toasters February 2001

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

88 participants
116 discussions

RE: Recovered Error
by Knight, Jason 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

Have you replaced the LRC? An LRC going bad can show up as disk errors. Jason Knight -----Original Message----- From: Eff Norwood [mailto:eff@cynaptic.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 8:15 PM To: Maximus Moua; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Recovered Error What release of ONTAP are you running? Effrem Norwood ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maximus Moua" <maximus(a)saba.com> To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 10:14 AM Subject: Recovered Error > Hi All, > > I recently acquired a filer F720 with 36 G shelf which exibited a sector > error in the Message log. I have tried swapping drives, replacing FCAL > controller, cable and terminator. The problem occurs on all the data > drives, except the spare, during heavy disk activity such as disk scrubbing > but less frequently and randomly even when disk activity should be minimal. > NetApp tells me this is a soft error and does not warrant concern but I > wonder if any of you have experience this and can assure me to leave this > one alone. > > Thanks, > > -Max > > Wed Feb 7 19:26:45 PST [raid_disk_admin]: Spare disk 1.4 (S/N > 680A845B1K) has been added to the system. > Wed Feb 7 19:33:46 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cbbcb8): op > 0x28:00529380:0080 sector 5411723 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 19:41:51 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cbb978): op > 0x28:00a79900:0080 sector 10983747 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:00:00 PST [statd]: 8:00pm up 12 days, 29 mins, 3 NFS ops, > 48398305 CIFS ops, 810 HTTP ops > Wed Feb 7 20:16:35 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.0(0xfffffc0000cade18): op > 0x28:020c22c0:0080 sector 34349865 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 20:17:56 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.5(0xfffffc0000cc1e38): op > 0x28:021a93c0:0080 sector 35296301 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:18:52 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cc7ad8): op > 0x28:02249240:0080 sector 35951273 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:20:51 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.5(0xfffffc0000cd6cf8): op > 0x28:0239ed40:0080 sector 37350752 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:25:13 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.0(0xfffffc0000ca6298): op > 0x28:02692bc0:0080 sector 40447008 recovered error - (1 16, 0) > Wed Feb 7 20:44:04 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cb8718): op > 0x28:033932c0:0080 sector 54080224 recovered error - (1 17, 7) > Wed Feb 7 20:49:34 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cb3df8): op > 0x28:0378e938:0080 sector 58255736 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 21:00:00 PST [statd]: 9:00pm up 12 days, 1:29 3 NFS ops, > 48418877 CIFS ops, 810 HTTP ops > Wed Feb 7 21:03:25 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000ca99d8): op > 0x28:041f4af0:0080 sector 69159705 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 21:04:13 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000ca5c18): op > 0x28:04289df0:0080 sector 69770779 recovered error - (1 17, 7) > Wed Feb 7 21:32:53 PST [consumer]: Reconstruction of data disk in volume > vol0, RAID group 0, complete. >

2 1

Recovered Error
by Maximus Moua 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

Hi All, I recently acquired a filer F720 with 36 G shelf which exibited a sector error in the Message log. I have tried swapping drives, replacing FCAL controller, cable and terminator. The problem occurs on all the data drives, except the spare, during heavy disk activity such as disk scrubbing but less frequently and randomly even when disk activity should be minimal. NetApp tells me this is a soft error and does not warrant concern but I wonder if any of you have experience this and can assure me to leave this one alone. Thanks, -Max Wed Feb 7 19:26:45 PST [raid_disk_admin]: Spare disk 1.4 (S/N 680A845B1K) has been added to the system. Wed Feb 7 19:33:46 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cbbcb8): op 0x28:00529380:0080 sector 5411723 recovered error - (1 17, 3) Wed Feb 7 19:41:51 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cbb978): op 0x28:00a79900:0080 sector 10983747 recovered error - (1 17, 1) Wed Feb 7 20:00:00 PST [statd]: 8:00pm up 12 days, 29 mins, 3 NFS ops, 48398305 CIFS ops, 810 HTTP ops Wed Feb 7 20:16:35 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.0(0xfffffc0000cade18): op 0x28:020c22c0:0080 sector 34349865 recovered error - (1 17, 3) Wed Feb 7 20:17:56 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.5(0xfffffc0000cc1e38): op 0x28:021a93c0:0080 sector 35296301 recovered error - (1 17, 1) Wed Feb 7 20:18:52 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cc7ad8): op 0x28:02249240:0080 sector 35951273 recovered error - (1 17, 1) Wed Feb 7 20:20:51 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.5(0xfffffc0000cd6cf8): op 0x28:0239ed40:0080 sector 37350752 recovered error - (1 17, 1) Wed Feb 7 20:25:13 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.0(0xfffffc0000ca6298): op 0x28:02692bc0:0080 sector 40447008 recovered error - (1 16, 0) Wed Feb 7 20:44:04 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cb8718): op 0x28:033932c0:0080 sector 54080224 recovered error - (1 17, 7) Wed Feb 7 20:49:34 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cb3df8): op 0x28:0378e938:0080 sector 58255736 recovered error - (1 17, 1) Wed Feb 7 21:00:00 PST [statd]: 9:00pm up 12 days, 1:29 3 NFS ops, 48418877 CIFS ops, 810 HTTP ops Wed Feb 7 21:03:25 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000ca99d8): op 0x28:041f4af0:0080 sector 69159705 recovered error - (1 17, 3) Wed Feb 7 21:04:13 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000ca5c18): op 0x28:04289df0:0080 sector 69770779 recovered error - (1 17, 7) Wed Feb 7 21:32:53 PST [consumer]: Reconstruction of data disk in volume vol0, RAID group 0, complete.

