toasters March 2001

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

113 participants
149 discussions

RE: File too large ?
by Sims, Aaron 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

The nfs.v2.2gb.lim option only relates to how some NFS clients determine if there is free space available or not on the volume. It has nothing to do with how file sizes are returned. Now, the problem with NFSv2 is that the size attribute is a 32bit unsigned integer, thus a 2gb file max. NFSv3 has a unsigned 64bit integer value for file size. If you're using NFSv2, you're going to run into problems. I've seen this before (at least on Solaris) using NFSv3. Some utilities in Solaris (like 'ls','tar' etc.) will utilize 32bit versions system calls like open(),stat(),read(), etc. In order to do operations on a file larger than 2gb, your program must use open64(),stat64(),etc. I've seen Solaris' 'ls' command cough up hair balls because the file is larger than 2gb. I ran 'truss ls -l largefile' and noticed that 'ls' was using the wrong system calls. Although, on that same system, if I used '/usr/ucb/ls' it worked just fine. Using 'truss' on '/usr/ucb/ls' showed that it was using the correct system calls. I finally found an answer on how to force your application (I'll assume you have source code) to use the 64bit version of the system calls. You need to define _FILE_OFFSET_BITS 64 in your source code. That'll force your app (under Solaris) to use open64(),stat64(), etc. You might want to peruse through your gunzip code to see if it is defined. I'm not sure that upgrading to 6.0.1R3 will help if you're using NFSv2. Do you have a case number to reference? I hope that helps some. Aaron Professional Services Consultant Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Hubbard, Dan [mailto:dhubbard@websense.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 2:10 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: File too large ? All; We are using a ONTAP v 6.0.1 and are NFS mounting Solaris and Redhat Linux boxes. We are in the process of creating some large text files and cannot either gunzip and/or create files greater than 2GB's. We have bumped up our maxfiles and set the options nfs.v2.df_2gb_lim ON without any luck. Our friends in tech support at Netapp told me that I must upgrade to 6.0.1r3 to fix this. Any input from the field ? Also, any input on issues with NFS and Redhat Linux kernel 2.2.14 (RH7.0) ? Thanks

2 1

RE: W2k profile and Netapp
by Nail, Larry 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

Purely administrative relief... MS preferred method---------- Create a share, give every one FULL Control access at the share level ACL the files in the root to EVERYONE:READ, Admins:Full, System:Full Load usrmgr, in the profile area, enter \\filer01\share\%username% Usrmgr will create a new directory in the share for the username and set file acls to username:Full You're done Issue 1 - It sets the \username directory to user:Full only, if you as an admin need access, you have to take ownership & push permissions down the tree... more work down the line when you have to troubleshoot. Issue 2 - 1 single share with EVERYONE FULL control as access... first off, this opens the root to EVERYONE on the network with a valid domain account & when you make/have a mistake with the file level ACL's, you've opened up the customer's data to EVERYONE. In this event, it also opens it up to the dummy who launched EXPLORE.WORM.KAK and starts to zero out files. Issue 3 - This setup is required to store W2K profiles/home directories on filers... the user must have FULL control as the OS impersonates the user when it downloads the profile. Other Method-------------- Use a script to create shares... you eliminate having to deal with ACL's as the root of .../users is set for EVERYONE:Full which is inherited when a new directory is created. We never give our user's FULL control b/c that enables them to mess with permissions (which overwrites UNIX permissions if you're running mixed). I can't say this creates any overhead for me. I have seen no performance issues between either method & we're running over 700 user shares at this point. Sample Script: : Create user share on \\filer01\d$\users : Required : rmtshare from NT (or W2K) Resource Kit in path : rsh access to filer : Create directory mkdir \\filer01\d$\users\%1 : Create Share rsh filer01 cifs shares -add %1 /vol/vol1/users/%1 : Comment Share rsh filer01 cifs shares -change %1 -comment \"%1 Home Directory\" : rmtshare used to set permissions : This is a hold over from early filer maintenance where cifs shares comment : didn't work correctly... never check it afterward to see if they fixed it rmtshare \\filer01\%1 /grant DOMAIN\%1:c /grant "deskside":c /grant filer01\administrators:f /remove everyone : Send email to server team that share was created echo User Share \\filer01\%1 Created |postmail -Hsomewhere.usa.com serverteam(a)somewhere.usa.com To unshare-------- rmtshare \\filer01\sharename\ /d rd \\filer01\d$\users\username /q/s Hope this helps... Larry -----Original Message----- From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 4:19 PM To: Nail, Larry Cc: 'Tim Longo'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: W2k profile and Netapp what's the overhead for having 1 share per person? "Nail, Larry" wrote: > > You can map the share anyway you'd like. The preferred & taught method is > to create 1 single share and then let the OS create subdirectories on that > share. All our PC home directories are individual shares. 1 reason is that > we control all access at the share level if at all possible... don't have to > mess with file level ACL's. This also relieves most of the issues of Unix > file permisssions vs. NTFS permissions. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Longo [mailto:tlongo@avaya.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 2:25 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: W2k profile and Netapp > > Greetings: > > Currently on my NT 4 domain, we map a user share on the netapp,(also the > unix home), to a drive letter in the NT account profile. This is in the > form of: Z: \\toaster\share > > We have noticed that with Windows 2000, they want this share to be mapped in > the form of: Z: \\toaster\share\folder > > This makes migrating people from the old convention to the new convention > quite a bit of work. > > Has anyone else encountered this, and how do you work around this problem? > Needless to say, we are extremely angry with Microsoft. > > Thanks -- regards

