toasters February 2002

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

78 participants
92 discussions

RE: Upgrading firmware
by Noll, Kevin 21 Feb '02

21 Feb '02

We have a 2 x F820 clustered. We have experienced 2 hardware failures on one of our F820 is the space of 1 week. During these hardware failures, the filer didnt manage to do a failover automatically. We had to do a force take over. All configs are identical as per cluster options. The only thing I see is that time clock is out of sync, which was caused during an upgrade in DataOnTap. (Known Bug) What I would like to know is if this is normal behaivour with clusters and hardware failure, and can the time sync be the problem that is stopping the live Netapp from automatically taking over the failed Netapp. Kevin -----Original Message----- From: Coatney, Sue [mailto:Sue.Coatney@netapp.com] Sent: 21 February 2002 02:25 To: 'Daniel Jung'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Upgrading firmware > Also, I've heard that you "can" upgrade disk firmware while > having both > filers ON-LINE and clustered. Is this true? Yes. With DOT 6.0.3 and 6.1.2 and later. However, the drives are unresponsive while firmware is being downloaded, which will impact client access, so caution is needed. For prior releases, you should really follow the directions of having one of the filers halted, as documented on the NOW site. Sue =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Sue Coatney Network Appliance Clustering Team > Hi Fellow toasters, > > I need to upgrade OnTap on the couple of F840s that is clustered. > According to the NOW site, it is recommended that I should bring down > both filers and do disk firmware upgrade on one while the other filer > is halted. Is this really necessary? What I planned to do was > to upgrade OnTap on one of the filers (while clustering is disabled) > first before I bring down the second one. Is this more dangerous than > what NOW site recommends? > > Also, I've heard that you "can" upgrade disk firmware while > having both > filers ON-LINE and clustered. Is this true? > > > Thanks > > Daniel Jung > > System Administrator GMO inc > ******************************************************************************************** " 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

File access via Windows (laptops)
by Steve Turner 21 Feb '02

21 Feb '02

We are running a Netapp F820, NetApp Release 6.0.1R3. I finally got our Netapp setup to allow windows users to access files (specifically the users home directory). As long as the user is on a PC that logs into the domain, they can access the files without any problems. We have serveral users that use laptops and do not login to the domain. They cannot access any shares on the netapp. They have accounts on the win2k server and can access files on the windows server. If I change the laptop so that they are logging into the domain, it works. no problems. When users are on the road and/or accessing our network via VPN, it would be difficult for them to login to the domain. Is there a workaround? Any suggestions would be appreciated, Please let me know if you need more info. Thanks, Steve ---------------------------------- Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics Design Engineering Center - East Durham, NC

