toasters July 2001

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

105 participants
139 discussions

RE: Snapmirror, Snapshots and DF output
by Brookes, Matt 03 Jul '01

03 Jul '01

Hi FPS France, :) You're probably experiencing bug 18560 http://now.netapp.com/NOW/cgi-bin/bol?Type=Detail&Display=18560. The destination volume displays the default snap reserve of 20%. This is fixed in DataONTAP 6.0 and above, whereby the snap reserve set on the source volume is propagated to the destination. See NOW for current GA release - 6.0.1R3 at the time of writing. Regards, Matt. ________________________________________________________________ Matthew Brookes mailto:mbrookes@netapp.com Systems Engineer http://www.netapp.com Network Appliance Tel: +353 1 4064600 Unit 36, Rathfarnham Gate Fax: +353 1 4064601 Dublin 14, IRELAND Mob: +353 87 8575127 > -----Original Message----- > From: FPS France [mailto:fpsfrance@fps.fr] > Sent: 03 July 2001 17:10 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Snapmirror, Snapshots and DF output > > > FPS France > > Hi, > > We had installed a snapmirror configuration with the following > particular trick : snap reserve volX 5 as the costumer would limit the > snapshot space consuption. > Now the snapmirror service works fine, the costumer > outlined something > strange in the DF output from each Filers. > Each Filer has a root volume mirrored on the other Filer. > As u can see > below, sources volumes are vol0 and mirrors volumes are mir_vol0. > From my calculation (less or more), I can check that for > vol0's volumes, > we had a snapshots reserved space around 5%, but in mir_vol0's we have > roughtly four times the snap space consuption more than the > source volume > (31.8 vs 7.9 and 15.6 vs 3.9 : 5% vs 20%). Before making those volumes > snapmirror destinations we took care to modify the snap > reserve to 5%. So > why do we got those outputs ? Any idea ? Any experience with > the df command > snap reserve 5 and snapmirror ? > All of this run on 5.3.7R3, F740. > > Netapp 1 : > << > ===== DF ===== > Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity > Mounted on > /vol/vol0/ 150937460 137664288 13273172 91% > /vol/vol0/ > /vol/vol0/.snapshot 7944076 1473572 6470504 19% > /vol/vol0/.snapshot > /vol/mir_vol0/ 62593232 155988 62437244 0% > /vol/mir_vol0/ > /vol/mir_vol0/.snapshot 15648304 510236 15138068 3% > /vol/mir_vol0/.snapshot > >> > > Netapp2 : > << > ===== DF ===== > Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity > Mounted on > /vol/vol0/ 74329460 155988 74173472 0% > /vol/vol0/ > /vol/vol0/.snapshot 3912076 510236 3401840 13% > /vol/vol0/.snapshot > /vol/mir_vol0/ 127105232 137664288 0 108% > /vol/mir_vol0/ > /vol/mir_vol0/.snapshot 31776304 1473572 30302732 5% > /vol/mir_vol0/.snapshot > >> >

1 0

36F disk
by Debbie.Lane＠intermec.com 03 Jul '01

03 Jul '01

Can a 36F Fibre Channel disk be used in a system that is not NetApp? I am asking because the decision to buy or lease was based on the belief that if at some point we wanted to discontinue using NetApp the disks could be used elsewhere. Thanks for your help. --Debbie