2 1

RE: W2k profile and Netapp
by Mike Sphar 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe part of the "problem" MS tried to fix in Win2K is that prior to Win2K you couldn't map a directory below the share point. I.e, if you shared \\server\users you couldn't specifically map a drive letter to \\server\users\username, which was sometimes a problem. It's been a while since I dealt with any of this and I normally don't deal with the Windows side of things much, so I could be completely off base here. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Nail, Larry [mailto:lnail@ti.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 1:39 PM To: 'Tim Longo'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: W2k profile and Netapp You can map the share anyway you'd like. The preferred & taught method is to create 1 single share and then let the OS create subdirectories on that share. All our PC home directories are individual shares. 1 reason is that we control all access at the share level if at all possible... don't have to mess with file level ACL's. This also relieves most of the issues of Unix file permisssions vs. NTFS permissions. -----Original Message----- From: Tim Longo [mailto:tlongo@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 2:25 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: W2k profile and Netapp Greetings: Currently on my NT 4 domain, we map a user share on the netapp,(also the unix home), to a drive letter in the NT account profile. This is in the form of: Z: \\toaster\share We have noticed that with Windows 2000, they want this share to be mapped in the form of: Z: \\toaster\share\folder This makes migrating people from the old convention to the new convention quite a bit of work. Has anyone else encountered this, and how do you work around this problem? Needless to say, we are extremely angry with Microsoft. Thanks

1 0

RE: W2k profile and Netapp
by Loux, Linda 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

We encountered the same thing. What I discovered is that we are mounting Z: to the users home directory in their user account profile. That user home directory is \\toaster\share\user. You can change the mount to be \\toaster\share in the logon script. Linda Loux Systems Administrator Rosetta Inpharmatics -----Original Message----- From: Tim Longo [mailto:tlongo@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 12:25 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: W2k profile and Netapp Greetings: Currently on my NT 4 domain, we map a user share on the netapp,(also the unix home), to a drive letter in the NT account profile. This is in the form of: Z: \\toaster\share We have noticed that with Windows 2000, they want this share to be mapped in the form of: Z: \\toaster\share\folder This makes migrating people from the old convention to the new convention quite a bit of work. Has anyone else encountered this, and how do you work around this problem? Needless to say, we are extremely angry with Microsoft. Thanks **************************************************************************** This e-mail message is the property of Rosetta Inpharmatics and may contain information that is confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying, or communication of the contents of this message is prohibited. If this message was received in error, please forward a copy to mail_admin(a)rii.com and delete the message and any attachments from your computer. Thank you. ****************************************************************************

1 0

RE: File too large ?
by Kenley, Martin 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

