toasters February 2003

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

104 participants
136 discussions

CIFS administration issues
by drew.odonnell＠americas.bnpparibas.com 26 Feb '03

26 Feb '03

We have filers, which are used by multiple groups and multiple administrators. We have a situation where administrators are requesting the ability to kick users out of open files. Normally this is done through server manager or through Win2k computer management, however unless the users are added to the power users group on the filer, they are unable to view the files in use (they get an access denied). I do not want to give our entire administrative staff power user access on our filer. In a perfect world I would be able to have the administrators only be able to manage the shares they are responsible. Every solution I have found so far has been an all or nothing solution. I know there are some products, such as Tivoli, but I am looking for other creative solutions to my problem. Thanks Drew This message and any attachments (the "message") is intended solely for the addressees and is confidential. If you receive this message in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender. Any use not in accord with its purpose, any dissemination or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited except formal approval. The internet can not guarantee the integrity of this message. BNP PARIBAS (and its subsidiaries) shall (will) not therefore be liable for the message if modified. --------------------------------------------- Ce message et toutes les pieces jointes (ci-apres le "message") sont etablis a l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires et sont confidentiels. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, merci de le detruire et d'en avertir immediatement l'expediteur. Toute utilisation de ce message non conforme a sa destination, toute diffusion ou toute publication, totale ou partielle, est interdite, sauf autorisation expresse. L'internet ne permettant pas d'assurer l'integrite de ce message, BNP PARIBAS (et ses filiales) decline(nt) toute responsabilite au titre de ce message, dans l'hypothese ou il aurait ete modifie.

1 0

RE: LDAP auth problem with CIFS clients
by Yoder, Alan 26 Feb '03

26 Feb '03

Please open a call with Network Appliance CS. Alan =============================================================== Alan G. Yoder agy(a)netapp.com Technical Staff Network Appliance, Inc. 408-822-6919 =============================================================== > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Bonnet [mailto:bonnetf@bart.esiee.fr] > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:21 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: LDAP auth problem with CIFS clients > > > Hi > > I'm in trouble with LDAP auth mechanisms > with windows 2000 clients > > here is the trace from the filer console > yfiler> Wed Feb 26 18:05:33 CET [Auth00:info]: NULL user > login accepted from 147.215.1.223 > Wed Feb 26 18:05:33 CET [Auth03:info]: Login attempt by > ESIEE-1\bonnetf from ASTERIX(147.215.1.223) > Wed Feb 26 18:05:33 CET [Auth03:info]: Attempting to map PC > user to UNIX user bonnetf > Wed Feb 26 18:05:33 CET [Auth03:info]: password rejected > > I am SURE of my password ;-) > > The problem occurs even I put the administrative user and passwd > in the ldap.name and ldap.passwd options > > from the LDAP server the request is seen as an anonymous request ... > Openldap 2.0.27 is used. > > Help ! > > Thanks a lot. > -- > Frank Bonnet >

1 0

LDAP auth problem with CIFS clients
by Frank Bonnet 26 Feb '03

26 Feb '03

Hi I'm in trouble with LDAP auth mechanisms with windows 2000 clients here is the trace from the filer console yfiler> Wed Feb 26 18:05:33 CET [Auth00:info]: NULL user login accepted from 147.215.1.223 Wed Feb 26 18:05:33 CET [Auth03:info]: Login attempt by ESIEE-1\bonnetf from ASTERIX(147.215.1.223) Wed Feb 26 18:05:33 CET [Auth03:info]: Attempting to map PC user to UNIX user bonnetf Wed Feb 26 18:05:33 CET [Auth03:info]: password rejected I am SURE of my password ;-) The problem occurs even I put the administrative user and passwd in the ldap.name and ldap.passwd options from the LDAP server the request is seen as an anonymous request ... Openldap 2.0.27 is used. Help ! Thanks a lot. -- Frank Bonnet