1 0

RE: Snapmirror, Snapshots and DF output
by Fox, Adam 03 Jul '01

03 Jul '01

2 things stand out in your message. 1. Reducing snap reserve does not contain snapshot usage. Snapshots will take up as much space as they need regardless of snap reserve size. What snap reserve does is contain the active file system blocks to a certain amount of space. This is an important concept in SnapShot planning. 2. It would be good to see the output of a snap reserve command from each filer. Something looks a little off. Becuase it seems that you adjusted the snap reserve AFTER the snap mirror occured because as I read it below, your sources are larger than your destinations and that is not possible with SnapMirror. 3. A sysconfig -r would also be useful just to match eveything up. While some volumes of different sizes work with SnapMirror, the simplest way to implement SnapMirror is to simply set up each source and destination the same way (if possible) so that it's easy to compare sizes properly. I realize that this isn't always possible, but if you have the opportunity to do it, it makes life easier. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > why do we got those outputs ? Any idea ? Any experience with > the df command > snap reserve 5 and snapmirror ? > All of this run on 5.3.7R3, F740. > > Netapp 1 : > << > ===== DF ===== > Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity > Mounted on > /vol/vol0/ 150937460 137664288 13273172 91% > /vol/vol0/ > /vol/vol0/.snapshot 7944076 1473572 6470504 19% > /vol/vol0/.snapshot > /vol/mir_vol0/ 62593232 155988 62437244 0% > /vol/mir_vol0/ > /vol/mir_vol0/.snapshot 15648304 510236 15138068 3% > /vol/mir_vol0/.snapshot > >> > > Netapp2 : > << > ===== DF ===== > Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity > Mounted on > /vol/vol0/ 74329460 155988 74173472 0% > /vol/vol0/ > /vol/vol0/.snapshot 3912076 510236 3401840 13% > /vol/vol0/.snapshot > /vol/mir_vol0/ 127105232 137664288 0 108% > /vol/mir_vol0/ > /vol/mir_vol0/.snapshot 31776304 1473572 30302732 5% > /vol/mir_vol0/.snapshot > >> >

1 0

Snapmirror, Snapshots and DF output
by FPS France 03 Jul '01

03 Jul '01

FPS France Hi, We had installed a snapmirror configuration with the following particular trick : snap reserve volX 5 as the costumer would limit the snapshot space consuption. Now the snapmirror service works fine, the costumer outlined something strange in the DF output from each Filers. Each Filer has a root volume mirrored on the other Filer. As u can see below, sources volumes are vol0 and mirrors volumes are mir_vol0. From my calculation (less or more), I can check that for vol0's volumes, we had a snapshots reserved space around 5%, but in mir_vol0's we have roughtly four times the snap space consuption more than the source volume (31.8 vs 7.9 and 15.6 vs 3.9 : 5% vs 20%). Before making those volumes snapmirror destinations we took care to modify the snap reserve to 5%. So why do we got those outputs ? Any idea ? Any experience with the df command snap reserve 5 and snapmirror ? All of this run on 5.3.7R3, F740. Netapp 1 : << ===== DF ===== Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on /vol/vol0/ 150937460 137664288 13273172 91% /vol/vol0/ /vol/vol0/.snapshot 7944076 1473572 6470504 19% /vol/vol0/.snapshot /vol/mir_vol0/ 62593232 155988 62437244 0% /vol/mir_vol0/ /vol/mir_vol0/.snapshot 15648304 510236 15138068 3% /vol/mir_vol0/.snapshot >> Netapp2 : << ===== DF ===== Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on /vol/vol0/ 74329460 155988 74173472 0% /vol/vol0/ /vol/vol0/.snapshot 3912076 510236 3401840 13% /vol/vol0/.snapshot /vol/mir_vol0/ 127105232 137664288 0 108% /vol/mir_vol0/ /vol/mir_vol0/.snapshot 31776304 1473572 30302732 5% /vol/mir_vol0/.snapshot >>

1 0

deleting a qtree
by Leonard, Roger 03 Jul '01

03 Jul '01

is there any way to delete a qtree? i typo'ed one and now want to remove it. thanks Roger D. Leonard

2 1

RE: Vol copy max speed ? alternatives ?
by Fox, Adam 02 Jul '01

02 Jul '01

> - so we used ndmp through tapes because we were not sure > enought of the > NdmpCopy reliability - may I find a tool to validate NdmpCopy > in our lab ? > :) > I've had this question asked before and my answer was simple. All the ndmpcopy does is call our native dump and restore programs on the filer (or filers if you are copying filer to filer). The host running ndmpcopy is not involved in the tranfer other than telling each host what to do, the data path is within the same filer or filer to filer. So if you trust our dump and restore commands, then you should trust ndmpcopy since underneath the covers they are the same thing. Don't misunderstand. The way you did it was fine. But if you were willing to trust dump and restore with tapes, you should be able to trust ndmpcopy since they are making the same calls. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com

1 0

RE: F85 Vs 740
by Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau 02 Jul '01