More specifically, I believe that NFS v2 wont display the correct size; but if the file is on a multiprotocal box, like a filer, and if your client is running NFS v2, the file only looks like 2 GB, but looked at under CIFS, you will see the correct file size. -----Original Message----- From: Charles Randall [mailto:crandall@matchlogic.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 1:04 PM To: 'Hubbard, Dan'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: File too large ? Two things, 1. NFS v2 doesn't support files larger than 2 GB. Switch to NFS v3. Only very recently has the Linux NFS implementation supported NFS v3 (see below). 2. Can you work with files larger than 2 GB using the same tools on a local file system? If so, NFS v3 will help. If not, you'll have to find out how to "large file enable" your applications. On Solaris, look at the "largefile" and "lfcompile" manpages. For more info on the Linux NFS implementation, see this page http://nfs.sourceforge.net/ No offense intended to our resident Linux aficionados, but I cringed when I read most of it. Charles -----Original Message----- From: Hubbard, Dan [mailto:dhubbard@websense.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 12:10 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: File too large ? All; We are using a ONTAP v 6.0.1 and are NFS mounting Solaris and Redhat Linux boxes. We are in the process of creating some large text files and cannot either gunzip and/or create files greater than 2GB's. We have bumped up our maxfiles and set the options nfs.v2.df_2gb_lim ON without any luck. Our friends in tech support at Netapp told me that I must upgrade to 6.0.1r3 to fix this. Any input from the field ? Also, any input on issues with NFS and Redhat Linux kernel 2.2.14 (RH7.0) ? Thanks

1 0

RE: W2k profile and Netapp
by Nail, Larry 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

You can map the share anyway you'd like. The preferred & taught method is to create 1 single share and then let the OS create subdirectories on that share. All our PC home directories are individual shares. 1 reason is that we control all access at the share level if at all possible... don't have to mess with file level ACL's. This also relieves most of the issues of Unix file permisssions vs. NTFS permissions. -----Original Message----- From: Tim Longo [mailto:tlongo@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 2:25 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: W2k profile and Netapp Greetings: Currently on my NT 4 domain, we map a user share on the netapp,(also the unix home), to a drive letter in the NT account profile. This is in the form of: Z: \\toaster\share We have noticed that with Windows 2000, they want this share to be mapped in the form of: Z: \\toaster\share\folder This makes migrating people from the old convention to the new convention quite a bit of work. Has anyone else encountered this, and how do you work around this problem? Needless to say, we are extremely angry with Microsoft. Thanks

2 1

RE: Toasters and WINS
by Nail, Larry 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

If you have downlevel clients (NT, 9x), you'll need still need WINS, however the W2K implementation is quite a bit more stable & less inclinded to corrupt than the NT version. -----Original Message----- From: Tim Longo [mailto:tlongo@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 2:27 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Toasters and WINS We are migrating users to a Windows 2000 domain. Wondering if anyone has run a Netapp in a Win2k environment without WINS? We will probably try to add the domain, and domain crontroller entries to the toaster hosts file?

1 0

dump -L - ndmp w/ Legato
by jlbreyfo＠collins.rockwell.com 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

Hello folks, Does anyone know how (or know why I wouldn't want to) to use the -L option to the dump command when using Legato NDMP. The -L is supposed to do a backup via file system as opposed to inode table. This would seem to me to make restores (esp. of directories) alot quicker. I'm sure there would be a significant hit on the backups, but maybe tolerable. I haven't seen any mention in Legato or documentation of -L in NetApp docs. Thanks in advance. John Breyfogle

2 1

RE: File too large ?
by Charles Randall 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

Two things, 1. NFS v2 doesn't support files larger than 2 GB. Switch to NFS v3. Only very recently has the Linux NFS implementation supported NFS v3 (see below). 2. Can you work with files larger than 2 GB using the same tools on a local file system? If so, NFS v3 will help. If not, you'll have to find out how to "large file enable" your applications. On Solaris, look at the "largefile" and "lfcompile" manpages. For more info on the Linux NFS implementation, see this page http://nfs.sourceforge.net/ No offense intended to our resident Linux aficionados, but I cringed when I read most of it. Charles -----Original Message----- From: Hubbard, Dan [mailto:dhubbard@websense.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 12:10 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: File too large ? All; We are using a ONTAP v 6.0.1 and are NFS mounting Solaris and Redhat Linux boxes. We are in the process of creating some large text files and cannot either gunzip and/or create files greater than 2GB's. We have bumped up our maxfiles and set the options nfs.v2.df_2gb_lim ON without any luck. Our friends in tech support at Netapp told me that I must upgrade to 6.0.1r3 to fix this. Any input from the field ? Also, any input on issues with NFS and Redhat Linux kernel 2.2.14 (RH7.0) ? Thanks

1 0

Toasters and WINS
by Tim Longo 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

We are migrating users to a Windows 2000 domain. Wondering if anyone has run a Netapp in a Win2k environment without WINS? We will probably try to add the domain, and domain crontroller entries to the toaster hosts file?

1 0

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