2 2

Slow writes
by edward valencia 21 Feb '02

21 Feb '02

Hi all, I hope that someone has gone through this as I have been trying to figure this out and its making me go nuts. On our solaris(2.8, 2.6) we usually do small file writes, our users do cvs checkouts to thier home directories and compile software that they are working on in that directory also. The problems is not the reads but the writes, I have changed the client machines to nfs3/tcp with rsize and wsize or 32k. The avg time todo a cvs checkout has been about 24 seconds, if this is done to local disk we are seeing the avg. of 4 seconds. The size of the module they are checking out is 4mb, this is what I have been doing tests with, but other cvs modules are also slow while being written to the nfs mount home directory. The filers also have the nfs.tcp.xfersize of 32k. Here are the configs of the filer: F760 NetApp Release 6.0.1R3: Fri Feb 16 02:42:49 PST 2001 e0: flags=8042<BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 10.174.32.67 netmask 0xffffff80 broadcast 10.174.32.127 ether 00:a0:98:00:56:a3 (auto-100tx-down) e4: flags=900042<BROADCAST,RUNNING,TCPCKSUM> mtu 1500 inet 10.174.32.126 netmask 0xffffff80 broadcast 10.174.32.127 ether 00:60:cf:20:31:fb (1000fx) e6: flags=848043<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 10.174.32.7 netmask 0xffffff80 broadcast 10.174.32.127 ether 00:90:27:f4:5b:0e (auto-1000sx-fd-up) flowcontrol full lo: flags=948049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST,TCPCKSUM> mtu 9188 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 broadcast 127.0.0.1 We currently only use e6. nfs.mount_rootonly on nfs.per_client_stats.enable off nfs.tcp.enable on nfs.tcp.xfersize 32768 nfs.udp.xfersize 8192 nfs.v2.df_2gb_lim off nfs.v3.enable on nfs.webnfs.enable off nfs.webnfs.rootdir XXX nfs.webnfs.rootdir.set off malibu> sysconfig -r Volume vol0 (root, zoned checksums) RAID group 0 RAID Disk HA.ID HA SHELF BAY CHAN Used (MB/blks) Phys (MB/blks) --------- ----- ------------ ---- -------------- -------------- parity 7.13 7 1 5 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 7.14 7 1 6 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 7.1 7 0 1 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 7.12 7 1 4 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 Volume vol1 (zoned checksums) RAID group 0 RAID Disk HA.ID HA SHELF BAY CHAN Used (MB/blks) Phys (MB/blks) --------- ----- ------------ ---- -------------- -------------- parity 7.3 7 0 3 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 7.2 7 0 2 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 7.4 7 0 4 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 7.5 7 0 5 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 7.6 7 0 6 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 7.8 7 1 0 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 7.9 7 1 1 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 7.10 7 1 2 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 Here is a copy of sysstat when doing the write to the nfs dir: malibu> sysstat -x 1 CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Total Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache Cache CP CP Disk in out read write read write age hit time ty util 2% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 0% 2% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 0% 2% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >60 - 0% - 0% 2% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 0% 2% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 0% 2% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >60 - 0% - 0% 3% 74 0 0 74 27 15 0 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 0% 10% 244 0 0 244 341 59 825 973 0 0 >60 100% 31% T 23% 8% 252 0 0 252 1145 74 0 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 0% 6% 240 0 0 240 537 61 8 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 2% 6% 272 0 0 272 205 62 0 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 0% 5% 276 0 0 276 154 62 0 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 0% 6% 280 0 0 280 153 63 8 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 3% 5% 273 0 0 273 260 63 0 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 0% 5% 255 0 0 255 163 58 8 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 2% 5% 270 0 0 270 185 61 8 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 2% 6% 270 0 0 270 202 61 8 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 2% 6% 274 0 0 274 362 65 0 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 0% 13% 271 0 0 271 146 61 272 3860 0 0 >60 100% 32% T 22% CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Total Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache Cache CP CP Disk in out read write read write age hit time ty util 5% 270 0 0 270 105 60 0 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 0% 6% 257 0 0 257 278 60 8 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 2% 7% 267 0 0 267 567 67 0 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 0% 6% 287 0 0 287 236 66 0 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 0% 5% 271 0 0 271 180 61 8 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 2% 5% 240 0 0 240 168 55 0 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 0% 5% 269 0 0 269 233 62 8 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 3% 6% 272 0 0 272 208 62 0 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 0% 5% 275 0 0 275 148 62 8 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 2% 5% 229 0 0 229 70 51 40 0 0 0 >60 99% 0% - 5% 11% 267 0 0 267 89 59 280 2627 0 0 >60 100% 29% T 20% 3% 32 0 0 32 12 7 0 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 0% 2% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 0% 2% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 0% 2% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >60 - 0% - 0% 2% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 0% 2% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >60 100% 0% - 0% malibu> nfsstat 1 getattr lookup readlink read write create remove readdir{plus} 38878962 17285524 51726 2550544 6300249 2724487 2282134 2642512 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 8 0 0 2 4 0 0 68 72 0 0 38 21 1 0 60 60 0 0 61 15 0 0 68 68 0 0 47 17 0 0 72 72 0 0 36 18 0 0 72 72 0 0 36 18 0 0 72 72 0 0 36 18 0 0 70 76 0 0 37 18 0 0 76 76 0 0 38 19 0 0 72 72 0 0 36 18 0 0 72 72 0 0 36 18 0 0 72 72 0 0 40 18 0 0 72 72 0 0 37 18 0 0 72 72 0 0 36 18 0 0 getattr lookup readlink read write create remove readdir{plus} 38879981 17286532 51726 2550544 6300803 2724743 2282148 2642518 66 68 0 0 45 17 0 0 68 72 0 0 36 17 0 0 76 76 0 0 38 19 0 0 71 74 0 0 36 18 0 0 72 72 0 0 36 18 0 0 72 72 0 0 37 18 0 0 57 77 0 0 30 18 1 0 73 83 0 0 34 24 2 0 48 57 0 0 24 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Client settings for nfs: /nfs/home from malibu:/vol/vol1/home Flags: vers=3,proto=tcp,sec=sys,hard,intr,link,symlink,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,retrans=5 /nfs/dpkg from malibu:/vol/vol1/dpkg Flags: vers=3,proto=tcp,sec=sys,hard,intr,link,symlink,acl,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,retrans=5 The /dev/tcp settings have been left as default, and the /dev/hme settings have been changed to do fdx/non-auto. The filers are on fiber, and the clients are on 100mb, we are using a foundry bigiron 8000 to connect all the clients to the netapps. I hope you all can help. cheers, edwardv-

