toasters March 2001

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

113 participants
149 discussions

RE: cpu util during ndmp backup
by Traitel, Eyal 06 Mar '01

06 Mar '01

Neil, Not all files are created equal you can say... :) My explanation would be that some files are being read from the read-ahead cache, and some from the disks. This makes a difference. Also - some more HTTP commands here and there, and there you have your small difference. 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: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 12:39 AM To: toasters; John Ederma; Curt Huyser Subject: cpu util during ndmp backup hi, we are finally getting legato networker going with ndmp. my f760 is running 5.36r2. it has a directly attached spectralogic treefrog. the sysstat data below is running at 1 second intervals. the filer is not being used yet, we are testing. i notice a regular pattern of cpu util going from about 10 to 20 to 30 to 40% and then back down. then quiet at about 7% for about 10 seconds then up and down again. is this normal for backup? thanks. 7% 0 0 0 0 0 5328 0 0 5714 41 7% 0 0 0 1 0 5477 16 0 5658 41 7% 0 0 0 1 0 6152 0 0 6205 41 6% 0 0 0 1 0 5653 0 0 5843 41 CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 7% 0 0 0 0 0 5676 16 0 5407 41 7% 0 0 0 1 1 5645 0 0 6335 41 7% 0 0 0 1 0 5876 0 0 5960 41 7% 0 0 0 1 1 5456 16 0 5530 41 10% 0 1 0 1 1 6190 0 0 6150 41 22% 0 0 0 14 26 8312 0 0 8479 41 29% 0 0 0 14 26 12840 212 0 12485 41 41% 0 0 0 40 78 10868 0 0 10936 41 22% 0 0 0 14 26 9709 0 0 9533 41 28% 0 0 0 27 52 9820 16 0 9400 41 22% 0 0 0 14 25 11816 0 0 12349 41 10% 0 0 0 1 1 7207 0 0 7011 41 31% 0 0 0 27 52 9232 16 0 9400 41 12% 0 0 0 0 0 9305 0 0 9779 41 8% 0 0 0 1 0 6916 0 0 6820 41 9% 0 0 0 1 0 7471 16 0 7565 41 10% 0 0 0 1 0 7184 0 0 7864 41 11% 0 0 0 1 0 7223 188 0 7257 41 9% 0 0 0 1 0 7216 24 0 7188 41 8% 0 0 0 0 0 7000 0 0 7188 41 -- regards

1 0

cluster using F740 and F760
by max chan 06 Mar '01

06 Mar '01

Dear all, Is it possible to use F740 and F760 as a cluster pair? Max __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

1 0

Re: Strange mounting problem (More info)
by Shridhar Deuskar 06 Mar '01

06 Mar '01

Hmm. Is there anything useful under /var/log/messages ? I can't think of anything else. If you have NFS over tcp turned on on the filer you could try mounting it over tcp on the linux box. Shridhar "Stephen C. Woods" wrote: > > It just hangs, no response from the filer at all. > <scw> > > > Stephen, > > > > You haven't posted your error message. Is it a "permission denied" error > > ? If so check the /etc/exports file on the filer. Or maybe your > > environement is running NIS and the Dell box is not in netgroups. > > > > What's the error that you get when you do a > > > > mount your_filer:/exportedFS /local_mountpoint ? > > > > --Shridhar > > > > > > "Stephen C. Woods" wrote: > > > > > > We have a Dell Linux 7.0 system that can't mount from a 740 (5.3.4R2). > > > However it can mount from a 540 (5.1.2R3), and also from a AIX (4.2) and > > > Sun (2.6) machine with no problems. Packet sniffer indicates that > > > packets are sent to the filer but never return. > > > > > > A little more info, the filer mounts OK to linux 5.2 (Red hat) and all > > > sorts of other machines. The filer and the failing machine can ping, > > > and telnet to each other. -- _____ . . ' \\ . . |>> O// . . | \_\ . . | | | . . . . | / | . . . . | / .| . ...o | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Shridhar Deuskar Productivity & Systems 408-447-8790

1 0

Please take me off your list
by Ellis, Howard G. 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

Howard Ellis Network Administrator Marine Systems Northrop Grumman Voice: 408.735.2524 Fax: 408.735.5260 <<Ellis, Howard G..vcf>>

1 0

Strange mounting problem (More info)
by Stephen C. Woods 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

We have a Dell Linux 7.0 system that can't mount from a 740 (5.3.4R2). However it can mount from a 540 (5.1.2R3), and also from a AIX (4.2) and Sun (2.6) machine with no problems. Packet sniffer indicates that packets are sent to the filer but never return. A little more info, the filer mounts OK to linux 5.2 (Red hat) and all sorts of other machines. The filer and the failing machine can ping, and telnet to each other. ----- Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASnet; 2567 Boelter hall; LA CA 90095; (310)-825-8614 Unless otherwise noted these statements are my own, Not those of the University of California. Internet mail:scw@seas.ucla.edu

3 2

RE: Strange mounting problem
by Sims, Aaron 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

