toasters October 2001

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

136 participants
184 discussions

RE: Virus Scanning?
by Ziller, Frank 26 Oct '01

26 Oct '01

Trnd Micro and Symantec both sell "carrier" grade solutions designed specifically for the NetApp filers. I think Symantec's product is called CarrierScan, not sure about TrendMicro. -----Original Message----- From: Strange, John [mailto:John.ws.Strange@marconi.com] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 8:06 AM To: toasters (E-mail) Subject: Virus Scanning? We were just wondering how everyone was handling virus scanning of their Netapp filers, with the recent attack of nimda we've been cleaning up the filers. We would prefer to do this from a solaris box, unless it's not possible. Is there a native app for the filer? Or is everyone doing this through cifs/nfs? Thanks, - John

1 0

Upgrade from F740 to F840
by Uros Lampret 26 Oct '01

26 Oct '01

Hi! I intend to upgrade from F740 to F840. I will only swap heads and keep the disks. I can't seem to find document describing this procedure. Any body done that? How do you change ONTAP from Alpha to Intel version? Regards, Uros

1 0

Etherchannel vs. Jumbo Frames
by jwitham＠takedapharm.com 25 Oct '01

25 Oct '01

Hi all: Firing up my new F880 and have a question about gigabit Ethernet throughput: Currently, we vif multi our filers to our Catalyst 6509 switches using Cisco Gigabit EtherChannel with 1500 MTU I went to fire up the 880 today, and decided new filer, new UNIX boxes, let's use Jumbo Frames! (9000 MTU). Looks like you can't EtherChannel Jumbo frame ports. I'm wondering if anyone has done a comparison (formal or informal) between Gig EtherChannel and Jumbo Frames. If so, which was faster? I'm fine single vif'ing the 2 gig-E nics to different switches if that will perform better than the lower MTU port channeling. Thanks! -john

1 0

F720 CPU Maxing out
by Jean-Christophe Smith 25 Oct '01

25 Oct '01

We have a NetApp F720 doing both NFS and CIFS using mixed mode security. It has 256 megs of ram. During parts of the day the CPU and RAM spike to %100 utilization. We do a lot of sendmail, windows media, apache and IIS traffic over the filer. I have two questions: 1. Is there a way we can add more ram, perhaps 512 or a gig? The docs say we are maxxed out with 256. 2. Is it possible that the extra cpu overhead that provides the NFS/CIFS user mapping is causing much of the ram and cpu starvation? Perhaps going to a simpler security model would offload a lot of CPU cycles. Any suggestions would be appreciated.. Jean-Christophe Smith VitalStream jsmith(a)vitalstream.com

1 0

RE: Veritas Netbackup Database
by Strange, John 25 Oct '01

25 Oct '01

Hmm, I would say that file locking has improved, if you want to test that setup a mail server on the NFS mount and generate a lot of emails, or database of some type to test it. Where I would be concerned would be in the middle of the back to have a network problem and end up trashing the backup database. I would really be hard pressed to use NFS to store the backup database. If you plan on doing it make sure you are forcing sync on your NFS mount also as NFS v2 usually defaults to async writes. Which could cause a consistency problem if you suffer a network outage. Also another concern would be that your backup would probably fail if you hang the NFS mount as most *NIX boxes hate when you lose network connectivity across an active NFS mount. - John -----Original Message----- From: Manny Kaiser [mailto:mkaiser@mmcnet.com] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 3:28 AM To: Jon Walton Cc: toasters@mathworks. com Subject: RE: Veritas Netbackup Database I was under the distinct impression that file locking in NFS in today's operating systems is considerably more reliable then it was years ago. I have never encountered a problem with any application running on an NFS mounted file system. I am under the impression that the quote below is something that was copied out of earlier versions of the manual and never reviewed again. When using NFS you might suffer a performance penalty if your systems are not correctly configured. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]On Behalf Of Jon Walton Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 11:31 PM To: Jeff Kennedy Cc: toasters@mathworks. com Subject: RE: Veritas Netbackup Database Now that I look, the 3.4 DataCenter install guide states: "Because the product uses file locking, VERITAS recommends that you not install NetBackup in an NFS mounted directory. File locking in NFS mounted files systems can be unreliable" I mentally took this to mean "not supported". Sorry if my previous email was misleading. Regards, Jon -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Kennedy [mailto:jlkennedy@amcc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 6:18 AM To: Jon Walton Cc: toasters@mathworks. com Subject: Re: Veritas Netbackup Database OK, I did some checking again. Veritas does officially support putting /usr/openv onto an NFS file system. However, they say that performance does suffer due to the large write streams. So, if performance is not an issue then it is a very nice solution. Also, db backups do not yet support disk storage unit backups. Supposedly in 4.5 they will for just this reason. ~JK Jon Walton wrote: > > I believe they do not support this due the fact that operations on the > database files involve file locking. That is what is remember reading > in the Unix Admin Guide. > > Regards, > > Jon > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Kennedy [mailto:jlkennedy@amcc.com] > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 10:39 AM > To: Manny Kaiser > Cc: toasters@mathworks. com > Subject: Re: Veritas Netbackup Database > > Got word from Vertias that putting the /usr/openv filesystem itself on > NFS was NOT supported. However, you could backup the database to a NFS > disk without issue.... > > ~JK > > > Manny Kaiser wrote: > > > > Has anyone placed the Veritas Netbackup database on an NFS mounted > > file system? > > More specifically on a netapp? > > I was just told by Veritas that they do not recommend doing this > > because NFS is unreliable. > > Any feedback would be helpful. > > > > > > -- > ===================== > Jeff Kennedy > Unix Administrator > AMCC > jlkennedy(a)amcc.com -- ===================== Jeff Kennedy Unix Administrator AMCC jlkennedy(a)amcc.com

