toasters October 2002

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

69 participants
84 discussions

Re: option cifs.audit.membufsize
by Paul Caron 16 Oct '02

16 Oct '02

This should help. >From: "Potakamuri, Sreenivasa" <Sreenivasa.Potakamuri(a)netapp.com> >To: "'Paul Caron'" <caron(a)sig.com> >Subject: RE: upgrading the ONTAP version >Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:43:58 -0700 >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >Please remove the following line from /etc/registry.local file manually. > > options.cifs.access_logging.buffer_size=4096 > >That should fix your problem. We have filed a bug (number: 60595) for this. >We will make it online soon. > > >Please let me know the result after removing the line. > > >Thanks, >Sreeni >Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 17:41:35 -0700 >From: Pawel Rogocz <pawel(a)rogocz.com> >To: toasters(a)mathworks.com >Subject: option cifs.audit.membufsize >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Disposition: inline >User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i > >I am running NetApp Release 6.2.1 > >Every hour ( 3602 seconds to be pricise) one of my filers logs this: > >[registry_control:warning]: option cifs.audit.membufsize: >Value (4096) is out of range (10240 to 262144), using 65536 instead. > > >Does anyone now what might be causing this ? > > > >Pawel > >--

1 0

tape backup with overland librarypro
by steve＠hq.newdream.net 16 Oct '02

16 Oct '02

we recently purchased an overland librarypro AIT3 tape backup unit and wanted to know the most cost effective software solution for backing up over NDMP. We have a price quote for NetVault but they seem very pricey especially when we'll be backing up multiple filers. In particular, I'd like to hear others success/horror stories pertaining to the other ndmp backup softwares listed on ndmp.org. Also, is there any free ndmp solution available that works reliably with Netapps (and tape units) connected directly to them? Thanks, Steve

1 0

Tuning R100 for LINUX
by Hussain, Zaki H. 16 Oct '02

16 Oct '02

We a couple of R100s serving NFS to the LINUX clusters. Is there a document that explains how to tune R100 to NFS to LINUX. Thanks......

1 0

option cifs.audit.membufsize
by Pawel Rogocz 16 Oct '02

16 Oct '02

I am running NetApp Release 6.2.1 Every hour ( 3602 seconds to be pricise) one of my filers logs this: [registry_control:warning]: option cifs.audit.membufsize: Value (4096) is out of range (10240 to 262144), using 65536 instead. Does anyone now what might be causing this ? Pawel --

1 0

Service Usage information in Autosupport e-mails
by Dylan Northrup 15 Oct '02

15 Oct '02

I've tried looking around and haven't been able to find what the precise information is that's contained in the 'SERVICE USAGE' section of a netapp's auto-support e-mail that filers send out. Here's some example output so you guys know what I'm talking about: ===== SERVICE USAGE ===== Service statistics as of Sun Oct 6 08:46:15 GMT 2002 System (UP). First recorded (72944725) on Wed Jun 14 02:20:50 GMT 2000 P 12, 3626258, 3620527, Wed Jul 26 13:17:09 GMT 2000 U 2, 25042, 18089, Tue Oct 1 20:36:50 GMT 2002 NFS (UP). First recorded (72944721) on Wed Jun 14 02:20:54 GMT 2000 P 12, 5922405, 5916260, Tue Aug 22 02:59:22 GMT 2000 U 2, 25118, 18130, Tue Oct 1 20:37:31 GMT 2002 Thanks for any information you can give or light you can shed on this question. -- Dylan Northrup northrup(a)loudcloud.com Unix System Administrator EDS Automated Operations

1 0

R100-Filer disaster scenario
by Phil Hill 15 Oct '02

15 Oct '02

Hi all, does anybody know, how fast is a R100 ? We want to build an environment, which reduce the downtime in case of a disaster. Following in mind, some Netapp Filers do a SnapMirror over a WAN-connection to a R100. Beside the R100 is a spare-system which could replace any production-filer. In case of a disaster we are able to copy the volumes to the spare-system and replace it with the broken filer. This should be much faster then a full restore from a local tape. I am talking about 0.5TB - 1.5TB per remote filer. We also would do only a tape-backup from the R100, no local tape drives in the remote offices. Questions: - What is the real read-performance of a R100? - What is the fastest way to duplicate the broken volumes from the R100 to the spare-system? volcopy ? ndmpcopy ? something else ? - How long does it take to copy a 1TB volume to another filer. - Does anybody have something like above described ? Thanks in advance Phil