2 1

remove
by Max Chan 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

Please remove me from the list. Thank you. Max

1 0

RE: legato
by Benn, Paul 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

Yes, that is correct. We also track the DOS "archive" bit on files with UNIX-style permissions. Paul Benn Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@Remedy.COM] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 2:38 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: legato Actually, I believe that if you want to preserve both CIFS and NFS acls (probably only relevant if you have shares in mixed or CIFS mode), then backing up over CIFS is supposed to preserve both the CIFS and NFS permissions. Backing up over NFS only saves the NFS permissions and you will likely lose CIFS ACLs when you restore. That's my understanding anyway. We back up over NFS here, but all my shares are in UNIX mode. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD "We all agree that your theory is crazy, but is it crazy enough?" - Niels Bohr "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands and hoist the black flag." - H.L. Mencken (paraphrased) -----Original Message----- From: Benn, Paul [mailto:paul.benn@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 7:50 AM To: Melvin, Grant; 'Robert Alatorre'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: legato make that 5.... don't forget backup over CIFS by way of a UNC path. Granted, it's not the most desirable way to backup a filer with NetWorker but it can be done. :) Paul Benn Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Melvin, Grant [mailto:Grant.Melvin@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 7:54 PM To: 'Robert Alatorre'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: legatto Hi, Hope you don't mind me jumping in on this question. As I see it Legato currently provide 4 ways to backup a NetApp filer: 1. BudTool 2. NFS 3. NetWorker NetApp Client 4. NDMP-compliant NetWorker It would be interesting (to me at least) to hear experiences with each variant. Option 4 is essentially replacing option 1 since that option is being discontinued. Cheers, Grant =========== grant(a)netapp.com ========== Grant Melvin === === Software Development Manager === === Data Availability & Management === |\ | __ ___ /\ __ __ === Network Appliance === | \ | |__ | /__\ |__| |__| === 475 East Java Drive === | \| |__ | / \ | | (R) === Sunnyvale === === California, 94089 === === Tel:(408)822-6761 =========== Network Appliance ========== Fax:(408)822-4578 -----Original Message----- From: Robert Alatorre [mailto:ralatorre@aperian.com] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 2:08 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: legatto Anybody have any bad or good experience using legatto as backup for the net app filer? Bob Alatorre Systems Support Engineer Office 512-226-8753 Cell 512-658-9110 ralatorre(a)aperian.com > ******************* Internet Email Confidentiality Footer > ******************* > > Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or > responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not use, > copy, disclose or deliver this message to anyone. If you have received > this message in error, kindly notify the sender by reply email or at the > phone number listed above, and then delete this message. > > >

