toasters March 2003

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

92 participants
102 discussions

Start a nNew thread

Signatures in emails to the list
by kyle 11 Mar '03

11 Mar '03

Please remove them when sending email to the list. They don't hold up in court and it's a eyesore.

2 1

RE: why should app care?
by Alan McLachlan 11 Mar '03

11 Mar '03

Farid, This is not a simple issue. Here are a couple of possibilities: 1) The application needs to do direct disk I/O (block level). In this case, you're out of luck using a network drive and should look at SnapDrive VLD or FCP. Examples: Microsoft Exchange 2000, some products like some FileNet modules that do block I/O. 2) The application does a check and won't install. However, you may be able to install on local disk then move the location to a network drive later. Example: SAP R/3 on SQL Server. Hope this helps. -----Original Message----- From: Farid Hamjavar [mailto:hamjavar@unm.edu] Sent: Tuesday, 11 March 2003 11:24 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: why should app care? NetApp Release 6.3.1 greetings, We have encountered situations where when an application is installed on windows (2000 for example) , the application complains whether or not drive onto which it is installed is a real physical disk or a mounted CIFS share coming from the Netapp filer. If the drive happens to be a mounted CIFS share coming from the Netapp filer application either does not get installed and/or operates erroneously. Anyone encountered this? If so what's the solution or workaround? Thanks, Farid UNM **** ASI Solutions Disclaimer **** The material transmitted may contain confidential and/or privileged material and is intended only for the addressee. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender and destroy any copies of the material immediately. ASI will protect your Privacy according to the 10 Privacy Principles outlined under the new Privacy Act, Dec 2001. This email is also subject to copyright. Any use of or reliance upon this material by persons or entities other than the addressee is prohibited. E-mails may be interfered with, may contain computer viruses or other defects. Under no circumstances do we accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from your receipt of this message or any attachments. **** END OF MESSAGE ****

1 0

RE: Weired Linux error
by Hill, Aaron 11 Mar '03

11 Mar '03

I have seen exactly the same nfs: not responding errors on some of my Solaris Servers. I also examined NFS at a very low level and showed no problems. Then I stumbled upon an article in NOW that explained the error to be harmless, more a nuisance than anything else. The performance of servers showing this error vs those not is virtually identical. However,I did not observe this error; Mar 9 06:38:36 linuxclient kernel: nfs: task 41929 can't get a request slot Mar 9 06:38:41 linuxclient kernel: nfs: task 43328 can't get a request slot Are you seeing any performance drops? Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Premanshu Jain [mailto:Premanshu.Jain@synopsys.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:26 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Weired Linux error A few RedHat 7.2 nfs clients mounting a F840 volume via automount error out with the following. I have looked into everyting including NIS timeouts, filer sysstat, network performance and everything looks to be fine. Intrestingly all the other non linux Clients accessing the same auto-mount are working perfectly. Mar 9 06:35:12 linuxclient kernel: nfs: server filer OK Mar 9 06:35:13 linuxclient last message repeated 52 times Mar 9 06:35:31 linuxclient kernel: nfs: server filer not responding, still trying Mar 9 06:35:41 linuxclient kernel: nfs: server filer OK Mar 9 06:35:54 linuxclient kernel: nfs: server filer not responding, still trying Mar 9 06:36:34 linuxclient kernel: nfs: server filer OK Mar 9 06:36:46 linuxclient kernel: nfs: server filer not responding, still trying Mar 9 06:38:36 linuxclient kernel: nfs: task 41929 can't get a request slot Mar 9 06:38:41 linuxclient kernel: nfs: task 43328 can't get a request slot

