toasters September 2002

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

75 participants
71 discussions

RE: Moving data from NT to NetApp painfully slow
by Haber, David J. 20 Sep '02

20 Sep '02

We've moved about 500G to the filer from our file servers using SecureCopy. Have you checked the port speed and duplex settings on your servers and switches and filer. We have found that if they don't match you will have excruciating performance. -----Original Message----- From: Friedrich, Bernhard [mailto:Bernhard.Friedrich@med.uni-heidelberg.de] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:29 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Moving data from NT to NetApp painfully slow Hi Toasters, we're in the process of consolidating NT file services on a NetApp Filer. We have an F810 where we want to store all our user's data which is now spread across multiple servers, some of which are close to being maxed out. We now have the problem of moving all the data while we're still servicing our users - we're on 24/7 here. We found that copying the data to the filer is painfully slow; we're suspecting that NT ACLs might be the culprit. We've tried robocopy, secure copy and xxcopy to no avail - moving a small part of the total data took 15 hours. Anybody out there willing to share their experiences with moving several hundreds of GB across the network? We need to keep NT permissions, obviously. On the mailing list I saw references to Fastlane and Aelita's SCW - any experience with those or other 3rd party products? Greetings and thanks in advance Bernhard -- Bernhard Friedrich ZIM Uniklinikum Heidelberg Unix/NT administration

1 0

RE: Legato Backups.
by Peter Bryant 20 Sep '02

20 Sep '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 *** Erm... Well sort of, and it works. As far as I remember that's how some data was moved about shortly after the install (of the Filer) early this year. But we've been discussing <bg> the supported framework ever since and that is why we are moving over to NDMP very soon now. But I cannot claim any great competency in doing it. If we have that kind of need (for now) we involve our support partner. However I did speak to a techie deep within the bowels of Legato, and it's essentially "of course it all works - why shouldn't it? but of course that's not our position". Peter -----Original Message----- From: Paul J. Bell [mailto:paul.bell@rbccm.com] Sent: 20 September 2002 12:41 To: Peter Bryant Cc: 'Netapp Toasters Mailing List' Subject: Re: Legato Backups. have you every tried to restore files backed up via nfs mounts? -paul Peter Bryant wrote: > > Technically speaking (as we found out and are correcting) this is an > unsupported Legato configuration. They'll not help you out if there > is an issue. I consider this to be a marketing ploy as much as > anything to sell NDMP licences. > > Legato's position is that they do not support ANY backup of NFS > attached mounts (whether filer or another server). > > Practically speaking it works, but sometimes the load on the backup > servers is just too great and a few things "pop loose" for the users. > > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: devnull(a)adc.idt.com [mailto:devnull@adc.idt.com] > Sent: 19 September 2002 14:57 > To: Toasters (E-mail) > Subject: Legato Backups. > > Dear Toasters, > > I was wondering if any of you guys were using Legato for backing up > your NetApps. I currently have 2 filers that i am backing up to a > Legato server running Solaris 2.8 over NFS. I mount the NetApp volumes > onto the legato server and then backup those mount points. > > I am not sure this is the best thing to do in terms of performance. > > Is there an alternate, easier solution. > > Thanks, ******************************* 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 ********************