1 0

RE: F720 firmware issue
by Dorfner, Richard 26 Feb '03

26 Feb '03

Use a FAT formatted floppy diskette and not a rawwrite copied diskette with the firmware image, then use "update-flash" to have teh f720 copy the firmware into flash. You can go from any OFW image to any other ofw image you wish, this way. Rick > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephane Bentebba [mailto:stephane.bentebba@fps.fr] > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 4:07 AM > To: Geoff Hardin > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: F720 firmware issue > > > Geoff Hardin wrote: > > >I have an F720 that was running OnTAP 5.2.x and I upgraded > it to OnTAP > >6.1. Unfortunately (and there are a couple of these), I > forgot to update > >the motherboard firmware first. Normally not a big deal, > except this F720 > >happens to be in the Phillipines and I'm in Dallas, a 14 hour time > >difference. > > > >Luckily enough, the F720 boots up, but it complains that the > firmware is > >too old and that I should upgrade to 2.3. The latest > firmware available > >is 2.8, but when we tried to update the firmware, we got an > error after > >the program started running: The attempt to load a boot > image failed. It > >then drops back to the ok prompt and the firmware is not updated. > > > >Does anyone know if I have to first update the firmware to > 2.3 and then to > >2.8? It's been a long time since I have had to do this > operation, and I > >don't think it ever covered such a span of versions. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Geoff Hardin > >geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com > >This space is for rent in order to increase company revenue. > > > > > > > > > i guess the data on your floppy was not cleanly written . > either your floppy is defectuous, either the image you downloaded was > corrupted > > try to download the firmware again and use another floppy . and touch > some wood > > > >

1 0

RE: F720 firmware issue
by Paul Hubert 26 Feb '03

26 Feb '03

Can someone tell me how to remove an address from this mailing list. One of our contractors has subscribed and we want to remove him. Thanks -----Original Message----- From: Michael J. Carter [mailto:mcarter@lanl.gov] Sent: 26 February 2003 15:09 To: Chris Blackmor Cc: Stephane Bentebba; Geoff Hardin; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: F720 firmware issue Also make sure the floppy isn't in the drive when you boot the filer. The firmware floppy isn't a bootable image. mjc On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 07:12, Chris Blackmor wrote: > Geoff, > I had a similar problem when I created the floppy from a unix system. > Did you create it on a PC formatted floppy. If not, it won't work. > C- > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 01:07:27PM +0100, Stephane Bentebba wrote: > > Geoff Hardin wrote: > > > > >I have an F720 that was running OnTAP 5.2.x and I upgraded it to OnTAP > > >6.1. Unfortunately (and there are a couple of these), I forgot to update > > >the motherboard firmware first. Normally not a big deal, except this F720 > > >happens to be in the Phillipines and I'm in Dallas, a 14 hour time > > >difference. > > > > > >Luckily enough, the F720 boots up, but it complains that the firmware is > > >too old and that I should upgrade to 2.3. The latest firmware available > > >is 2.8, but when we tried to update the firmware, we got an error after > > >the program started running: The attempt to load a boot image failed. It > > >then drops back to the ok prompt and the firmware is not updated. > > > > > >Does anyone know if I have to first update the firmware to 2.3 and then to > > >2.8? It's been a long time since I have had to do this operation, and I > > >don't think it ever covered such a span of versions. > > > > > >Thanks, > > > > > >Geoff Hardin > > >geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com > > >This space is for rent in order to increase company revenue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i guess the data on your floppy was not cleanly written . > > either your floppy is defectuous, either the image you downloaded was > > corrupted > > > > try to download the firmware again and use another floppy . and touch > > some wood > > > > > > -- Michael J. Carter | I suppose that in a few hours I will IT Team Leader | sober up. That's such a sad thought. I Space Data Systems (NIS-3) | think I'll have a few more drinks to Los Alamos National Laboratory | prepare myself. _____________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the WorldCom Internet Managed Scanning Service - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.worldcom.com ============================================================ Changes at Miller: Please note our company name is now Miller Insurance Services Limited, and our brand name is simply Miller. Our new web and email addresses are: Web: www.miller-insurance.com E-mail: forename.surname(a)miller-insurance.com Miller Insurance Services Limited Dawson House, 5 Jewry Street, London EC3N 2PJ Tel: +44 (0)20 7488 2345 Registered in England Number 830141 A member of the General Insurance Standards Council This email contains confidential information belonging to the sender which may also be privileged and which is intended for use by the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure or use of the contents or attachment to this email is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please destroy/delete it and notify us immediately. Thank you. ============================================================ _____________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the WorldCom Internet Managed Scanning Service - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.worldcom.com

