toasters May 2001

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

173 participants
257 discussions

RE: F85
by Ljungberg, Anders 04 May '01

04 May '01

Ask your EMC rep what happened with the IP4700 at "Vattenfall", one of the larger energy producers in Sweden. Redundant hardware or solid sw.... Anders Ljungberg Professional Services Consultant, Netapp UK -----Original Message----- From: Whitfield, Charlie [mailto:charliew@netapp.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 9:28 AM To: 'Barry Lustig'; Toasters Subject: RE: F85 While I don't disagree with Tom, he doesn't mention that F85 can do many of the tricks that currently reside in the wish lists of others. For example: SnapRestore: near-instant full volume restore (the trad option is lengthy tape restore) without affecting other volumes on the same filer. No point having snaps if you can't get the data back. SnapMirror: asynch mirroring over any distance. This is done volume-volume so you can mirror a bunch of geo-dispersed F85s to something larger at HQ. Etc, etc, etc. The key to F85 is that, with the main exception of Cluster Failover, it can perform just about all the tricks of it's larger data centre siblings. I believe that NetApp are unique in offering this downward scalability (i.e. that a smaller solution shouldn't be penalised in the functionality department). Naturally, if your environment grows, you don't have to re-engineer your processes, just plug in a bigger filer. If you want head-redundancy, think F740C which, like the IP4700, won't fit under your desk. :-) Cheers, CAW Charlie Whitfield NetApp UK FBI voice: +44 20 8756 6762 mobile: +44 7718 160954 email: caw(a)netapp.com Repel the bozo invasion! -----Original Message----- From: Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau [mailto:MadDog@fool.com] Sent: 30 April 2001 19:45 To: 'Barry Lustig'; Toasters Subject: RE: F85 The F85 and the IP4700 are NOT in the same class of equipment. F85 is for a small office, IP4700 is for a decent sized department (couple hundred users). If the F85 is what you need, the IP4700 is a total overkill. If the IP4700 is in the class you need, you should be looking at an F740 or F760 cluster, not an F85. MD -----Original Message----- From: Barry Lustig [mailto:barry@lustig.com] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 1:44 PM To: Toasters Subject: F85 Has anybody had any experience with the F85? I'm most interested in the hardware. As a continuation of my last message, EMC is pushing hard with an IP4700 against an F85. They've been touting the reliability of their box and that it has no single point of failure (2 processors, etc). I'd like to know if anyone on the list has deployed the F85 and can give a reference on them. Also, does anyone know what type of failover the IP4700 is actually providing between their 2 storage processors. It doesn't look at first glance that the surviving processor takes over the MAC address of the dead processor. It just starts arping for the IP address of its partner. barry

1 0

HSM with filers?
by Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau 04 May '01

04 May '01

I just took the NetApp backup survey that they sent out and one of the questions was about using hierarchical storage management with filers. Does anyone know of any HSM products out there that currently work with filers? Thanks, Tom