1 0

RE: Legato Backups.
by Caven, Marilyn 19 Sep '02

19 Sep '02

For three years I did just that, back up 7 Netapp filers by way of nfs mounts, using Networker 6.0.1 build 174 on a Solaris 2.8 OS, two E250 Servers. and using two L1000 tape library w/4 DLT7000 drives each. The Networker servers have a Gigabit connection to the network, (2) 296MHz CPU's and 768mb memory and I'm backing up 1.5 TB of Netapp data. We recently went to LTO tapes, one Sun 220R server w/ (1) 450MHz, 1GB memory, gig card for the Solaris side and a NT box to map mount our CIFS only server, both connected to a single Dell Powervault 60 slot tape library. One of the reasons we went this way was because we were already invested in Legato Networker software licenses for 60 clients and 2 servers. I do weekly full backups of the 1.5 TB Netapp data and another half TB of Solaris and NT clients and daily incrementals. So my final statement is, performance is not an issue for me. Regards, Marilyn Caven Next Level Communications -----Original Message----- From: devnull(a)adc.idt.com [mailto:devnull@adc.idt.com] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 6:57 AM To: Toasters (E-mail) Subject: Legato Backups. Dear Toasters, I was wondering if any of you guys were using Legato for backing up your NetApps. I currently have 2 filers that i am backing up to a Legato server running Solaris 2.8 over NFS. I mount the NetApp volumes onto the legato server and then backup those mount points. I am not sure this is the best thing to do in terms of performance. Is there an alternate, easier solution. Thanks, /dev/null devnull(a)adc.idt.com

1 0

NFS security concerns
by Allen, Pat 19 Sep '02

19 Sep '02

Hi all, I hope that this isn't too obvious a question but here goes.... I'm wondering how people are handling NFS security in environments where you have a lot of Mac OS X or Linux computer systems. For ease of administration, I would love to be able to specify that any computer within our network has read access to various qtrees. But this opens up a can of worms in that anybody with root access on their local Mac or Linux box can spoof user accounts with legitimate UID's and GID's. This essentially gives away the keys to the kingdom. The other obvious alternative is using netgroups but that would be a lot of administration as machines come and go. It's certainly better than opening up access to everybody but not a course that I'd like to take. Are there any other alternatives that I'm missing? Thanks! --- Pat Allen (pat(a)mbari.org) Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) 7700 Sandholdt Rd, Moss Landing, CA 95039 (voice) 831-775-1724; (fax) 831-775-1620

10 11

SV: antivirus ?
by Vibeke Ostensvik 19 Sep '02

19 Sep '02

Hi, You can run Trend Micro (serverprotect) ,Mcafee and Symantec - your ontap-version has to be 6.1 or higher. http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3107.html?fmt=print Vibeke -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: Frank Bonnet [mailto:bonnetf@bart.esiee.fr] Sendt: 19. september 2002 10:46 Til: toasters(a)mathworks.com Emne: antivirus ? Hi Does anyone knows some anti-virus scanning solutions that could run on a F85 filer ? or a third party software that could runs thru NFS mounted partitions ? Thx -- Frank Bonnet

1 0

antivirus ?
by Frank Bonnet 19 Sep '02

19 Sep '02

Hi Does anyone knows some anti-virus scanning solutions that could run on a F85 filer ? or a third party software that could runs thru NFS mounted partitions ? Thx -- Frank Bonnet

1 0

NAC on "Using the Linux® NFS Client with Network Appliance?"
by Quentin Fennessy 18 Sep '02

18 Sep '02

I don't recall seeing this mentioned on the toasters list. Netapp has a new (12 Aug 2002) white paper on Linux NFS client tuning, done by Chuck Lever. http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3183.html I think you can get to this paper without NOW access. The paper is self-described as: This report provides advice for getting the best from your Linux NFS clients in an environment that includes Network Appliance filers. You'll learn what level of performance to expect from your Linux systems. You'll learn how to tune your Linux clients and diagnose performance and reliability problems. We'll recommend software levels and hardware combinations that are known to work well. Finally, you'll learn where to look for more information when faced with problems that are difficult to diagnose. Good stuff. two thumbs way up. This paper should perhaps be read while using an internal voice with a Scottish burr. -- Quentin Fennessy Quentin.Fennessy(a)amd.com Office: 512.602.3873 Cell: 512.694.7489

