toasters April 2001

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

205 participants
286 discussions

RE: How would you respond to this
by Golliher, Blake 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

why don't they just call us funny lookin', and say "mothers wear army boots!" while they're at it. sheesh! Blake! ~=) -----Original Message----- From: Barry Lustig [mailto:barry@lustig.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 1:41 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: How would you respond to this This is an excerpt of an email that was sent to the management of a company that I'm working with. They had spec'ed F85's for a fairly low performance 10-20Mbits/sec. environment. The main requirement is reliability and ease of use. How does one respond to blatant misrepresentation of a competitors product? barry A few highlights of the comparison: - The F85 is a stripped down, single CPU, low end device with multiple points of failure and a very poor data protection. NetApps service is rated very low by industry experts and they offer next day shipment of parts that the user must install themselves. - The IP4700 is fully redundant, multi-CPU, mid-range device with no single point of failure and hardware based RAID 5 data protection. EMC's world class customer service center has ranked #1 for 6 consecutive years by Gartner Group. Standard 2 year warranty guarantees 4 hours ON SITE w/Parts service by EMC technicians. Plus, our 'call home' proactive maintenance system monitors trends within the system and reports them automatically to our customer service center. Often, EMC technicians will repair a system BEFORE the component actually fails. The 4700 will be configured with 8 drives usable, plus 1 drive for RAID 5 parity and 1 drive for hot swap redundancy. It is scalable all the way to 7000GB (7TB) vs. only 648GB for the F85. The 4700 as configured above is 8RU. In general, the F85 does not scale sufficiently for growth, has poor customer service behind it, has no redundancy, has multiple points of failure, and utilizes a sub-par RAID 0 data protection scheme.

1 0

Fwd: FW: How would you respond to this
by mark C 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

Typical blatant lies from EMC trying to pass of that thing as a NAS box. We get on-site service with 2 hour response time from NTAP. We also had the IP4700 here for evaluation. We benched it against an F720, which was about the same in performance, but light years behind in EVERYTHING ELSE. Which EMC used to bate and switch us to the SYM/Cellera combo, and then the discounting!!!....... Why not give us the price the first or 2nd time we ask. If you want a chuckle ask for the IP4700 System Admin guide in .pdf, then scan for the phrase "lose data," that should come up about a dozen times. Bottom line- do you want to do business with a company that will lie to your face? Yes, they do have some good Nick's tickets! Do a side by side comparison, and tell EMC you'll publish the results- then watch them back pedal! Frank > > > >This is an excerpt of an email that was sent to the management of a >company that I'm working with. They had spec'ed F85's for a fairly low >performance 10-20Mbits/sec. environment. The main requirement is >reliability and ease of use. How does one respond to blatant >misrepresentation of a competitors product? > >barry > > > >A few highlights of the comparison: > >- The F85 is a stripped down, single CPU, low end device with multiple >points of >failure and a very poor data protection. NetApps service is rated very >low >by >industry experts and they offer next day shipment of parts that the user >must >install themselves. > >- The IP4700 is fully redundant, multi-CPU, mid-range device with no >single >point of failure and hardware based RAID 5 data protection. EMC's world >class >customer service center has ranked #1 for 6 consecutive years by Gartner >Group. >Standard 2 year warranty guarantees 4 hours ON SITE w/Parts service by >EMC >technicians. Plus, our 'call home' proactive maintenance system >monitors >trends >within the system and reports them automatically to our customer service >center. >Often, EMC technicians will repair a system BEFORE the component >actually >fails. > >The 4700 will be configured with 8 drives usable, plus 1 drive for RAID >5 >parity >and 1 drive for hot swap redundancy. It is scalable all the way to >7000GB >(7TB) >vs. only 648GB for the F85. The 4700 as configured above is 8RU. > >In general, the F85 does not scale sufficiently for growth, has poor >customer >service behind it, has no redundancy, has multiple points of failure, >and >utilizes a sub-par RAID 0 data protection scheme. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

1 0

(no subject)
by Maglinger, Paul 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

We're running a 740 with Ontap 5.3.7R2. Will it accept a UNIX LN command, specifically: ln -s source_path dest_path Thank you. Have a prosperous and profitable day! _____ Paul Maglinger, A+, CA, CET, MCSE PC Specialist Shoe Carnival Inc. (812)867-4674 pmaglinger(a)scvl.com <mailto:pmaglinger@scvl.com> _____

1 0

migrating data between filers
by Leonard, Roger 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

i am getting ready to migrate some data from 330's to an 840 using volcopy. has anyone done this out there and do you have any recomendations and/or gotchas?