02 Jul '01

Look at it this way. The F85 is a replacement for the F720. The F820 is a replacement for the F760. What's the replacement for the F740? I don't see one yet. So my guess is NetApp plans to keep the F740 around for a while. I'd go for it. It's a better box in a lot of ways than the F85 (NetApp-designed hardware compared to COTS hardware, clusterable, a tad more scalable, FC drives instead of SCSI drives, etc). Tom -----Original Message----- From: Steve Losen [mailto:scl@sasha.acc.virginia.edu] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 11:05 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: F85 Vs 740 The 740 is an older model and the F85 is brand new. Since the end of availability dates have already been announced for the 720 and 760, I would want to have some idea how much longer Netapp will support the 740 as compared to the F85. Bear in mind that the 700 series uses a DEC Alpha processor and the new 800 series and F85 are Intel. Soon the 740 will be the only Alpha based filer that Netapp still sells. On the other hand, if you need something fast, and it's not clear how soon you can get a F85, then a 740 might look more attractive, especially if you are getting a nice discount because of the F85 unavailability. > > I'm a NetApp newbie looking for feedback from experience users of these > boxes. > > I just ordered a F85, but because of non availability of F85's was offered a > 740 instead. > I'm not as concerned w/ scalability as I am w/ performance. > The data that it will host is under a 100GB now and should grow much beyond > 200GB. > The F85 that I ordered has 12 36GB drives which I figure will leave me w/ > ~280GB of usable space. > > There are 120 NT 4 workstations and a handful of UNIX boxes on this network. > The majority of the data will be CIFS, some NFS and HTTP. I plan on moving > all of the users home folders and shared data to the filer. > The connectivity of the servers and filer will be at 100Mb and the > workstations are at 10Mb. > > Any feedback would be appreciated. > > Mark > > Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 804-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

1 0

win2000 conections
by David C Baumgardner 02 Jul '01

02 Jul '01

Hello fellow toasters, I just got my first win2000 box. I have ten network drives connected to my NetApp. The CIFS sessions on the NetApp (5.3.6r2)is showing ten separate sessions. My NT4.0 boxes show only one connection with ten shares. Anyone know what is going on with the win2000 box? is this normal? David Baumgardner CAD/CAM Administrator Container Engineering 419.247.8274