2 1

RE: Upgrading firmware
by Coatney, Sue 21 Feb '02

21 Feb '02

> Also, I've heard that you "can" upgrade disk firmware while > having both > filers ON-LINE and clustered. Is this true? Yes. With DOT 6.0.3 and 6.1.2 and later. However, the drives are unresponsive while firmware is being downloaded, which will impact client access, so caution is needed. For prior releases, you should really follow the directions of having one of the filers halted, as documented on the NOW site. Sue =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Sue Coatney Network Appliance Clustering Team > Hi Fellow toasters, > > I need to upgrade OnTap on the couple of F840s that is clustered. > According to the NOW site, it is recommended that I should bring down > both filers and do disk firmware upgrade on one while the other filer > is halted. Is this really necessary? What I planned to do was > to upgrade OnTap on one of the filers (while clustering is disabled) > first before I bring down the second one. Is this more dangerous than > what NOW site recommends? > > Also, I've heard that you "can" upgrade disk firmware while > having both > filers ON-LINE and clustered. Is this true? > > > Thanks > > Daniel Jung > > System Administrator GMO inc >

1 0

Toasters - How can one forward auditlog events to syslog
by Alek O. Komarnitsky (N-CSC) 20 Feb '02

20 Feb '02

I've searched the archives for the answer to this question and searched with Google, but have not found it ... yet! ;-) We use syslog quite a bit to log stuff remotely, but there are certain events (such as root rsh activity) that are logged into auditlog that do NOT show up in syslog - we are logging *.info. Is there a way to get those events also sent to syslog so that we can use what is defined in /etc/syslog.conf to forward those events to our loghosts? Thanx, alek

1 0

Upgrading firmware
by Daniel Jung 20 Feb '02

20 Feb '02

Hi Fellow toasters, I need to upgrade OnTap on the couple of F840s that is clustered. According to the NOW site, it is recommended that I should bring down both filers and do disk firmware upgrade on one while the other filer is halted. Is this really necessary? What I planned to do was to upgrade OnTap on one of the filers (while clustering is disabled) first before I bring down the second one. Is this more dangerous than what NOW site recommends? Also, I've heard that you "can" upgrade disk firmware while having both filers ON-LINE and clustered. Is this true? Thanks Daniel Jung System Administrator GMO inc

1 0

RE: Reset of Archive bit causing very large backups
by Craig Slack 19 Feb '02

19 Feb '02

Robert, We experienced the exact problem that you describe, except with an F760 running a different ONTAP version. There is an ONTAP bug detailed in NetApp Bug ID #49892 that might help you out. The fix for us was to upgrade to 6.1.1R2P1 which solved the problem. I hope that helps. Craig Slack Leader, NT Services PMC-Sierra Inc., Computer Services Dept. -----Original Message----- From: Wiebke, Robert (Robert) [mailto:wiebke@lucent.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 9:08 AM To: Toaster List Subject: Reset of Archive bit causing very large backups Hello Toasters, We are running 5.3.6r1 on our main Filer 740 and we have noticed very large differential backups lately. A full backup will take up approx. 340GB of tape, however our differential backups are taking up on average 80GB. Last week we saw two consecutive differential backups of 240GB and 340GB. I've spoken to Veritas (Using Datacenter 3.4 with a W2K master server) and they tell me the backups themselves are accurate. While investigating this we noticed that files not accessed in a long time (6+ months) were still showing their archive bits set. As these files have not been changed in sometime the archive bit would be expected to not be set. Sure enough, on all files we looked at, the archive bit was set on all. Is this a bug? Is this documented and is a fix available? I've opened a case with the NOW site, and as of yet I have not heard from them. Would you expect an 80GB differental backup on a 340GB filer? Even on weekends when less data was being accessed? Any comments appreciated. Thanks!