Silly question, is nfs licensed and turned on? On the console: type 'license' to see if it's licensed, type 'nfs' to get a status of the nfs daemon, and 'nfs on' to turn it on it its not. > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen C. Woods [mailto:scw@seas.ucla.edu] > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 5:00 PM > To: JenkinJp(a)bp.com > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Strange mounting problem > > > Yes netstat -r shows the correct information. They can ping each > other and one can open a telnet session from the Linix box to > the filer. > <scw> > > > sounds like a filer routing problem > > on the problem filer > > netstat -r > > look for the problem Linux system this the correct > interface and gateway? > > ----- > Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASnet; 2567 Boelter hall; LA CA > 90095; (310)-825-8614 > Unless otherwise noted these statements are my own, Not those of the > University of California. Internet > mail:scw@seas.ucla.edu >

1 0

Recent Field Alerts invisible at NOW?
by Chris Thompson 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

The last two Field Alerts (#78, 26 Feb and #79, 28 Feb) are visible in the full list <http://now.netapp.com/NOW/products/field/>, but in the "Field Alerts" section of my "customised home page" <http://now.netapp.com/Self-Service/Personal/usrPage.asp> only #77 and earlier are visible. At first I thought this might be some sort of local caching problem, but I think I have eliminated that possibility. Do you all see the thing? Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1(a)ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG, Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.

1 0

Backups on F630 filers
by svawter＠c-cube.com 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

I have four (4) F630 filers (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, upgrade!) and an additional two (2) F740 filers. I want to direct attach at least 1 drive from a library to each filer and I want to use Ultrium LTO libraries. Failing LTO support, I would like to use AIT-2 libraries. The problem that I have is that neither of these is officially support on the F630 platform! (AIT-2 is on the F740) Does anyone have AIT-2 running on F630? I don't want to run Mammoth, as I have heard too many horror stories (yes, I know that M2 beats AIT-2 by 2:1 for speed and by 10GB capacity, but that's irrelevant if the drive is down for maintenance much more often). Better yet, does anyone have LTO running on a Filer of any model, preferably a F630? (since they are barely shipping LTO, I doubt it). If you don't know what LTO is, go looking at HP, Seagate or IBM. Seagate seems to have the best drive at 16mb/sec with 100gb capacity and I think that this is due to a variable speed motor (which should also allow it to kick HP & IBM's butt when you can't keep data streaming in at 15mb/sec or better!) Steve Vawter voice: 408-490-5310 fax: 408-490-8615 Staff UNIX Systems Administrator Steve.Vawter(a)C-Cube.COM

2 1

RE: Backups on F630 filers
by Stringer, Douglas 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

Your choice for AIT-2 is solid (2 generations, backward read/write compatible, investment in media usable in later generations, less than 2% AFFR (raw field failure rate over the past 4 years)NDMP compliant, etc.etc. By the way, what have you heard about LTO's field reliability, cross-compatibility format compliance,(multiple manufacturers of LTO on the same format should be able to read data written by other mfgs. LTO units), media availability, and any actual backup/restore stories. I'd like to hear from anyone out there why they are looking at this format vs. sticking with DLT or transitioning from formats at the end of their cycles (DAT, Travan,etc.) 'Backup is worthless if you can't restore it.' Doug Stringer Secondary Storage Marketing Manager Network Appliance 495 East Java Drive Sunnyvale, CA 94089 stringer(a)netapp.com 408-822-6764 telephone 408-822-4611 fax -----Original Message----- From: svawter(a)c-cube.com [mailto:svawter@c-cube.com] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 1:01 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Backups on F630 filers I have four (4) F630 filers (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, upgrade!) and an additional two (2) F740 filers. I want to direct attach at least 1 drive from a library to each filer and I want to use Ultrium LTO libraries. Failing LTO support, I would like to use AIT-2 libraries. The problem that I have is that neither of these is officially support on the F630 platform! (AIT-2 is on the F740) Does anyone have AIT-2 running on F630? I don't want to run Mammoth, as I have heard too many horror stories (yes, I know that M2 beats AIT-2 by 2:1 for speed and by 10GB capacity, but that's irrelevant if the drive is down for maintenance much more often). Better yet, does anyone have LTO running on a Filer of any model, preferably a F630? (since they are barely shipping LTO, I doubt it). If you don't know what LTO is, go looking at HP, Seagate or IBM. Seagate seems to have the best drive at 16mb/sec with 100gb capacity and I think that this is due to a variable speed motor (which should also allow it to kick HP & IBM's butt when you can't keep data streaming in at 15mb/sec or better!) Steve Vawter voice: 408-490-5310 fax: 408-490-8615 Staff UNIX Systems Administrator Steve.Vawter(a)C-Cube.COM

1 0

RE: Strange mounting problem
by Jenkinson, John P (SAIC) 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

sounds like a filer routing problem on the problem filer netstat -r look for the problem Linux system this the correct interface and gateway? -----Original Message----- From: Stephen C. Woods [mailto:scw@seas.ucla.edu] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 10:03 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Strange mounting problem We have a Dell Linux 7.0 system that can't mount from a 740 (5.3.4R2). However it can mount from a 540 (5.1.2R3), and also from a AIX (4.2) and Sun (2.6) machine with no problems. Packet sniffer indicates that packets are sent to the filer but never return. Does anybody reconize these symptoms? ----- Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASnet; 2567 Boelter hall; LA CA 90095; (310)-825-8614 Unless otherwise noted these statements are my own, Not those of the University of California. Internet mail:scw@seas.ucla.edu

2 1

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 March 2001