1 0

F720 firmware issue
by Geoff Hardin 26 Feb '03

26 Feb '03

I have an F720 that was running OnTAP 5.2.x and I upgraded it to OnTAP 6.1. Unfortunately (and there are a couple of these), I forgot to update the motherboard firmware first. Normally not a big deal, except this F720 happens to be in the Phillipines and I'm in Dallas, a 14 hour time difference. Luckily enough, the F720 boots up, but it complains that the firmware is too old and that I should upgrade to 2.3. The latest firmware available is 2.8, but when we tried to update the firmware, we got an error after the program started running: The attempt to load a boot image failed. It then drops back to the ok prompt and the firmware is not updated. Does anyone know if I have to first update the firmware to 2.3 and then to 2.8? It's been a long time since I have had to do this operation, and I don't think it ever covered such a span of versions. Thanks, Geoff Hardin geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com This space is for rent in order to increase company revenue.

4 3

snapmirror.conf, destination_filer must be the "hostname"
by Lim, Weng Kiam 26 Feb '03

26 Feb '03

Hi All, Currently I am having production data traffic and snapmirror traffic both using the Gigabit interface: Source Target Filer1-e0 Filer2-e0 (100Base-T) (inactive) Filer1-e4 Filer2-e4 (Gigabit) Had been trying to set a private network using the inactive onboard interface just to do the snapmirror. Existing snapmirror.conf of Filer2 Filer1-e4:vol1 Filer2-e4:vol1 - 0 5,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,21 * 1,2,3,4,5,6 New snapmirror.conf of Filer2 Filer1-e0:vol1 Filer2-e0:vol1 - 0 5,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,21 * 1,2,3,4,5,6 However, the hostname of Filer2 is Filer2-e4 and the snapmirror destination has to be the hostname according to the DPG, meaning I can't have an exclusive 100Base-T for the snapmirror traffic. The error is /etc/snapmirror.conf: line 2 destination filer "Filer2-e0" does not match hostname "Filer2-e4", ignoring line Is there any way to make this work? Thanks Lim

2 1

"disk fail" command
by Dan OBrien 26 Feb '03

26 Feb '03

Question about "disk fail" command. We are running NetApp Release 5.3.6R2. The System Admin guide says that "[t]he disk fail command permanently marks a disk as failed. You cannot reuse the disk; you must replace it." This is pretty strong statement. Can the disk be *unmarked* with some standalone utility or something? Or are we out of luck? :-( Thanks in advance, Dan O'Brien, dmobrien(a)lcsi.net Cell: 614-783-4859 Work: 614-476-8473 Home: 740-927-2178 Pataskala, OH

