toasters August 2001

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

122 participants
161 discussions

What does Z for CP-type in sysstat -u output mean?
by Chris Thompson 14 Aug '01

14 Aug '01

I have just seen a "Z" in the "CP ty(pe)" column of some "sysstat -u" output (with ONTAP 6.1.1). Anyone know what this one means? It's not listed in the na_sysstat(1) man page. It occurred shortly before a scheduled snapshot that gave the expected "S". 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

RE: boot volume with no data
by Marchand, Paul 14 Aug '01

14 Aug '01

I agree with Adam except I do like a separate root volume as it makes life much easier for all the reasons he mentioned. It is a huge waste of space unless you can convince the customer to purchase 3 9 gig drives, 2 for root 1 for parity in addition to their other storage requirements. You don't waste as much space that way and just maybe the customer may buy an extra shelf with only 3 bays occupied which could accommodate 4 more drives at a future point in time. -Paul ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paul E. Marchand Network Appliance ~ Systems Engineer fast simple reliable marchand(a)netapp.com 408.822.3213 415.793.8881(cell) -----Original Message----- From: Fox, Adam [mailto:Adam.Fox@netapp.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 9:54 AM To: 'neil lehrer'; toasters Subject: RE: boot volume with no data Okay, I've heard lots of debates on this, here's my opinion and I'm sure others will disagree. I'm not a big fan of root-only volumes. I think that overall they are a big waste of space for very little gain. However, there are some good reasons to do it depending on your scenario. 1. SnapMirror. If you are SnapMirroring all of your data then it is a good idea to have your root volume on a separate volume. This allows you to offline your data volumes at will which is good for initial transfers or resynching back to a source. 2. SnapRestore. If your application or dataset makes regular use of SnapRestore..yes I've seen this in a case where customers like to snapshot a known good dataset, have their users mess with it, then SnapRestore back to the known good dataset afterwards. If this is your scenario, then yes, a root volume is a good idea. 3. Lots of vol copy'ing. If you do lots of vol copy commands in your dataset, then for the same reason as SnapMirror, the offline ability is a good one. There may be others out there in the world, but these are the most common. But in my opinion, for the 50-60MB that /etc typically takes up, is it worth dedicating 2 36GB or 72GB drives? Maybe so, but most of my customers don't think so. Just one geek's opinion. There isn't really a single right or wrong answer on this one. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:56 AM > To: toasters > Subject: boot volume with no data > > > are there any particular advantages or disadvantages to just > having ontap on > vol0 and data on other volumes? > -- > > > regards >

1 0

RE: boot volume with no data
by Collins, Jim 14 Aug '01

14 Aug '01

On the negative side I assume you would still need a parity just for Vol0. This might be a waste if you are tight on storage. The plus side is you may have more flexibility moving (physically) volumes from one filer to the next in the event of a head crash. I am considering doing the same thing with vol0. I guess something like this should be considered if you have more than one filer and they are not clustered. In my case we have a F740 & F760. It would be nice if they could be clustered but I don't think they can. My thinking is that if the head crashed on either filer the volume/shelf could be moved to the other filer and would be recognized as a forerun volume. -----Original Message----- From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:56 AM To: toasters Subject: boot volume with no data are there any particular advantages or disadvantages to just having ontap on vol0 and data on other volumes? -- regards

1 0

RE: boot volume with no data
by Noll, Kevin 14 Aug '01

14 Aug '01

When using SnapMirror, you would not SnapMirror your root volume. -----Original Message----- From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] Sent: 14 August 2001 16:56 To: toasters Subject: boot volume with no data are there any particular advantages or disadvantages to just having ontap on vol0 and data on other volumes? -- regards ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ********************************************************************************************