1 0

Re: Weired Linux error
by April Jenner 11 Mar '03

11 Mar '03

If you are using nfs version 3 on the Linux box, try these settings: filername:/vol/volpath /mntpoint nfs rw,bg,intr,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,tcp,noac,vers=3 If you are using a full-duplex network, you should not see any errors. If you are not, look at the output of ifstat and take, # of collisions + # of errors ------------------------------ divided by the total packets and multiple by 100%. The resulting percentage should be less than 5% or you definately have network problems. Hope this helps, --April ****************************************************** Sounds like RPC is working fine for you, otherwise NIS would have problems. Two thoughts, from when I've seen this in the past, for you: 1) Make sure you are using NFSv2. Linux NFSv3 is still fairly buggy. 2) Explicity define your read and write sizes. You might want to spec the retransmit as well, for now try adding the following client side mount options and see if things get better, if not tune the size alittle. Also don't use the intr option. use the options like this: mount -o rsize=8192,wsize=8192 server:/mount/point /localmount If these don't work for you, then sorry to say, it's a networking issue. Double check your NIC settings on the Linux client to make sure you are full duplex 100, if that's what your Filer is using. Use the linux tool "mii-tool" to check. Using "mii-tool -v" you can see what the current state is, and then use the tool again to force. If you exhast these, let me know. But one of the above should fix the problem. benr. On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:25:51PM -0800, Premanshu Jain wrote: > A few RedHat 7.2 nfs clients mounting a F840 volume via automount error out with > the following. I have looked into everyting including NIS timeouts, filer > sysstat, network performance and everything looks to be fine. Intrestingly all > the other non linux Clients accessing the same auto-mount are working perfectly. > > > Mar 9 06:35:12 linuxclient kernel: nfs: server filer OK > Mar 9 06:35:13 linuxclient last message repeated 52 times > Mar 9 06:35:31 linuxclient kernel: nfs: server filer not responding, still > trying > Mar 9 06:35:41 linuxclient kernel: nfs: server filer OK > Mar 9 06:35:54 linuxclient kernel: nfs: server filer not responding, still > trying > Mar 9 06:36:34 linuxclient kernel: nfs: server filer OK > Mar 9 06:36:46 linuxclient kernel: nfs: server filer not responding, still > trying > Mar 9 06:38:36 linuxclient kernel: nfs: task 41929 can't get a request slot > Mar 9 06:38:41 linuxclient kernel: nfs: task 43328 can't get a request slot > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/

1 0

why should app care?
by Farid Hamjavar 11 Mar '03

11 Mar '03

NetApp Release 6.3.1 greetings, We have encountered situations where when an application is installed on windows (2000 for example) , the application complains whether or not drive onto which it is installed is a real physical disk or a mounted CIFS share coming from the Netapp filer. If the drive happens to be a mounted CIFS share coming from the Netapp filer application either does not get installed and/or operates erroneously. Anyone encountered this? If so what's the solution or workaround? Thanks, Farid UNM

1 0

RE: CIFS Security
by Muhlestein, Mark 10 Mar '03

10 Mar '03

You can set up entries in your /etc/usermap.cfg to control access using the client's IP address. See http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ umapdetail.shtml Don't worry that it says ONTAP 5.3. It's valid for any 5.3 or later release. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Robert Borowicz [mailto:rbaus@swbell.net] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 12:57 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: CIFS Security Newbie here.... I'm setting up a FAS940 with NFS/CIFS. Is there a way to limit the hosts to which CIFS can be shared. Ala NFS "access=hostname.com" ? Thanks -Bob B

1 0

CIFS Security
by Robert Borowicz 10 Mar '03

10 Mar '03

Newbie here.... I'm setting up a FAS940 with NFS/CIFS. Is there a way to limit the hosts to which CIFS can be shared. Ala NFS "access=hostname.com" ? Thanks -Bob B