1 0

RE: Trend Virus Wall for NetApp
by Tony Qin (PM-US) 04 May '01

04 May '01

Dear Craig, Thanks for your interest in Trend Micro's solution to virus protection of Network Appliance filers. The controlled version of ServerProtect for Network Appliance Filer 5.3 is available now and is compatible with Network Appliance filers that have a Network Appliance proprietary OS Data ONTAP 6.1 or above. You can download the program files and the relevant materials at the FTP site: ftp.trendmicro.com Username: us-web/customer password: tmcustomer Folder: /customer/netapp Files: SP53RC.ZIP -- program files WP_SPFiler.doc -- the white paper DS_SPNAF53.pdf -- the datasheet file Readme.txt Quick_Start_Guide.pdf SP_AdminGuide.pdf -- the ServerProtect Administrator's Guide With regards, Tony Qin, M.S., Ph.D. Product Manager Trend Micro, Inc. www.antivirus.com Direct: 408-863-6411 Fax: 408-863-6399 -----Original Message----- From: Craig Slack [mailto:Craig_Slack@pmc-sierra.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 5:56 PM To: Tony Qin (PM-US) Subject: RE: Trend Virus Wall for NetApp Thank you Tony. I look forward to your update. Craig Slack Leader, NT Services PMC-Sierra Inc., Computer Services Dept. (604) 415-6813 -----Original Message----- From: Tony Qin (PM-US) [mailto:Tony_Qin@trendmicro.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 5:30 PM To: Craig Slack Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: Trend Virus Wall for NetApp Dear Craig, Thanks for your interest in Trend Micro's ServerProtect for Network Appliance Filer 5.3. The product is being under external beta test, and is expected to release on 4/30/01 if the test is fine. I'll keep you informed of our progress. With regards, Tony Qin, M.S., Ph.D. Product Manager Trend Micro, Inc. www.antivirus.com Direct: 408-863-6411 Fax: 408-863-6399 -----Original Message----- From: Uren, Jim [mailto:jim.uren@netapp.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 1:52 PM To: Tony Qin (PM-US) Subject: FW: Trend Virus Wall for NetApp Hi Tony, I am not sure if it is appropriate for me as a NetApp employee to forward you a msg which includes customer names, so please handle this in a discreet way. I did want to let you know that 1) at least one person has good things to say about your product 2) another person would like to see more info on your company's web site. If you know the right person to contact, perhaps you could get the Trend website updated with more info? But perhaps you will not be putting info on the website until the beta test is complete? I am glad to see interest in your product and I hope it is very successful! Jim Uren -----Original Message----- From: Craig Slack [mailto:Craig_Slack@pmc-sierra.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 1:03 PM To: 'Gifford, Josh'; 'Manny Kaiser' Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: Trend Virus Wall for NetApp This looks very promising. Is anyone aware of when Trend is planning to release further products for virus scanning on NetApp filers (not the NetCache boxes). According to the PDF doc at the link below, NetApp has partnered with Trend and Symantec to provide these solutions, but I haven't found anything on Trend's site about it yet. Any ideas? http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/ftp/3107.pdf Craig Slack Leader, NT Services PMC-Sierra Inc., Computer Services Dept. (604) 415-6813 -----Original Message----- From: Gifford, Josh [mailto:Josh.Gifford@ptd.siemens.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 11:34 AM To: 'Manny Kaiser' Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: Trend Virus Wall for NetApp Here is the press release: http://www.antivirus.com/corporate/media/2001/pr032601.htm -Josh Gifford -----Original Message----- From: Manny Kaiser [mailto:mkaiser@mmcnet.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 3:39 PM To: Gifford, Josh Subject: Re: Trend Virus Wall for NetApp can you send a pointer that talks about this? thanks Manny "Gifford, Josh" wrote: > Hello fellow filer fans, > Just thought I'd let everyone know that I've been running a beta of > the Trend Virus Wall for NetApp (Data ONTAP 6.1) for a few weeks now and it > seems to be working fine so far. It runs on a separate server and scans > each file coming and going. I'm not sure when it is to be released to the > public, but if you have any questions about how it's set up or what kind of > problems we have run in to (none so far), feel free to contact me. > > Best Regards, > > Josh J Gifford MCP > Senior NT Administrator > Siemens Power Transmission & Distribution > 7000 Siemens Rd > Wendell, NC 27591 > Phone: (919) 365-2806; Fax: (919) 365-1080 > Email: josh.gifford(a)ptd.siemens.com

1 0

520 filer, CPU pegs...
by parker＠redback.com 03 May '01

03 May '01

Hi all, I have a 520 filer running 5.3.7R2 (firmware 2.1_a) with what I perceive to be a problem - I need someone to tell me if this is normal or not. Essentially, when I transfer a single big file (100 MB is my test file) to it over NFS, the CPU pegs at between 98% and 100% for the duration of the transfer (about 24 seconds). This causes some wierd things to happen... I've discovered that if I use NFS version 3 (either TCP or UDP), doing a transfer as above AND trying anything else on the filer (as simple as an 'ls -l') will cause the data transfer to break, i.e. the 'cp' will exit with an error "write: Resource temporarily unavailable". In actual fact, the transfer does not STOP, it continues in the background, however the copy returns an error code and the above message. Using NFS version 2, either TCP or UDP, the cp completes properly. Because the CPU is pegged, the aforementioned 'ls' can take 10 or more seconds in a directory with perhaps 10 files in it... not too good. I find this to be bizarre behaviour... both the CPU getting pegged while transferring a single file, and the copy breaking... has anyone else seen this? 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 2

ndmp restore process
by neil lehrer 03 May '01

03 May '01

hi, we got legato to do a backup and now we are trying a restore. i deleted a directory from the filer and selected it for restore. we are ontap 5.36r2, so no direct access restore. watching the filer from an nt machine, we immediately saw the file names come back, with 0 bytes and no attributes. much later the file sizes came back and the attributes, but legato keeps reading the tape and every 5 minutes we see the "we have read so many bytes" messages. i would think once the files are back the restore would complete, will it go to the end of the tape? --

