiccup on the comm side. You know as well as I that's not acceptable. In some instances the databases that went suspect could not be recovered and had to be restored from a SQL backup." After all of this I thought I would test our loaner 840 out. I took a copy of a production database that was 5 gig in size and then inserted 34 million records into it. First I ran this on local Raid 5 on a Compaq DL580. It took about 10 hours. Then I offloaded a fresh copy of the database to the 840 and ran the test again. To our amazement the netapp database was missing records. It failed to write the records down to disk. Just as the above quote states and just as the MS article warns. A single missing record means that my database us useless. I was never able to fix the problem in a week of solid testing. Then a Netapp employee sent me email talking about me signing a non disclosure statement before Netapp would discuss the issue really made me step back and think. I think our data is to important to chance. I know some people are doing this but the events in the last week have told me that its just not safe.I need a solution that is GUARANTEED and officially supported by Microsoft. CT >>> "Lake, Sandy" <sandra.lake(a)netapp.com> 10/4/2001 6:12:51 PM >>> Network Appliance has more than 200 customers using filers with SQL Server 6.5, 7.0, or 2000 with databases ranging up to 800 GB. Microsoft has published knowledge base article Q304261 on the Microsoft Web site, which states support of their SQL Server product when used with Network Appliance F760 or F800 series products. The article can be found at: http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q304/2/61.asp?id=Q30426 1 The Microsoft rep in the field may not be aware of this knowledge base article. Customers will receive SQL Server support from Microsoft Product Support Services when they log a call. Network Appliance hosts 1.1 million Exchange seats at more than 200 large Exchange accounts. Network Appliance is the primary provider of support for SnapManager and filers deployed in Exchange 5.5 or Exchange 2000 environments. When the Exchange log file and store are located on filers and the customer experiences any problems getting to their data, a support call would be opened with Network Appliance. Microsoft has published knowledge base article Q237767, which covers offline and snapshot backups in Exchange environments. That article can be found at http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q237/7/67.asp?id=Q23776 7 Working with the customer, Network Appliance will determine if the root cause of the call is with SnapManager, filers, Exchange 5.5 or Exchange 2000. If the root cause is unrelated to NetApp products, IBM Global Services (IBMGS), NetApp's certified support partner for Exchange, is brought into the call to assist us. Network Appliance, IBMGS, and the customer work together to close the call to the customer's satisfaction. The customer's support agreement would be contracted through NetApp. There is no additional charge to the customer for the Exchange expertise provided by IBMGS. Network Appliance offers customers several service agreement levels that can be tailored to meet their specific support requirements. Network Appliance offers many solutions that protect and enhance a customers investment in the Microsoft platform, however this is not the appropriate forum for that discussion. If you need or would like more details about information in this email, please contact your local sales rep. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------ Sandy Lake Director, Microsoft Alliances Network Appliance <<InterScan_Disclaimer.txt>>

2 1

RE: SQL2000 on F740 w/ Log Shipping?
by Todd Phillips 05 Oct '01

05 Oct '01

Hi Brian. What Cluster App are you running on the SQL Servers? Veritas, Legato, other? Have you checked the White Papers on NetApps Now site? Todd -----Original Message----- From: Wollermann, Brian To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Sent: 10/5/2001 2:28 PM Subject: SQL2000 on F740 w/ Log Shipping? I'm trying to do some testing with our F740 and SQL2000. With the DBs hosted on the filer the stupid checkbox is greyed out for log shipping. Has anyone been able to setup a standby server that accesses databases on the filer w/ SQL2000? Any pointers would be appreciated. We are trying to have two servers in a failover configuration with DBs loaded on the filer. Thanks.

1 0

RE: Faceplate colors: the secret memo
by Todd Phillips 05 Oct '01

05 Oct '01

Hey folks. I signed on here to get infromation on Filers. Please don't inundate me with joke email or things not seriously pertinent. I don't mean to be a stick in the mud but, we all get junk email all day and the last thing I need is another source of it. Please, lets keep this wounderful Toaster Board Posting on a professional level. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Chris Lamb To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Sent: 10/5/2001 12:53 PM Subject: Faceplate colors: the secret memo Wow, this shocking news just in: In light of the spirited Faceplate Debate (and previous archived threads) an anonymous source from deep within the company revealed that this is in fact a serious issue, causing considerable conflict between the aesthetic sensibilities of the industrial designers and the marketing department. After extensive psychological consultation and research into the impact of faceplate color on file server administrators, some very interesting color choices were vetoed. So here now, (with apologies to David Letterman) I present to you, the Top Ten Rejected NetApp Faceplate Color Schemes 10. Charcoal "where my NVRAM battery used to be" Grey 9. Harvest "every bad kitchen appliance from the 70's" Gold 8. Smoked "power supply" Salmon 7. Burnt "fan motor" Sienna 6. Dusty "choked floppy drive" Rose 5. Rhodamine "reformat" Red 4. Chocolate "YooHoo-in-the-air-intakes" Brown 3. Electric "static discharge" Blue 2. British Racing "for the fire extinguisher" Green And the number one Rejected NetApp Faceplate Color Scheme: 1. Deep "parity error" Purple I guess the good news is that "sea foam green with woodgrain panels" is still in the running! Yes! I want my next filer painted like a '74 Pinto! :-) -- Chris

