toasters June 2002

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

26 participants
26 discussions

RE: CIFS Problems
by Nail, Larry 19 Jun '02

19 Jun '02

One thing to help Citrix out is to set: options cifs.max_mpx 1124 -----Original Message----- From: Ambrose_Earle(a)shamrockfoods.com [mailto:Ambrose_Earle@shamrockfoods.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 8:58 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: Bryan_West(a)shamrockfoods.com Subject: CIFS Problems We were one of the first (apparently) to upgrade to 6.2R1 and find the many "issues" with CIFS in that release. These problems actually forced us to revert_to 6.1 again. Unfortunately, it seems that some of these issues have not been corrected by the revert_to and I'd like to know if anyone has seen or solved any of the following problems: 1) Drives becoming disconnected quite frequently, usually leading to - Windows XP claiming to be offline and later trying to synchronize files - DOS applications running within Windows crashing - unable to write files - Being unable to save an Excel file that has been autosaving itself just fine to the same filer all day 2) Winframe servers showing high packet loss/retransmissions when reading files from the filer - Writes to the filers do not seem to be affected - Reading files from a Windows 2000 server does not show the same degree of packet loss 3) One of our filers no longer listens on port 445 and I don't even see an option to disable that anywhere If you have any Citrix tuning hints in general, or are running just fine without needing to do anything, please let me know. Thank you for your time,

2 1

CIFS Problems
by Ambrose_Earle＠shamrockfoods.com 19 Jun '02

19 Jun '02

We were one of the first (apparently) to upgrade to 6.2R1 and find the many "issues" with CIFS in that release. These problems actually forced us to revert_to 6.1 again. Unfortunately, it seems that some of these issues have not been corrected by the revert_to and I'd like to know if anyone has seen or solved any of the following problems: 1) Drives becoming disconnected quite frequently, usually leading to - Windows XP claiming to be offline and later trying to synchronize files - DOS applications running within Windows crashing - unable to write files - Being unable to save an Excel file that has been autosaving itself just fine to the same filer all day 2) Winframe servers showing high packet loss/retransmissions when reading files from the filer - Writes to the filers do not seem to be affected - Reading files from a Windows 2000 server does not show the same degree of packet loss 3) One of our filers no longer listens on port 445 and I don't even see an option to disable that anywhere If you have any Citrix tuning hints in general, or are running just fine without needing to do anything, please let me know. Thank you for your time,

1 0

cleaning up rmtab
by Igor Schein 17 Jun '02

17 Jun '02

Hi, my rmtab file is huge and has a lot of obsolete entries. I wanna clean it up. Has any1 done that? I know that if it's possible at all, there must be some trickery involved, because just removing the file doesn't work - it creates recreated on the file - possibly from memory? Maybe removing AND rebooting will do the job? Thanks Igor