1 0

Reset of Archive bit causing very large backups
by Wiebke, Robert (Robert) 19 Feb '02

19 Feb '02

Hello Toasters, We are running 5.3.6r1 on our main Filer 740 and we have noticed very large differential backups lately. A full backup will take up approx. 340GB of tape, however our differential backups are taking up on average 80GB. Last week we saw two consecutive differential backups of 240GB and 340GB. I've spoken to Veritas (Using Datacenter 3.4 with a W2K master server) and they tell me the backups themselves are accurate. While investigating this we noticed that files not accessed in a long time (6+ months) were still showing their archive bits set. As these files have not been changed in sometime the archive bit would be expected to not be set. Sure enough, on all files we looked at, the archive bit was set on all. Is this a bug? Is this documented and is a fix available? I've opened a case with the NOW site, and as of yet I have not heard from them. Would you expect an 80GB differental backup on a 340GB filer? Even on weekends when less data was being accessed? Any comments appreciated. Thanks!

1 0

MySQL on a filer...
by johnd＠energis2.net 18 Feb '02

18 Feb '02

A quick question for all you good people in Toaster List Land. Has anyone had any experience of running a (busy) MySQL DB off a filer? We'd quite like all the nice, scrummy data-protection features of a proper filestore but, well, you know, NFS and databases. Are we mad, or will it work? We have Filers aplenty so we can mess around, but the databases are all a bit company-critical so we're being cautious. We know it will *basically* work, but performance issues are the main worry. The DB has to be reasonable quick still, and random block access isn't a NAS strong point. So, any previous wins or horror stories? Ta, J -- John Denholm <johnd(a)energis-squared.com> The Evil Cachemaster . Team Leader, Content Distribution and Storage, Core Systems, Energis Squared Tel: +44 113 207 6357

2 1

Re: File access via Windows (laptops)
by Steve Turner 18 Feb '02

18 Feb '02

This worked, thanks. Thanks also to the others who sent the same information and other helpful information and suggestions. I will also look into getting the upgrade as someone pointed out that the newer version is more win2k friendly. I think I will get a netapp class out of this also :). Steve "Muhlestein, Mark" wrote: > > If you have a domain account you should be able to use it to map a drive, no matter how the client comes up. If you log into the laptop with a local account, try bringing up a cmd prompt then say > > C:>net use * \\filer\share /user:domain\acct > > It should prompt you for the password, then connect. If this isn't working, something else is wrong so you should open a case with netapp customer support. You might also want to consider upgrading to 6.1 or later, since there are some Win2k issues in 6.0-era releases. > > Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Turner [mailto:sturner@msai.mea.com] > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 9:43 PM > To: Muhlestein, Mark > Subject: Re: File access via Windows (laptops) > > Most are runnin Windows 2k Pro and they already have domain accounts, > but it still doesn't work unless they actually login to the domain. I > can take my laptop and map the drive if I login to the domain, this > works. But if I do not login to the domain (just login to laptop with a > local account) it does not work. The local account and the domain > account are the same userid and password. > > thanks for any help, > steve > > "Muhlestein, Mark" wrote: > > > > What are they running on their laptops? If it's NT or later, they can map a drive letter using a domain account. > > > > Mark > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steve Turner [mailto:sturner@msai.mea.com] > > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 6:51 AM > > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: File access via Windows (laptops) > > > > We are running a Netapp F820, NetApp Release 6.0.1R3. I finally got our > > Netapp setup to allow windows users to access files (specifically the > > users home directory). As long as the user is on a PC that logs into > > the domain, they can access the files without any problems. > > > > We have serveral users that use laptops and do not login to the domain. > > They cannot access any shares on the netapp. They have accounts on the > > win2k server and can access files on the windows server. If I change > > the laptop so that they are logging into the domain, it works. no > > problems. > > > > When users are on the road and/or accessing our network via VPN, it > > would be difficult for them to login to the domain. Is there a > > workaround? > > > > Any suggestions would be appreciated, > > > > Please let me know if you need more info. > > > > Thanks, > > Steve > > > > ---------------------------------- > > Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics > > Design Engineering Center - East > > Durham, NC

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
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 February 2002