1 0

Re: NetApp Gripe.
by ScottUCE＠aol.com 18 Sep '02

18 Sep '02

NetApp operates no differently than other vendors -- hardware maintenance pricing ratchets up on aging systems as newer models begin to deliver in volume. However, third parties can usually provide hardware maintenance contracts for older systems that provide significant savings to the user in the range of 30-50%. As part of these contracts, spare parts and/or complete (unlicensed) "failover" filers/systems are often kept on-site; this paves the way for "mean-time-to-repair" and "availability" that are actually superior to what the manufacturers' field engineering organizations can deliver. Scott Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, MN 55436 email: scott(a)unioncomputer.com phone: 952 935 7282 | fax: 952 935 5056 > Subj:NetApp Gripe. > Date:9/17/2002 5:53:04 PM Central Standard Time > From:<A HREF="mailto:devnull@adc.idt.com">devnull(a)adc.idt.com</A> > To:<A HREF="mailto:toasters@mathworks.com">toasters(a)mathworks.com</A> > Sent from the Internet > > Toasters, > > Not really amused about the hike in NetApp maintenance prices, which seem > to have doubled. > > Is this a disturbing trend ya'll are seeing with other vendors also ? > > Anyways, i just wanted to bitch about it. > > > /dev/null > > devnull(a)adc.idt.com

1 0

RE:
by Hill, Aaron 17 Sep '02

17 Sep '02

Hi Bruno, We ran Solaris 2.6 with ASE 12.0 for a while with the devices on our F820 and F880 but ran into some major performance issues. Mostly related to network throughput. Once we moved to 2.8 and SUN 2.0 Gigabit NICS, these problems disappeared. I am not a sybase expert, but I know we have a separate volume that we perform sybase dumps to. We ftp the dumps daily to a F820 at our Disaster Recovery site. This process works fine as long as we have bandwidth available on the WAN. We would have preferred to use Snapmirror, but that requires ASE 12.5 and a special quiesce procedure. You can find more on this at the NetApp NOW website, I think the article is a whitepaper on Sybase Disaster Recovery. If you have any more specific questions, let me know, I may be able have a chat to our Sybase Architect. Thanks, Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Bruno Boyer [mailto:bboyer@refer.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 7:53 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Has anyone got experience with doing Sybase (ASE 12.5, Solaris 2.6 and 2.8) dump on NetApp filers ? I am looking for recommendations on this subject: what is the best architecture ? What are the traps to be avoided? Perfomances ? Etc. Thank you for your help. Bruno. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/

1 0

NFS run amok
by Lance A. Brown 17 Sep '02

17 Sep '02

Greetings, I have an F720 with 6.1.1R2 running on it displaying an extremely weird situation. 'sysstat 2' reports: CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 16% 0 0 0 12300 1 0 0 0 0 >60 16% 0 0 0 12301 1 0 0 0 0 >60 18% 0 0 0 12302 1 88 110 0 0 >60 16% 0 0 0 12301 0 0 0 0 0 >60 16% 0 0 0 12301 0 0 0 0 0 >60 16% 0 0 0 12300 0 0 0 0 0 >60 16% 0 0 0 12305 0 0 0 0 0 >60 18% 0 0 0 12300 0 82 104 0 0 >60 17% 0 0 0 12300 0 0 0 0 0 >60 17% 0 0 0 12299 0 0 0 0 0 >60 17% 2 0 0 12301 1 0 0 0 0 >60 16% 0 0 0 12301 0 0 0 0 0 >60 16% 0 0 0 12300 0 0 0 0 0 >60 18% 0 0 0 12300 1 88 110 0 0 >60 16% 0 0 0 12301 0 0 0 0 0 >60 16% 0 0 0 12301 0 0 0 0 0 >60 16% 0 0 0 12300 0 0 0 0 0 >60 17% 0 0 0 12301 0 0 0 0 0 >60 18% 0 0 0 12301 0 82 104 0 0 >60 Running pktt on the netapp reveals LOTS of UDP nfs traffic to the filer but no responses from the filer. The client is a Red Hat linux box. We are stumped on this at this point. Any advice? --[Lance] -- Lance A. Brown SysAdmin Task LMIT ITSS Contract for National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 919.361.5444x420

7 8

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 September 2002