1 0

Re: NetApps and commodity drives
by Daniel Feenberg 11 Aug '01

11 Aug '01

Numerous persons have told me that 3rd party drives are forbidden in the NetApp support contract. But we want a lot of storage...and NetApp charges three times as much... and both drives are Seagate...and here is the text of the support contract at http://now.netapp.com/NOW/products/agreement/agree_2000.shtml: >2.8 Exclusions. >Our warranties and maintenance agreements do not apply to, nor do prices >include maintenance of, the repair or diagnosis of damage, malfunctions >or product failures caused by: (a) you or any third party; (b) accident, >misuse or abuse; (c) the installation, repair or alteration of our >product (including modification of software) by anyone other than us or a >NetApp Service Provider; (d) products not sold by NetApp that are >attached to or used with our products, even if those products are sold by >one of our authorized resellers... Which I take to mean that that they fix only the NetApp supplied part of the device, if something breaks. This same clause appears to regulate 3rd party drives and tape backup units, which are of course, very widespread. I also note that a large number of Seagate drives are listed as compatible in http://now.netapp.com/NOW/download/tools/diskfw/, although the model numbers use a slightly different format than the Seagate site uses. There is also the NOW page about disk qualification (http://now.netapp.com/NOW/download/tools/diskqual/) which includes the following text: >The Disk Qualification Requirement text file adds information about >second-source disk drives to the device qualification matrix in your >filer. The only 72 gigabyte FC Seagate that I can find has a slightly different part number from the one mentioned in the NetApp support documents, but I had been hoping the difference wasn't significant. Looks like it is, though. I suspect the difference is that NetApp wants to use 520 byte sectors, and Seagate defaults to 512, and I don't know how to switch. So I am surprised that everyone thinks that 3rd party drives are forbidden by the support agreement. I agree that they aren't supported, but that isn't the same thing as geing forbidden. Daniel Feenberg feenberg(a)nber.org

3 3

Re: Number of qtrees on a volume?
by Chris Thompson 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

I wrote: [...] > It does indeed, but I don't think I believe it: the limit should be > 254 per *volume*. I've confirmed this by creating 254 qtrees in a /vol/test when there are plenty in other volumes as well. On attempting to "qtree create" the 255th, you get the error qtree: cannot create more than 254 qtrees. 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

RE: Number of qtrees on a volume?
by Bond, Andrew 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

This is correct. I just tested it to be sure. 254 per volume. Regards, Andrew PS. Chris, I think we both need to get a life - I'm off to do that now! :) > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] > Sent: 10 August 2001 21:58 > To: nlehrer(a)ibb.gov > Cc: drechsau(a)tiny.net; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Number of qtrees on a volume? > > > nlehrer(a)ibb.gov (neil lehrer) writes [top'n'tail'd]: > > > > Mike Horwath wrote: > > > > > > Anyone give me an ideas as to the maximum? > > > > > > > man page for 6.x says 254 per filer. > > It does indeed, but I don't think I believe it: the limit should be > 254 per *volume*. The TID values for qtrees in different volumes are > not disjoint. > > 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

Number of qtrees on a volume?
by Mike Horwath 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

Anyone give me an ideas as to the maximum? -- Mike Horwath Admin & Manager @ VISI.com WORK: drechsau(a)visi.com IRC: Drechsau http://www.visi.com/ HOME: drechsau(a)geeks.org The only Minnesota ISP with public statistics: http://noc.visi.com/ Garbage In -- Gospel Out. - berkeley fortune(6)

3 3

RE: Number of qtrees on a volume?
by McCarthy, Tim 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

256 per volume -----Original Message----- From: Mike Horwath [mailto:drechsau@tiny.net] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 3:35 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Number of qtrees on a volume? Anyone give me an ideas as to the maximum? -- Mike Horwath Admin & Manager @ VISI.com WORK: drechsau(a)visi.com IRC: Drechsau http://www.visi.com/ HOME: drechsau(a)geeks.org The only Minnesota ISP with public statistics: http://noc.visi.com/ Garbage In -- Gospel Out. - berkeley fortune(6)

2 1

qtrees
by Deena Matarazzo 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

I have a qtree on a directory and would also like to set some limits on subdirectories within that directory. Is there anyway to do this?

2 1

← Newer
1
...
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Older →

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 August 2001