1 0

RE: legato
by Mike Sphar 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

Actually, I believe that if you want to preserve both CIFS and NFS acls (probably only relevant if you have shares in mixed or CIFS mode), then backing up over CIFS is supposed to preserve both the CIFS and NFS permissions. Backing up over NFS only saves the NFS permissions and you will likely lose CIFS ACLs when you restore. That's my understanding anyway. We back up over NFS here, but all my shares are in UNIX mode. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD "We all agree that your theory is crazy, but is it crazy enough?" - Niels Bohr "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands and hoist the black flag." - H.L. Mencken (paraphrased) -----Original Message----- From: Benn, Paul [mailto:paul.benn@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 7:50 AM To: Melvin, Grant; 'Robert Alatorre'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: legato make that 5.... don't forget backup over CIFS by way of a UNC path. Granted, it's not the most desirable way to backup a filer with NetWorker but it can be done. :) Paul Benn Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Melvin, Grant [mailto:Grant.Melvin@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 7:54 PM To: 'Robert Alatorre'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: legatto Hi, Hope you don't mind me jumping in on this question. As I see it Legato currently provide 4 ways to backup a NetApp filer: 1. BudTool 2. NFS 3. NetWorker NetApp Client 4. NDMP-compliant NetWorker It would be interesting (to me at least) to hear experiences with each variant. Option 4 is essentially replacing option 1 since that option is being discontinued. Cheers, Grant =========== grant(a)netapp.com ========== Grant Melvin === === Software Development Manager === === Data Availability & Management === |\ | __ ___ /\ __ __ === Network Appliance === | \ | |__ | /__\ |__| |__| === 475 East Java Drive === | \| |__ | / \ | | (R) === Sunnyvale === === California, 94089 === === Tel:(408)822-6761 =========== Network Appliance ========== Fax:(408)822-4578 -----Original Message----- From: Robert Alatorre [mailto:ralatorre@aperian.com] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 2:08 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: legatto Anybody have any bad or good experience using legatto as backup for the net app filer? Bob Alatorre Systems Support Engineer Office 512-226-8753 Cell 512-658-9110 ralatorre(a)aperian.com > ******************* Internet Email Confidentiality Footer > ******************* > > Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or > responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not use, > copy, disclose or deliver this message to anyone. If you have received > this message in error, kindly notify the sender by reply email or at the > phone number listed above, and then delete this message. > > >

1 0

RE: legatto
by Melvin, Grant 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

Hi, Hope you don't mind me jumping in on this question. As I see it Legato currently provide 4 ways to backup a NetApp filer: 1. BudTool 2. NFS 3. NetWorker NetApp Client 4. NDMP-compliant NetWorker It would be interesting (to me at least) to hear experiences with each variant. Option 4 is essentially replacing option 1 since that option is being discontinued. Cheers, Grant =========== grant(a)netapp.com ========== Grant Melvin === === Software Development Manager === === Data Availability & Management === |\ | __ ___ /\ __ __ === Network Appliance === | \ | |__ | /__\ |__| |__| === 475 East Java Drive === | \| |__ | / \ | | (R) === Sunnyvale === === California, 94089 === === Tel:(408)822-6761 =========== Network Appliance ========== Fax:(408)822-4578 -----Original Message----- From: Robert Alatorre [mailto:ralatorre@aperian.com] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 2:08 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: legatto Anybody have any bad or good experience using legatto as backup for the net app filer? Bob Alatorre Systems Support Engineer Office 512-226-8753 Cell 512-658-9110 ralatorre(a)aperian.com > ******************* Internet Email Confidentiality Footer > ******************* > > Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or > responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not use, > copy, disclose or deliver this message to anyone. If you have received > this message in error, kindly notify the sender by reply email or at the > phone number listed above, and then delete this message. > > >

4 3

RE: legato
by Benn, Paul 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

make that 5.... don't forget backup over CIFS by way of a UNC path. Granted, it's not the most desirable way to backup a filer with NetWorker but it can be done. :) Paul Benn Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Melvin, Grant [mailto:Grant.Melvin@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 7:54 PM To: 'Robert Alatorre'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: legatto Hi, Hope you don't mind me jumping in on this question. As I see it Legato currently provide 4 ways to backup a NetApp filer: 1. BudTool 2. NFS 3. NetWorker NetApp Client 4. NDMP-compliant NetWorker It would be interesting (to me at least) to hear experiences with each variant. Option 4 is essentially replacing option 1 since that option is being discontinued. Cheers, Grant =========== grant(a)netapp.com ========== Grant Melvin === === Software Development Manager === === Data Availability & Management === |\ | __ ___ /\ __ __ === Network Appliance === | \ | |__ | /__\ |__| |__| === 475 East Java Drive === | \| |__ | / \ | | (R) === Sunnyvale === === California, 94089 === === Tel:(408)822-6761 =========== Network Appliance ========== Fax:(408)822-4578 -----Original Message----- From: Robert Alatorre [mailto:ralatorre@aperian.com] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 2:08 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: legatto Anybody have any bad or good experience using legatto as backup for the net app filer? Bob Alatorre Systems Support Engineer Office 512-226-8753 Cell 512-658-9110 ralatorre(a)aperian.com > ******************* Internet Email Confidentiality Footer > ******************* > > Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or > responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not use, > copy, disclose or deliver this message to anyone. If you have received > this message in error, kindly notify the sender by reply email or at the > phone number listed above, and then delete this message. > > >