3 2

Re: Faceplate colors: the secret memo
by Clark Turner 05 Oct '01

05 Oct '01

I don't mind it. Its nice to break things up a bit. Besides, Everyone knows that Wednesday's and Friday's are fair game on listservs CT >>> "Toal, Dave" <dave.toal(a)t-t.com> 10/5/2001 2:50:22 PM >>> Hmmm, as a regular list-lurker, I'd have to say that my vote is: precise, in-depth technical discussion _PLUS_ off-the-wall puns and vaguely relevant threads is what makes the toasters list great. I'm on others that generate more items; this one's always worth the time. Patent leather & brass studs, mmmm. Black leather & chrome studs. Burl walnut with ruby and cobalt glass LED covers. I mean, injection-molded plastic is fine, but doesn't reflect the level of engineering inside the box. dave toal unix guy, t&t, ma, usa Todd Phillips wrote: > > Hey folks. I signed on here to get infromation on Filers. Please > don't inundate me with joke email or things not seriously pertinent. > I don't mean to be a stick in the mud but, we all get junk email all > day and the last thing I need is another source of it. > > Please, lets keep this wounderful Toaster Board Posting on a > professional level. > > Thank you. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Lamb > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Sent: 10/5/2001 12:53 PM > Subject: Faceplate colors: the secret memo > > Wow, this shocking news just in: In light of the spirited Faceplate > Debate (and previous archived threads) an anonymous source from deep > within the company revealed that this is in fact a serious issue, > causing > considerable conflict between the aesthetic sensibilities of the > industrial designers and the marketing department. > > After extensive psychological consultation and research into the > impact > of > faceplate color on file server administrators, some very interesting > color > choices were vetoed. > > So here now, (with apologies to David Letterman) I present to you, the > > Top Ten Rejected NetApp Faceplate Color Schemes > > 10. Charcoal "where my NVRAM battery used to be" Grey > > 9. Harvest "every bad kitchen appliance from the 70's" Gold > > 8. Smoked "power supply" Salmon > > 7. Burnt "fan motor" Sienna > > 6. Dusty "choked floppy drive" Rose > > 5. Rhodamine "reformat" Red > > 4. Chocolate "YooHoo-in-the-air-intakes" Brown > > 3. Electric "static discharge" Blue > > 2. British Racing "for the fire extinguisher" Green > > And the number one Rejected NetApp Faceplate Color Scheme: > > 1. Deep "parity error" Purple > > I guess the good news is that "sea foam green with woodgrain panels" > is > still in the running! Yes! I want my next filer painted like a '74 > Pinto! > > :-) > > -- Chris

1 0

Re: Ack! I can't take it anymore!
by ScottUCE＠aol.com 05 Oct '01

05 Oct '01

Action's picking up! Latest bid: .....$150. I'll throw it on my 520 at home, or maybe my 880 in the lab!.... Two hours to go! Remember, the winning bidder will be publicly humiliated. Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, MN 55436 Phone: 952 935 7282 FAX: 952 935 5056 scott(a)unioncomputer.com

1 0

SQL2000 on F740 w/ Log Shipping?
by Wollermann, Brian 05 Oct '01

05 Oct '01

I'm trying to do some testing with our F740 and SQL2000. With the DBs hosted on the filer the stupid checkbox is greyed out for log shipping. Has anyone been able to setup a standby server that accesses databases on the filer w/ SQL2000? Any pointers would be appreciated. We are trying to have two servers in a failover configuration with DBs loaded on the filer. Thanks.

1 0

Re: Ack! I can't take it anymore!
by ScottUCE＠aol.com 05 Oct '01

05 Oct '01

Bidding on the chrome heirloom ends at 5pm Pacific time today; the latest bid: .....I'm in for $100, and I plan on affixing it to my Keg-O-Rator, with the spigot coming through the front.... Can we do a little better? Remember, your check to the September 11th Fund will be tax deductible! Regards, Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, MN 55436 Phone: 952 935 7282 FAX: 952 935 5056 scott(a)unioncomputer.com

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 October 2001