1 0

qtrees & quotas & symlinks
by Matt Wise 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

Description: We have migrated from a linux file server providing access to linux, solaris & NT clients via NFS & samba to an F740 filer running Release 5.3.7R2 . Our goal is to replicate the environment on our old system while taking advantage of as many of the new features the NetApp as possible. We have run into a challange in the area of quotas: because of the way our old environment was set up, we have one qtree with several subdirectories, however we want to manage quotas at the level of the subdirectories. Currently, these type of quotas don't seem to be supported. Background: The old system provided file sharing of user home directories & a common files system through nfs & samba. On the unix side, the common file system consisted of a top-level directory (/common) containing symlinks pointing to several partitions with the actual files (e.g., /files1/common.build would be linked as /common/build). Clients acessed these files using amd & a symlink from /common to the exported directories path (/mnt/nfs/server/common), This provided the advantage of monitoring (with df) and limiting file system usage within projects and groups. On the NT side, samba managed symlinks & acess permissions in such a way that the server simply provided a share called "common" from /common. Users could, for example, access files from \\server\common\build although samba did not directly share out /files1/common.build - \\server\common\build was visible to users, but \\server\files1\common.build was not. This made the servers share list shorter & simpler for NT users to understand. Today on the NetApp, we have a qtree at /vol/vol0/common that contains all of the directories fromerly linked to /common on the linux server. Unix clients link from /common to this directory, replicating the experience on the old server. NT clients access these files as a share as before. There are two disadvanteage to this arrangement: (1) we cannot take advantage of the many features that would be provided if the directories under /common were qtrees. On the old system we were able to monitor & limit file system usage be keeping projects & departments within discrete partitions. qtrees would provide this advantage. (2) Future expansion is complicated because /common is isolated to one volume: if we were to add a second volume, we would need to provide two parallel shares to provide access to NT clients. We'd like to know: (1) what we could do differently to make this all work; and (2) what features of the filer we might be unaware of that would simplify this setup (e.g., qtrees within qtrees?. -- ............................................................................... Matthew Wise : 781/398-8883 : Gold Wire Technology Inc. mwise(a)goldwiretech.com : : 411 Waverley Oaks Road, Ste. 3-04 www.goldwiretech.com : fax> 781/398-8811 : Waltham, MA 02452 Recounting urban legends as though they happened to you directly can improve your social standing immensely and make people like you. - "Urban Myths About Urban Legends", Rick Larsen

1 0

Data Copy from Filer to Filer
by Jessica Fernandez 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

What are your recommendations of copying data from one filer to another? I have estimated time of 28 hours to transfer 70 GB via a copy command on the host machine. I have tried to copy via CIFS accessing from NT servers using drag and drop. Encountered errors which halted the copy process due to files that were linked to incorrect locations. Unix files in the users desktop were linked to other machines and the path was invalid. Did a grep to locate these linked files in the user folders, and found too many to change one by one. The vol copy command is only useful when copying from volume to volume on the same filer, correct? I am looking for the most efficient way to move data. Any suggestions would be great! Jessica JESSICA A. S. FERNANDEZ ESA-FM Facility Management E-mail: jasf(a)lanl.gov TA-16-661-101, MS-C933 Voice: 505-665-8051 Los Alamos National Laboratory Pager: 104-6707 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 FAX: 505-665-9490

9 15

administrators and users
by Ulrich Neumann 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

after working a while we recognised that the members of the local groups "builtin\administrators" and "builtin\users" on our filers (760 6.0.1R1) are now in the "user unknown" state. that means the usermanager from nt is not able to give us the "domainname\domain admins" and "domainname\domain users". in all other local groups the names are displayed correct. also the given permissions are ok, and we are able to administer the filers. but - how to fix this problem? is ther anybody out there ... who solved such problem? ulrich neumann brose fahrzeugteile gbmh&co kg coburg, bavaria, germany