1 0

RE: File deletion problem
by Fox, Adam 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

Also, if it is the top level of a CIFS share, the filer won't let you delete the directory until the share has been removed. Just another thought. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Traitel, Eyal [mailto:eyal@netapp.com] > Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 6:01 AM > To: 'Clawson, Simon'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: RE: File deletion problem > > > Short suggestions might be: > > 1. use lock_dump -f > 2. Check if file has CIFS ACL ?!? > > Eyal. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > eTraitel - I'm the new eBuzzword around !!! > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Eyal Traitel - Filer Escalation Engineer > CNA, MCSE, CSA, NACA > > Network Appliance BV > Holland Office Center > Kruisweg 799b > 2132 NG, Hoofddorp > The Netherlands > Office: +31 23 567 9685 > Cellular: +31 6 5497 2568 > Email: eyal(a)netapp.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Get answers NOW! - NetApp On the Web - http://now.netapp.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Clawson, Simon [mailto:simon_clawson@mentorg.com] > Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 11:12 AM > To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: File deletion problem > > > Hi! > > I have a file in a directory on the NetApps. I would like to > delete it, but > get permission deined every time I attempt to. The file is > visible on UNIX, > can be opened and modified. I have CHMOD'd it to 777, CHOWN'd > it to root and > still cannot remove it. The directory is writable, as I can create and > delete files within it. Is there a way to check who is > accesing a file on > the NetApps? Is it possible that there is a lock on this > file, that I can > munually break? > > Simon > > Simon Clawson > HDS Team Systems Administrator > Mentor Graphics Uk > Rivergate > London Road > Newbury > Berkshire > RG14 2QB > <<Clawson, Simon.vcf>> >

1 0

RE: File deletion problem
by Muhlestein, Mark 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

You might want to look at the security troubleshooting guide: http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ Mark -----Original Message----- From: Traitel, Eyal [mailto:eyal@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 4:01 AM To: 'Clawson, Simon'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: File deletion problem Short suggestions might be: 1. use lock_dump -f 2. Check if file has CIFS ACL ?!? Eyal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- eTraitel - I'm the new eBuzzword around !!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Eyal Traitel - Filer Escalation Engineer CNA, MCSE, CSA, NACA Network Appliance BV Holland Office Center Kruisweg 799b 2132 NG, Hoofddorp The Netherlands Office: +31 23 567 9685 Cellular: +31 6 5497 2568 Email: eyal(a)netapp.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Get answers NOW! - NetApp On the Web - http://now.netapp.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Clawson, Simon [mailto:simon_clawson@mentorg.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 11:12 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: File deletion problem Hi! I have a file in a directory on the NetApps. I would like to delete it, but get permission deined every time I attempt to. The file is visible on UNIX, can be opened and modified. I have CHMOD'd it to 777, CHOWN'd it to root and still cannot remove it. The directory is writable, as I can create and delete files within it. Is there a way to check who is accesing a file on the NetApps? Is it possible that there is a lock on this file, that I can munually break? Simon Simon Clawson HDS Team Systems Administrator Mentor Graphics Uk Rivergate London Road Newbury Berkshire RG14 2QB <<Clawson, Simon.vcf>>

1 0

Re: legatto
by Rick Hulsey 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

We use Legato on to backup our filers, and it works very well. We use NFS over the Gig-e network to attach to a snapshot at the volume rather than using the Legato client for Netapp. The environment can be a little complex to setup if you have multiple Netapp clients and you need pre and post processing on those clients. >>> Robert Alatorre <ralatorre(a)aperian.com> 02/08/01 04:07PM >>> Anybody have any bad or good experience using legatto as backup for the net app filer? Bob Alatorre Systems Support Engineer Office 512-226-8753 Cell 512-658-9110 ralatorre(a)aperian.com > ******************* Internet Email Confidentiality Footer > ******************* > > Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or > responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not use, > copy, disclose or deliver this message to anyone. If you have received > this message in error, kindly notify the sender by reply email or at the > phone number listed above, and then delete this message. > > >

1 0

← Newer
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Older →

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 February 2001