toasters August 2001

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

122 participants
161 discussions

is symbol link can be used on filer?
by Zhonghua-Dennis.Huang＠nokia.com 07 Aug '01

07 Aug '01

Hi toasters, An urgent question. There are soft links on my exported q-trees. the link is directed to files on another machine. When windows users want to acces the files, it always says pemission denied. How to do with it?

2 2

Direct attaching SCSI tape drives to 760's
by Paul Letta 07 Aug '01

07 Aug '01

Does anybody have any comments in regard to direct attaching SCSI drives 760's ? My concern is what happens when the drives fail ? I seem to have a drive failure rate of 3 or 4 a year. Currently I do not direct attach, so replacing them is no problem. But what happens to the filers when you remove a SCSI tape device hot ? Can you reattach a new one without rebooting the filer ? I do not think my environment would stand for a filer reboot each time a tape drive fails, but I really do not want to live with the 4MB/Sec I get for backups over the network now. Any thoughts? Thanks, Paul

1 0

Looking to purchase older Filer SCSI tape, disk drives, shelf
by Scott Chellis 04 Aug '01

04 Aug '01

Hi, I am looking to purchase our would appreciate source information for purchase of: qty(3) (or more) 4GB ST15230N disk drives with/in canisters. qty(1) StorageShelf1 with or without drives Exabyte 8505 tape drive with proper mounting bracket, cable, etc for internal F520 install. Any information on any part of the above would be greatly appreciated -- replies to me directly. Thanks Scott B. Chellis Consulting I/T Architect - Network Integration - MCNE, CCNA, CCNP, CIFI South Outsourcing Network Design Office : 919.852.4080 Tieline: 223.9629 Fax : 919.852.4020 Cellular: 919.244.7050 Pager: 800.252.5972 Email: schellis(a)us.ibm.com Notes: Scott Chellis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS

1 0

RE: Veritas b/u not clearing archive bit on NetApp volume
by Adrian Phillips 03 Aug '01

03 Aug '01

Hello again all; Just an update to this issue, that I've recently discovered. I've found that the archive bit does not get cleared if the account used for backup does not have access (NTFS permissions) to the file. It will back it up, but not clear the archive bit. Our user's home folders are all on C:, so that is why I thought it was drive specific. The backup account is in the local Backup Operators group, and is also a member of the Domain Admins group. If anyone has seen this behavior before and has any thoughts, please let me know. Thanks again for your time and help. Regards, -Adrian -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Phillips Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 4:30 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Veritas b/u not clearing archive bit on NetApp volume Hello List; We have an F760 running CIFS, with ONTAP 6.0.1R3. "C:" is mapped to vol0, and "D:" to vol1. We use Veritas BackupExec 8.5 over the network to connect to and back up the data/shares on these NTFS volumes. What is very odd (and I nor Netapp can seem to figure out thus far) is that the archive bit for files on C: do not get reset after full or incremental backups. Meanwhile, through the same backup jobs, the archive bit on files on drive D: DOES get properly cleared after being backed up. Because the archive bit is not being cleared on C:, our incremental backups are very large, and running well into the work day. I can't seem to find any differences in the volumes, other than vol0/C: is the root volume and uses 9GB drives, compared to vol1/D:'s 36GB drives. Regards, -Adrian

1 0

symbolic link
by Maximus Moua 03 Aug '01

03 Aug '01

hi list: Does anyone in here know if one can create a symbolic link from a NAS share to a Quantum snap box on the network in a cifs environment? Thanks. max

1 0

RE: NetApp telnetd safe?
by Fox, Adam 03 Aug '01

03 Aug '01

> > Can anyone say whether the NetApp filer telnetd implementation > is free from the buffer overflow bugs described in > <http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-21.html> (24 July 2001)? We've had quite a few calls on this and the word from the engineers involved in that code assure us ONTAP is *not* vulnerable to this so no patches are needed. Hope this helps. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com

1 0

5.7 Legato client no longer backs up NT Registry
by E.J. Jantz 03 Aug '01

03 Aug '01

Before having to Hold for tech support for however long.. Does anyone know why the NT 4 Registry is no longer being backed up by my Legato server? The server is HPUX rel 11+ and the NT clients are running service pak6 and clientpak is Networker 5.7 Server is Networker 5.5.2. no patches applied to the Legato app. Thanks in advance. EJ Jantz, IST Dept. BSW International One West Third, Ste 100 Tulsa, OK 74103-3505 918 582-8771 ej_jantz(a)bswintl.com 918 295-4166 918 587-3594 fax

1 0

NetApp telnetd safe?
by Chris Thompson 03 Aug '01

03 Aug '01

Can anyone say whether the NetApp filer telnetd implementation is free from the buffer overflow bugs described in <http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-21.html> (24 July 2001)? 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

Quota Question?
by NicholosC 02 Aug '01

02 Aug '01

This is what I'm trying to achieve: Z:\world\asia Z:\world\america Z:\world\europe I'm trying to set quota of 1G for asia, america, europe which can not be done on directory level. Then I created qtree asia, america & europe so that I can set tree quota on them. By creating individual shares have the qtree, I have to map them into three separate drive letter asia on 'netapp1' (X:) america on 'netapp1' (Y:) europe on 'netapp1' (Z:) I would still like to have the above first illustrated structure but with quota control. Is there any work around to achieve this, or at least fix my second method to better organize it under one top level directory structure? Regards, Nic

1 0

RE: BOUNCE toasters@mathworks.com: Message too long (>40000 c hars)
by Dan Evans 02 Aug '01

02 Aug '01

apologies to you and the other fairies. i didn't realize it was that large until after i sent it (and it's only 300k, btw, so i'll take the liberty of writing only 2700 copies). the other reason i attached it is that i'm not sure if it's available on the public portions of netpp.com's site. others have answered, so i'll drop it. -dan -----Original Message----- From: Pete Ehlke [mailto:pde@ehlke.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 4:28 PM To: evansd(a)madisonriver.net Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: BOUNCE toasters(a)mathworks.com: Message too long (>40000 chars) > > Attached is a PDF with power requirements of Filers and Net Cache > appliances. This also gives heat ratings that most colo providers are also > concerned with. > Half a meg. To everyone subscribed to this list. Tsk, tsk, tsk. The bandwidth conservation faeries are not amused, and sentence you to write 5500 copies of "I will use appropriate distribution methods" on the nearest chalkboard. -Pete

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 August 2001