1 0

RE: Another Q...
by Fox, Adam 18 Apr '01

18 Apr '01

How about after you connect to the filer, running a 'cifs sessions' to see what user is mapped to. Then check permissions of the /etc/directory. Also it would be good to know what qtree security type the root volume is set to. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: parker(a)redback.com [mailto:parker@redback.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 2:34 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Another Q... > > > Hi, > > Another question on the F85... > > We're trying to set it up with a win 2k administration host > (we've done > it with a UNIX host and all works fine there, NT or win2k is an > operational requirement)... > > Despite many attempts, we are unable to write to the /etc > directory. We > can mount \\netapp\C$ just fine, but cannot write. > > I've set it up in a number of different ways - with the administrative > host set using a hostname (with host defined in /etc/hosts on the > filer), IP address or set to 'all' ('return' at the prompt in setup). > > cifs access seems to be fine, we can access other directories on the > filer with no problem, and we can see stuff in /etc, we just can't > write. Writing to a different directory gives us files created by > 'nobody4:nogroup'. > > We've tried this as Administrator on the win 2k system, or as a > particular user (defined as a domain admin) with that user set up in > /etc/hosts.equiv. No luck. > > We do have a good (apparantly) connection to our domain > controller, and > we have a computer account in the NT domain for the filer. > > I'm pretty much stumped at this point... > > Any ideas? > > Cheers, > > Ross > -- > Ross Parker | > | "Lisp has all the visual appeal of > Diagnostic Engineer | oatmeal with fingernail clippings > Redback Networks Inc. | mixed in" - Larry Wall > parker(a)redback.com | >

1 0

RE: Another Q...
by Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau 18 Apr '01

18 Apr '01

To gain read/write acess to the etc directory via CIFS, make sure the account you are using to access the filer is in the filer's local Administrators group, and that "options wafl.nt_admin_priv_map_to_root on". It also might help to put the NT account you are using as mapping to root in /etc/usermap.cfg. If these all don't work, try calling 1-888-4-NETAPP for assistance. Tom -----Original Message----- From: parker(a)redback.com [mailto:parker@redback.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 2:34 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Another Q... Hi, Another question on the F85... We're trying to set it up with a win 2k administration host (we've done it with a UNIX host and all works fine there, NT or win2k is an operational requirement)... Despite many attempts, we are unable to write to the /etc directory. We can mount \\netapp\C$ just fine, but cannot write. I've set it up in a number of different ways - with the administrative host set using a hostname (with host defined in /etc/hosts on the filer), IP address or set to 'all' ('return' at the prompt in setup). cifs access seems to be fine, we can access other directories on the filer with no problem, and we can see stuff in /etc, we just can't write. Writing to a different directory gives us files created by 'nobody4:nogroup'. We've tried this as Administrator on the win 2k system, or as a particular user (defined as a domain admin) with that user set up in /etc/hosts.equiv. No luck. We do have a good (apparantly) connection to our domain controller, and we have a computer account in the NT domain for the filer. I'm pretty much stumped at this point... Any ideas? Cheers, Ross -- Ross Parker | | "Lisp has all the visual appeal of Diagnostic Engineer | oatmeal with fingernail clippings Redback Networks Inc. | mixed in" - Larry Wall parker(a)redback.com |

2 1

Another Q...
by parker＠redback.com 18 Apr '01

18 Apr '01

Hi, Another question on the F85... We're trying to set it up with a win 2k administration host (we've done it with a UNIX host and all works fine there, NT or win2k is an operational requirement)... Despite many attempts, we are unable to write to the /etc directory. We can mount \\netapp\C$ just fine, but cannot write. I've set it up in a number of different ways - with the administrative host set using a hostname (with host defined in /etc/hosts on the filer), IP address or set to 'all' ('return' at the prompt in setup). cifs access seems to be fine, we can access other directories on the filer with no problem, and we can see stuff in /etc, we just can't write. Writing to a different directory gives us files created by 'nobody4:nogroup'. We've tried this as Administrator on the win 2k system, or as a particular user (defined as a domain admin) with that user set up in /etc/hosts.equiv. No luck. We do have a good (apparantly) connection to our domain controller, and we have a computer account in the NT domain for the filer. I'm pretty much stumped at this point... Any ideas? Cheers, Ross -- Ross Parker | | "Lisp has all the visual appeal of Diagnostic Engineer | oatmeal with fingernail clippings Redback Networks Inc. | mixed in" - Larry Wall parker(a)redback.com |

1 0

← Newer
1
...
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
...
29
Older →

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 April 2001