5 4

dump timeout
by Igor Schein 15 Oct '02

15 Oct '02

Hi, We are running multitape dump to a locally attached ATL L200 library with SDLT drive. Once dump has written to the end of the, the tape gets unload, the new tape gets loaded and the dump continues. A small percentage of our tapes for some reason take longer than others to get loaded into the drive. But it looks like dump has hardcoded timeout, or hardcoded number of tries, after which it thinks the next tape failed to load, and backup aborts. From the common sense viewpoint, dump should ( at least optionally ) wait/keep trying indefinitely for the next tape to load, so that an admin doesn't lose time in this case, and in case where not enough tapes were loaded in the library to begin with. Does anyone know of a solution for this issue? Thanks Igor

1 0

RE: qual_devices and ST173404FC
by hilltemp 15 Oct '02

15 Oct '02

Hey Clarence, Haven't seen you since NetApp training in Sydney, hope all is well. You are definitely right. You are asking for trouble putting in unqualified disks. Now, has anybody got any clues on my NFS problems I posted? Aaron Hill Systems Engineer Navitaire -----Original Message----- From: Clarence Ngoh [mailto:cngoh@bigpond.net.au] Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 10:06 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: qual_devices and ST173404FC I am pretty sure that third party disks are not usable. NetApp disks contains a firmware that needs to operate and understand the WAFL system. Note that your system will automagically shut down in 72 hours with the continued use of the unqualified disk. -- Clarence. On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:40 am, in a distant galaxy, steve(a)hq.newdream.net, wrote: > I installed 3rd party Seagate drives ST173404FC drives in my F720 filer > running Ontap 6.3. I updated the /etc/qual_devices with the one from the > website. However the filer still complains about these disks. It says: > > Disk 8.8 ("SEAGATE ", "ST173404FCCereva", "FAD5") could not be qualified > > Device qualification failure detected. Refer to the > qual_devices man page for information on updating device > qualification data. All devices MUST be qualified > for continued system operation. > > Mon Oct 14 23:14:50 GMT [dyn_dev_qual_admin:error]: Device qualification > failure detected. Mon Oct 14 23:14:50 GMT [dyn_dev_qual_admin:info]: > Firmware is up-to-date on all disk drives Mon Oct 14 23:14:50 GMT > [ses_update_admin:info]: All disk shelves have up-to-date firmware. > > Can I edit the qual_devices and add a line for ST173404FCCereva? Because > it already has a line for ST173404FC which I thought would work fine with > these drives. Whatever 'Cereva' means I don't know, but the drives are > brand new and they don't say Cereva on the front. They say 'Model: > ST173404FC'. So I'm not sure why netapp is recognizing them differently. > > Has anyone else been able to use 3rd party 72GB disks? Which > brand/model did you use. I've had no trouble before using 3rd party > ST19171FC disks. This is the first time I've ever seen anything like > this. > > Any help would be appreciated. > > Thanks, > > Steve

1 0

qual_devices and ST173404FC
by steve＠hq.newdream.net 15 Oct '02

15 Oct '02

I installed 3rd party Seagate drives ST173404FC drives in my F720 filer running Ontap 6.3. I updated the /etc/qual_devices with the one from the website. However the filer still complains about these disks. It says: Disk 8.8 ("SEAGATE ", "ST173404FCCereva", "FAD5") could not be qualified Device qualification failure detected. Refer to the qual_devices man page for information on updating device qualification data. All devices MUST be qualified for continued system operation. Mon Oct 14 23:14:50 GMT [dyn_dev_qual_admin:error]: Device qualification failure detected. Mon Oct 14 23:14:50 GMT [dyn_dev_qual_admin:info]: Firmware is up-to-date on all disk drives Mon Oct 14 23:14:50 GMT [ses_update_admin:info]: All disk shelves have up-to-date firmware. Can I edit the qual_devices and add a line for ST173404FCCereva? Because it already has a line for ST173404FC which I thought would work fine with these drives. Whatever 'Cereva' means I don't know, but the drives are brand new and they don't say Cereva on the front. They say 'Model: ST173404FC'. So I'm not sure why netapp is recognizing them differently. Has anyone else been able to use 3rd party 72GB disks? Which brand/model did you use. I've had no trouble before using 3rd party ST19171FC disks. This is the first time I've ever seen anything like this. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Steve

2 1

RE: verifying that snap is turned off
by Daniel Finn 12 Oct '02

12 Oct '02

On all of my netapps running a newer version of ONTAP the command worked and I got the following resonse: snapmirror is not licensed but on my F740 running NetApp Release 5.3.5R2 it doesn't recognize that command. What is the way with the older versions of ONTAP to verity that snap is turned off? Thanks Dan -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Kennedy [mailto:jlkennedy@amcc.com] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 5:04 PM To: Daniel Finn Subject: Re: verifying that snap is turned off snapmirror status Daniel Finn wrote: > > How can I do this? -- ===================== Jeff Kennedy Unix Administrator AMCC jlkennedy(a)amcc.com

4 3

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Older →

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 October 2002