1 0

Re: Vol copy max speed ? alternatives ?
by FPS France 02 Jul '01

02 Jul '01

FPS France Just to let everyone interested in know : - we firstly would make the migration with snapmirror but we figured out that migrating 14x18Gb disks to 7x36Gb disk was impossible (a 13x18G volume - with one 18G spare beside - is tiny larger than a 6x36G volume - just 9G greater :) - so we used ndmp through tapes because we were not sure enought of the NdmpCopy reliability - may I find a tool to validate NdmpCopy in our lab ? :) - when the migration was successful, we installed Snapmirror and obtain a throughput of 20Mb/s :) systems were 5.3.7R3 and models, two F740. Thank you for all your mail. CU ----- Original Message ----- From: "Van Agt, Cyril" <cvanagt(a)netapp.com> To: "Fox, Adam" <Adam.Fox(a)netapp.com>; "'FPS France'" <fpsfrance(a)fps.fr> Cc: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler(a)netapp.com> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 12:40 AM Subject: RE: Vol copy max speed ? alternatives ? Correct. Good use of the WWW ; and a refresh for you old French... ;-) Cyril PS : FPS is a NetApp Partner in France. -----Original Message----- From: Fox, Adam Sent: jeudi 28 juin 2001 00:46 To: Van Agt, Cyril; 'FPS France' Cc: Mohler, Jeff Subject: RE: Vol copy max speed ? alternatives ? I think this is a close English translation (thanks to Altavista's babelfish service) In English: Me I saw SnapMirror making of the 55 MB/s between two F840 via Gigabit. But I do not have experience with of F630 I think that SnapMirror is the best solution in any event. I think that SnapMirror can " be rented " for a migration... Call me if you wish to discuss it. For Jeff and I who aren't up on our French. :) -- Adam > -----Original Message----- > From: Van Agt, Cyril > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 6:29 PM > To: 'FPS France' > Cc: Mohler, Jeff; Fox, Adam > Subject: RE: Vol copy max speed ? alternatives ? > > > Moi j'ai vu SnapMirror faire du 55 MB/s entre deux F840 via Gigabit. > Mais je n'ai pas d'expérience avec du F630 :-) > > Je pense que SnapMirror est la meilleure solution de toute façon. > Je pense que SnapMirror peut se "louer" pour une migration... > Appelez-moi si vous désirez en discuter. > > Cyril Van Agt > ============================================================== > Cyril Van Agt mailto:cvanagt@netapp.com > Systems Engineer http://www.netapp.com/ > Network Appliance France Phone: +33 1.55.20.18.48 > 42, quai du Point du Jour Fax: +33 1.55.20.18.01 > F-92100 BOULOGNE Cell: +33 6.08.85.38.85 > ============================================================== > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mohler, Jeff [mailto:jeff.mohler@netapp.com] > Sent: mercredi 27 juin 2001 23:24 > To: Fox, Adam; 'FPS France'; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Vol copy max speed ? alternatives ? > > > Myself..I havent seen col copy/ndmpcopy/snapmirror do much > over 18-22Mb/sec depending on platform. > > If I had a free hour Id love to go into my Lab and prove > myself wrong, but I wont be able to until at least tomorrow > if anyone is interested in some data between some 880s. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fox, Adam [mailto:Adam.Fox@netapp.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 1:46 PM > To: 'FPS France'; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Vol copy max speed ? alternatives ? > > > I guess I'm not sure what a 'perfect' 10BT connection speed is > and so the comparisons confuse me. > > By my calculations: > > 10Mb 1MB 1GB 60s 60 min > ---- ------- ------ ------- --------- = 4.39 GB/hr. > 1s 8Mb 1024MB 1 min 1 hr > > This is 10BT at it's maximum throughput...not counting for > protocols, etc. > > So let's look at 36 GB/hour using the same method: > > 36GB 1024 MB 8Mb 1 hr 1 min > ----- ------------ ------ ------- ---------- = 81.92 Mb/s > 1 hr 1 GB 1MB 60 min 60 sec > > So you're a little under a "perfect" 100BT from my calcuations. > Not great, but not as bad as I read it to be..and 18X better > than 10BT. > > If the purpose is to reduce downtime (perfectly resonable) then > perhaps you need something that can do incremental changes > instead of doing it in one shot. > > ndmpcopy can help. It's free and has incremental support even if > it's a little slower, if you can reduce the size of your last > incremental, it won't hurt as much if the data you are trying to > move while you are down is smaller. > > SnapMirror is *great* for this. The only downside is it is not > free. You'll need to work out a deal with your rep if you feel > this is really the way you want to go. > > Just some thoughts. > > -- Adam Fox > NetApp Professional Services, NC > adamfox(a)netapp.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: FPS France [mailto:fpsfrance@fps.fr] > > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 11:20 AM > > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: Vol copy max speed ? alternatives ? > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > We are looking for a high rate migration operation which > > could let us move a > > volume from a disk shelf to another. > > In a first place, we think of using the vol copy command. We > > thaught we > > could easily manage a strong volume copy rate but it appeared > > the rate is > > buggy limited to 36Gb/hour (as if the Filer was copyinbg over > > a 'perfect' > > 10Bas-T interface) : > > http://now.netapp.com/Knowledgebase/solutionarea.asp?id=3.0.72 > 95526.2875209& > resource= > In looking around we found papers dealing with others > interface kinds : > http://now.netapp.com/Knowledgebase/solutionarea.asp?id=3.0.72 95507.2875209 The limit are 25GB/hr over 100Base-T interface, and 28GB/hr over FDDI so less than a 'perfect' 10Base-T interface. (on a F630 Filer :) Reasons given by the NetApp support is the CPU has a bunch of work in calculating optimizations of read and write operations. But I would be sure we are really not strunglled by any other limitations. So here are our two questions : - (just to be sure) did anyone succed in using the vol copy command once and go beyond these limits ? -what is your opinion about that alternative : plug the Filer on a private Giga-ethernet network and make a manual copy (copy -R mnt/nac/vol0 /other_place ) of the whole volume from a shelf to the other. Do you think we could obtain real high rate transfers while keeping the integrity of the volume ? (the volume is a root volume with the "/etc" directory), no special tricks needed (if I use Windows, may I expect ACL modifications) ? I thank you in advance.

1 0

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 July 2001