2 1

carrierscan
by Tim Longo 25 Oct '01

25 Oct '01

Greetings: I am preparing to install Symantec CarrierScan, and came across something in the manual I have a question about. There is a statement in the manual that says "Virus scanning should be disabled before initiating backup of the NetApp Filer". It seems to me that this may not apply if ndmp were being used for backup? Anyone else have experience with this issue? Thanks, Tim

1 0

Ndmpcopy - inconsistent dumpmap
by Dawn Lovell 25 Oct '01

25 Oct '01

Thanks to everyone who replied to my question regarding ndmpcopy versus vol copy when migrating from a F740 to a F820! Based on the recommendations, we've done a level 0 ndmpcopy and two increasing incrementals (level 1 and level 2). On what was to be our last incremental (level 3) with the source filesystem read-only, we received the following message: newfiler: LOG: RESTORE: newfiler: LOG: Inconsistent dumpmap on inode 10831660. The copy goes on to complete successfully, but I'm concerned about the impact of this. I'm running a find to try to locate the file or directory with that inode, but it's going to run forever with the number of files we have. Is there a faster way than find to match the inode to a file? Does anyone know if this is a serious error? I'd thought that it was probably the result of a file on the target filesystem being changed outside of the ndmpcopy process. That shouldn't have happened, but it's certainly possible. I called NetApp support about this, however, and was told that it was a filesystem problem on the target filer and that we should bring it down and run wafl_check. I can't find the error in the archives or on the NOW site, so I would greatly appreciate any insight. Thanks for your time! Dawn Lovell dlovell(a)centurytel.net

2 2

RE: Veritas Netbackup Database
by Jon Walton 25 Oct '01

25 Oct '01

Now that I look, the 3.4 DataCenter install guide states: "Because the product uses file locking, VERITAS recommends that you not install NetBackup in an NFS mounted directory. File locking in NFS mounted files systems can be unreliable" I mentally took this to mean "not supported". Sorry if my previous email was misleading. Regards, Jon -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Kennedy [mailto:jlkennedy@amcc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 6:18 AM To: Jon Walton Cc: toasters@mathworks. com Subject: Re: Veritas Netbackup Database OK, I did some checking again. Veritas does officially support putting /usr/openv onto an NFS file system. However, they say that performance does suffer due to the large write streams. So, if performance is not an issue then it is a very nice solution. Also, db backups do not yet support disk storage unit backups. Supposedly in 4.5 they will for just this reason. ~JK Jon Walton wrote: > > I believe they do not support this due the fact that operations on the > database files involve file locking. That is what is remember reading > in the Unix Admin Guide. > > Regards, > > Jon > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Kennedy [mailto:jlkennedy@amcc.com] > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 10:39 AM > To: Manny Kaiser > Cc: toasters@mathworks. com > Subject: Re: Veritas Netbackup Database > > Got word from Vertias that putting the /usr/openv filesystem itself on > NFS was NOT supported. However, you could backup the database to a NFS > disk without issue.... > > ~JK > > > Manny Kaiser wrote: > > > > Has anyone placed the Veritas Netbackup database on an NFS mounted > > file system? > > More specifically on a netapp? > > I was just told by Veritas that they do not recommend doing this > > because NFS is unreliable. > > Any feedback would be helpful. > > > > > > -- > ===================== > Jeff Kennedy > Unix Administrator > AMCC > jlkennedy(a)amcc.com -- ===================== Jeff Kennedy Unix Administrator AMCC jlkennedy(a)amcc.com

3 2

Deleting data
by Benny Wiström 25 Oct '01

25 Oct '01

Hi! I have copied approximately 70Gb from one volume to another. Now I want to delete the data from the original volume. Is is possible to do this without having the data end up in the snapshots and filling up the volume? I would prefer if this could be done without having to delete any snapshots since it still is other data on the volume. -- Regards: Benny Wiström CSC Phone: +46 13 4653647 Systemadministrator 581 88 Linköping Fax: +46 13 185771 Benny.Wistrom(a)consultant.saab.se Sweden Mobile: +46 13 4653647 Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. -Calvin & Hobbes (Bill Watterson)

2 1

RE: MRTG for filers
by Mohler, Jeff 24 Oct '01

24 Oct '01

Then please, do ask. :^) -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 4:11 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: MRTG for filers has anyone downloaded the software on the NOW site for MRTG? I need to ask a question but Netapp says they dont support it

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
19
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 October 2001