2 1

RE: TCP v UDP performance
by Peter Bryant 14 Jun '02

14 Jun '02

*** Before acting on this e-mail or opening any attachment you are advised to read the disclaimer at the end of this e-mail *** Thanks for the tip Kevin (and others), as we've a managed solution for the Sun kit I'll pass this on them as knows (and who should have got the damn thing working properly in the first place). Strange that with only a modest amount of filer and Solaris knowledge (but of course access to this list) that I ended up finding the information that got the performance sorted instead of the paid for professionals <g> Thanks toaster world! Peter -----Original Message----- From: kevin graham [mailto:kgraham@dotnetdotcom.org] Sent: 14 June 2002 06:02 To: Peter Bryant Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: TCP v UDP performance > Thanks for the tip though. I suspect the drivers are probably OK, > install was only done a couple of months back and up to date versions > used - unless you know a previous driver is better.... <g> For 2.6, do make sure you have 106764-08 installed. Since SUNWged is an unbundled driver, patches for it will _not_ be included in 'Recommended' clusters (one of the reasons I despise them), nor will patchdiag include it (unless its logic has been altered significantly since I last read source). I didn't take the time to read all the bug reports, but there were resolved performance issues with ttcp workloads which will resemble udp to the driver since IIRC that card doesn't do anything like tcp checksum offloading. ..kg.. . o O ( still wondering what was so wrong with the rebranded Alteon ACEnic Sun Gigabit Ethernet 1.0 that they stuck us with this crap. Do yourself a favor and buy a SysKonnect or IntraServer card) > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason S. Cash [mailto:cash@UDel.Edu] > Sent: 12 June 2002 19:02 > To: Peter Bryant > Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: Re: TCP v UDP performance > > > On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Peter Bryant wrote: > > > Sometime ago I posted some performance tweaks for TCP performance, > > which (when the filer was switched to TCP) worked a treat. I was > > hoping to get the same for UDP. However... > > > > It seems that UDP on Sun over 1GB Ethernet and above is problematic. > > Some details below (words and details have been changed to protect the > > guilty!). As a result we're sticking to TCP for now. > > What version of solaris and what gig-e card? I would look for a new > driver for the gigaswift adaptor that helps immensly w/ UDP NFS perf. > > Jason > > > > > > Peter > > > > ===================================================== > > > > I've done a bit of research and found out that testing of a very > > similar setup to yours, by another customer, showed that there is a > > performance bug in the NFS UDP implementation of Solaris. > > > > We all know that NFS over UDP is about 20% faster than NFS over TCP > > however, the Solaris implementation of UDP breaks this rule when > > gigabit Ethernet is involved..! It seems to be that when NFS is used > > with UDP for internet, 10Mb and 100Mb connectivity then the rule > > applies and also when you have a gigabit Ethernet connection under low > > load then again all is fine. > > > > The performance problem appears when you try to load the gig > > connection heavily - Solaris's UDP simply cannot perform at the > > required rate. Now, thankfully, the TCP implementation in Solaris is > > very good and is up to the job - hence, the situation you find whereby > > NFS over TCP is much better than NFS over UDP. This matches exactly > > with your findings where under normal database usage your Gig + > > NFS/UDP connection is fine - but when you try to backup over the Gig > > Ethernet link the load on the network goes up and UDP can't perform. > > You switched from UDP to TCP and the problem went away. > > > > My recommendation to you is to keep using NFS over TCP - the other > > customer has decided to stay with TCP as it works well and they can't > > see any benefit in moving back to UDP. > > > > > > ******************************* Disclaimer > > ***************************** > > Confidentiality: This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the > > addressee(s) only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in > > error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show > > them to anyone; please reply to this e-mail and highlight the error. > > > > Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail > > and > > attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with > > good practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus > > free. > > ********************** http://www.burallplastec.com ******************** > > > > /* Jason S. Cash - Systems Programmer > IT/Network and Systems Services > University of Delaware, Newark Delaware > e:cash@udel.edu v: 302-831-0461 */ >

1 0

RE: TCP v UDP performance
by mds＠gbnet.net 14 Jun '02

14 Jun '02

On Thu 13 Jun, 2002, kevin graham <kgraham(a)dotnetdotcom.org> wrote: > > For 2.6, do make sure you have 106764-08 installed. Since SUNWged is an > unbundled driver, patches for it will _not_ be included in 'Recommended' > clusters (one of the reasons I despise them), nor will patchdiag include > it (unless its logic has been altered significantly since I last read > source). Yeah, the patchdiag and patchcheck scripts will believe what they're told in the .xref. However, I always use the '-l' flag which appends a list of patches worth considering based on your other installed packages. If you'd like the output to be in html with links to the patch pages in sunsolve, then take a look at http://www.gbnet.net/~mds/pd.pl . There's an extra switch '-w' which makes it stuff random bits of HTML into the output and I find it saves me hours when assembling bespoke patch lists. For the US sunsolve use '-W'. The output is way faster for the browser to handle than that from patchcheck and in some ways more useful. Needless to say this is a complete hack, is unsupported by everyone, is a mild abuse of Sun copyright and I should probably be hung by the RIAA and the Fatherland Defence Force for even thinking about it. But if it's useful then I hope I earn some forgiveness along the way. >-- End of excerpt from kevin graham -- -Mark ... an Englishman in London ...