3 9

Re: Cluster + Cisco Switch
by Seth Moskowitz 03 May '01

03 May '01

Not sure about spantree portfast haven't heard of that before. I believe our first failover test was actually an accident but we didn't have live users on it yet. It was not spontaneous but there was only about a 10 second delay. All you need to do it make sure when you configure it that you specify the name of the partner when you set up the NIC's other then that the filer basically does all the work in the failover situation. There is a small delay during the give back as well. >From: Daniel Oxenhandler <daniel(a)sprintlabs.com> >To: "'toasters(a)mathworks.com'" <toasters(a)mathworks.com> >Subject: Cluster + Cisco Switch >Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 08:38:03 -0700 > >Friends, > >We have just brought up a cluster with two F740 filers, running ONTAP >5.3.6R2. They are connected by Gigabit Ethernet to a Cisco Catalyst 5500 >switch. This is on a 9 port Gigabit Etherchannel module. We didn't get a >chance to test the failover behavior, and have questions for anyone who >might be running a similar configuration. > >Is the failover instantaneous, as suggested by our NetApp sales rep and CE, >or is there a delay while things sort themselves out in the switch? Is >there special configuration on the switch port that should be configured >for >these (e.g. "set spantree portfast") that should be applied? > >Thanks for your insights... > >Regards, > >Daniel Oxenhandler >Senior Network Engineer >Sprint Laboratories >650-375-4281 _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

1 0

Re: Cluster + Cisco Switch
by Thomas.L.White＠chase.com 03 May '01

03 May '01

never heard of spantree portfast we use cisco 6500's but thenetapp is the puppy what handles the failover as long as you specified the "partner" name when setting up the interfaces it knows who to send out ARP updates as when it takes over for the original owner. tw it is an easy test - halt one of the filers the other one takes over (as long as you have the partners identified and your options "match")

2 1

Cluster + Cisco Switch
by Daniel Oxenhandler 03 May '01

03 May '01

Friends, We have just brought up a cluster with two F740 filers, running ONTAP 5.3.6R2. They are connected by Gigabit Ethernet to a Cisco Catalyst 5500 switch. This is on a 9 port Gigabit Etherchannel module. We didn't get a chance to test the failover behavior, and have questions for anyone who might be running a similar configuration. Is the failover instantaneous, as suggested by our NetApp sales rep and CE, or is there a delay while things sort themselves out in the switch? Is there special configuration on the switch port that should be configured for these (e.g. "set spantree portfast") that should be applied? Thanks for your insights... Regards, Daniel Oxenhandler Senior Network Engineer Sprint Laboratories 650-375-4281

2 1

RE: Does Netapp send out new docs automatically or do you have to req uest them?
by Eaken, Pam 03 May '01

03 May '01

Hi Art, We don't automatically ship new doc boxes for upgrades. However, you can order them through your NetApp rep. They're also online on the NOW site. http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/ontap/ontap_index.shtml If you happen to order a new Media Package, the online docs are on the CD. Let me know if you need more info. Pam Eaken Mgr. Technical Publications Network Appliance (408) 822-6612 -----Original Message----- From: Art Hebert [mailto:art@arzoon.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 4:34 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Does Netapp send out new docs automatically or do you have to req uest them? We have docs based on an older release and are going to be upgrading out OS to 6.0, do we need to request new docs? Or does netapp send them out periodically after its designated FCS? Art Hebert Email: art(a)arzoon.com <mailto:art@arzoon.com> Arzoon IT Dept. Phone: 650 522-6125 Mobile: 650 444-8667

1 0

Does Netapp send out new docs automatically or do you have to req uest them?
by Art Hebert 03 May '01

03 May '01

We have docs based on an older release and are going to be upgrading out OS to 6.0, do we need to request new docs? Or does netapp send them out periodically after its designated FCS? Art Hebert Email: art(a)arzoon.com <mailto:art@arzoon.com> Arzoon IT Dept. Phone: 650 522-6125 Mobile: 650 444-8667

4 3

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 May 2001