3 3

RE: Fragmentation
by Hill, Aaron 25 Feb '03

25 Feb '03

Just jumped in to this thread, hope I am following it ok. My F880 fits the scenario I think. We have had multiple volumes over 80%, one of them hitting 90% occasionally. These are reasonably busy disks, during peak times utilization hits 60-80% on the Sybase db volumes and may be 40-60% on the batch volumes. The only time we noticed a significant performance drop was when our db volumes were at around 85-90%. They ran like that for a month at least with utilization at 100% and cache age <5ms. The wafl scan measure_layout never went above ~3, indicating defragmentation was never an issue. The batch volumes at 90+ % were similar. The db volumes were fixed by adding a shelf of disks to each. Good old-fashioned write bottlenecking being the culprit. Not sure if that helps. Aaron www.navitaire.com -----Original Message----- From: Frank Marxs [mailto:fmarxs@mail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:40 AM To: Deepak Soneji Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Fragmentation Deepak, Filers get fragmented over time ... I guess that's just the basic drawback of having a 'Write Anywhere File Layout'. One one hand I've been told the WAFL is designed to handle Fragmentation but then I'm told to run 'scan' on the filesystem periodically if I'm anywhere near capacity. [I'd say most people don't run their filers empty ... unless they're new ... but over time the filesystem approaches capacity and Fragmentation sets in] ... and I am also told never to add a single drive because that increases fragmentation [all the new data gets written to the new drive if your other drives are full, creates a hot disk for your new files, and your old files get a few new blocks on the new drive ... it'll take a while for the load to balance itself out, if it ever does.] I've just resigned myself that Fragmentation over time is a fact of life, you add a full shelf at a time, and hope the users dont notice or complain about degrading performance over time... If I upgrade my filers yearly they shouldn't have time to get fragmented anyway... My guess is that most users run evaluation or benchmarks on a new, empty [i.e. unfragmented filer]. I'd be curious to see what the Spec FS or other benchmark performance is on a filer which has been in production for 6 months with a filesystem which is 80% full ... then have someone tell me that Fragmentation doesn't make a difference. Cheers Frank "Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new." - Albert Einstein ----- Original Message ----- From: "Deepak Soneji" <sonejideepak(a)hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:46:18 -0800 To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Subject: Fragmentation > Hi > > We have FAS960 filer running ONTAP Release 6.3.1. I have heard that > over the period of time the performance of filer decreases as it is getting > more fragmented. > > How do I check fragmentation ? > How can I defrag ...any scheduled job or internal utility ? > How can I minimize fragmentation and monitor it ? > > Thanks > /Deepak -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

1 0

Re: Fragmentation
by Frank Marxs 25 Feb '03

25 Feb '03

Deepak, Filers get fragmented over time ... I guess that's just the basic drawback of having a 'Write Anywhere File Layout'. One one hand I've been told the WAFL is designed to handle Fragmentation but then I'm told to run 'scan' on the filesystem periodically if I'm anywhere near capacity. [I'd say most people don't run their filers empty ... unless they're new ... but over time the filesystem approaches capacity and Fragmentation sets in] ... and I am also told never to add a single drive because that increases fragmentation [all the new data gets written to the new drive if your other drives are full, creates a hot disk for your new files, and your old files get a few new blocks on the new drive ... it'll take a while for the load to balance itself out, if it ever does.] I've just resigned myself that Fragmentation over time is a fact of life, you add a full shelf at a time, and hope the users dont notice or complain about degrading performance over time... If I upgrade my filers yearly they shouldn't have time to get fragmented anyway... My guess is that most users run evaluation or benchmarks on a new, empty [i.e. unfragmented filer]. I'd be curious to see what the Spec FS or other benchmark performance is on a filer which has been in production for 6 months with a filesystem which is 80% full ... then have someone tell me that Fragmentation doesn't make a difference. Cheers Frank "Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new." - Albert Einstein ----- Original Message ----- From: "Deepak Soneji" <sonejideepak(a)hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:46:18 -0800 To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Subject: Fragmentation > Hi > > We have FAS960 filer running ONTAP Release 6.3.1. I have heard that > over the period of time the performance of filer decreases as it is getting > more fragmented. > > How do I check fragmentation ? > How can I defrag ...any scheduled job or internal utility ? > How can I minimize fragmentation and monitor it ? > > Thanks > /Deepak -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

1 0

Jump to page:

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 2003