1 0

RE: TCP v UDP performance
by Peter Bryant 14 Jun '02

14 Jun '02

*** Before acting on this e-mail or opening any attachment you are advised to read the disclaimer at the end of this e-mail *** Solaris 6, and we used Sun's own PCI Gigabit 2.0 card (as it's described on the invoice) Thanks for the tip though. I suspect the drivers are probably OK, install was only done a couple of months back and up to date versions used - unless you know a previous driver is better.... <g> Peter -----Original Message----- From: Jason S. Cash [mailto:cash@UDel.Edu] Sent: 12 June 2002 19:02 To: Peter Bryant Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: TCP v UDP performance On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Peter Bryant wrote: > Sometime ago I posted some performance tweaks for TCP performance, > which (when the filer was switched to TCP) worked a treat. I was > hoping to get the same for UDP. However... > > It seems that UDP on Sun over 1GB Ethernet and above is problematic. > Some details below (words and details have been changed to protect the > guilty!). As a result we're sticking to TCP for now. What version of solaris and what gig-e card? I would look for a new driver for the gigaswift adaptor that helps immensly w/ UDP NFS perf. Jason > > Peter > > ===================================================== > > I've done a bit of research and found out that testing of a very > similar setup to yours, by another customer, showed that there is a > performance bug in the NFS UDP implementation of Solaris. > > We all know that NFS over UDP is about 20% faster than NFS over TCP > however, the Solaris implementation of UDP breaks this rule when > gigabit Ethernet is involved..! It seems to be that when NFS is used > with UDP for internet, 10Mb and 100Mb connectivity then the rule > applies and also when you have a gigabit Ethernet connection under low > load then again all is fine. > > The performance problem appears when you try to load the gig > connection heavily - Solaris's UDP simply cannot perform at the > required rate. Now, thankfully, the TCP implementation in Solaris is > very good and is up to the job - hence, the situation you find whereby > NFS over TCP is much better than NFS over UDP. This matches exactly > with your findings where under normal database usage your Gig + > NFS/UDP connection is fine - but when you try to backup over the Gig > Ethernet link the load on the network goes up and UDP can't perform. > You switched from UDP to TCP and the problem went away. > > My recommendation to you is to keep using NFS over TCP - the other > customer has decided to stay with TCP as it works well and they can't > see any benefit in moving back to UDP. > > > ******************************* Disclaimer > ***************************** > Confidentiality: This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the > addressee(s) only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in > error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show > them to anyone; please reply to this e-mail and highlight the error. > > Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and > attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with > good practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus > free. > ********************** http://www.burallplastec.com ******************** > /* Jason S. Cash - Systems Programmer IT/Network and Systems Services University of Delaware, Newark Delaware e:cash@udel.edu v: 302-831-0461 */

2 1

Native LDAP authentication , when ?
by Frank Bonnet 13 Jun '02

13 Jun '02

Hi Few monthes ago I posted a request to know WHEN Ontap will support LDAP as an authetication method ( instead of NIS/YP ) ? I haven't received any infos from Netapp folks about this subject ... I mean LDAP and certainly NOT M$ Active Directory ! ( openldap prefered ! ) Any infos about this welcome ! Frank Bonnet

1 0

nfs.tcp.enable
by Geoff Hardin 12 Jun '02

12 Jun '02

Based on discussion generated by a post yesterday regarding Sun GbE performance and NetApp filers, I had a question about the nfs.tcp.enable option. I have heard that once you enable this, it is impossible to switch back to UDP; is this true? I don't really have any filers I can test this on, and I'd rather not find out that switching to TCP doesn't fix my problem but I can't go back to UDP. Thanks, Geoff Hardin geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com This space is for rent in order to increase company revenue.

2 1

TCP v UDP performance
by Peter Bryant 12 Jun '02

12 Jun '02

*** Before acting on this e-mail or opening any attachment you are advised to read the disclaimer at the end of this e-mail *** Sometime ago I posted some performance tweaks for TCP performance, which (when the filer was switched to TCP) worked a treat. I was hoping to get the same for UDP. However... It seems that UDP on Sun over 1GB Ethernet and above is problematic. Some details below (words and details have been changed to protect the guilty!). As a result we're sticking to TCP for now. Peter ===================================================== I've done a bit of research and found out that testing of a very similar setup to yours, by another customer, showed that there is a performance bug in the NFS UDP implementation of Solaris. We all know that NFS over UDP is about 20% faster than NFS over TCP however, the Solaris implementation of UDP breaks this rule when gigabit Ethernet is involved..! It seems to be that when NFS is used with UDP for internet, 10Mb and 100Mb connectivity then the rule applies and also when you have a gigabit Ethernet connection under low load then again all is fine. The performance problem appears when you try to load the gig connection heavily - Solaris's UDP simply cannot perform at the required rate. Now, thankfully, the TCP implementation in Solaris is very good and is up to the job - hence, the situation you find whereby NFS over TCP is much better than NFS over UDP. This matches exactly with your findings where under normal database usage your Gig + NFS/UDP connection is fine - but when you try to backup over the Gig Ethernet link the load on the network goes up and UDP can't perform. You switched from UDP to TCP and the problem went away. My recommendation to you is to keep using NFS over TCP - the other customer has decided to stay with TCP as it works well and they can't see any benefit in moving back to UDP. ******************************* Disclaimer ***************************** Confidentiality: This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the addressee(s) only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please reply to this e-mail and highlight the error. Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. ********************** http://www.burallplastec.com ********************

2 1

RE: Cannot delete .snapshot folder
by Maglinger, Paul 10 Jun '02

10 Jun '02

That seems to have done it. Thanks Kevin... -----Original Message----- From: kevin graham [mailto:kgraham@dotnetdotcom.org] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 15:52 To: Maglinger, Paul Cc: 'NetApps list server' Subject: Re: Cannot delete .snapshot folder > We have a .snapshot folder on one of our volumes that we cannot delete. We > used to run snapshots on this volume, but turned them off and deleted > snapshots contained within. vol options vol0 nosnapdir on ..kg..

1 0

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 June 2002