2 1

RE: Network Appliance's used equipment policies
by Warmenhoven, Dan 10 Mar '03

10 Mar '03

Scott, I must disagree with your claims. Our used equipment policy is clearly documented, and is not as you stated. I suggest you read it at: http://www.netapp.com/support/ues.html Dan Warmenhoven ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Warmenhoven dan(a)netapp.com Chief Executive Officer phone: 408-822-6600 Network Appliance, Inc. fax: 408-822-6603 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: ScottUCE(a)aol.com [mailto:ScottUCE@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 2:47 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: scott(a)unioncomputer.com Subject: Network Appliance's used equipment policies An active secondary market is developing for NetApp systems, parts, add-ons and maintenance. This market is enabling NetApp users to save money on current products as well as to secure out-of-production features, parts and add-ons that are no longer available from Network Appliance. Unfortunately -- and with increasing frequency -- we are hearing of NetApp sales reps making false statements about NetApp's used equipment policies. Examples are: 1) "The installation of used NetApp add-ons will void your filer's maintenance service agreement" 2) "If you buy used NetApp add-ons, you will be required to pay NetApp's recertification fee, even if you elect not to place these add-ons under your existing NetApp service contract" 3) "Used NetApp gear can only be purchased from "authorized" NetApp dealers" 4) "3rd party maintenance coverage is not allowed, as it will void your filer's software license agreement" 5) "Allowing hardware or software coverage to lapse will void your filer's software license agreement" 6) "NetApp has never negotiated transferable protocol licenses on new filer purchases." Should you ever be confronted with claims such as these, you might want to ask your NetApp rep to put them in writing ;-) 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 "Helping our customers make each dollar go further -- since 1991!" www.unioncomputer.com

2 1

RE: SnapMirror delays.
by Ngoh, Clarence 09 Mar '03

09 Mar '03

Rich I'm aware of the snapmirror status -l option and by using it brought to my attention the size of the data that was being transferred. I've also used the SnapMirror log parser to get a better idea of the file transfer size, the duration, and the approximate transfer speed. Please find the output attached. Filer_A_SVR:filer_A => filer_dr_SVR:filer_A (Scheduled) transfer is completed. Start: Thu Mar 6 17:00:00 EST End: Fri Mar 7 05:38:01 EST Duration: 12:38:01 Transfer Size: (16472748 KB) Transfer rate: 21.222 MB/min Note that the snapmirror for this transfer was taken between the March 6 05:25 and March 06:11:09. This is how I concluded that it is betweent this two periods that 16GB of data was altered (at block level). Thanks for the clarification of the block level change, Rich. 1% ( 0%) 1% ( 0%) Mar 06 11:09 filer_dr_SVR(0050385229)_filer_a.741 (busy,snapmirror) 1% ( 0%) 1% ( 0%) Mar 06 10:00 hourly.3 (busy) 1% ( 0%) 1% ( 0%) Mar 06 08:00 hourly.4 (busy) 1% ( 0%) 1% ( 0%) Mar 06 06:00 hourly.5 (busy) 1% ( 0%) 1% ( 0%) Mar 06 05:25 filer_dr_SVR(0050385229)_filer_a.740 (busy,snapmirror) To clarify the set up of our filers, we have three volumes, vol0, vol1, and vol2. Vol 1 and 2 contain qtrees. The different qtrees are for the different business groups. Now having said that the changes are most likely done at the block level, is there a utility that can tell us which qtree is making this whole lot of data change? Thanks. -- Clarence. > -----Original Message----- > From: Borders, Rich [mailto:Rich.Borders@netapp.com] > Sent: Friday, 7 March 2003 09:17 PM > To: Ngoh, Clarence; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: SnapMirror delays. > > > Have you tried the command line version < snapmirror status -l > for > extended output. It may be a little more helpful. It seems you are > checking status, and I am looking a little more for the 'actual' data > moving. Good SM Link: > http://now.netapp.com/AskNOW/highlight_html.jsp?url=http%3A%2F > %2Fnow.net > app.com%2FNOW%2Fknowledge%2Fdocs%2Fontap%2Frel631r1%2Fhtml%2Fo > ntap%2Fdpg > %2Fmirror19.htm&sentenceId=60257568&titleIds=60257567%2C602575 > 66%2C60257 > 562#1548676 > > The actual data moving is block level, so there really is not a true > concept of 'files' If you have a DB in the snap destination that is > moving only changed blocks IN the DB then you are not really moving a > file. Just block updates IN the file. > > You may be aware of this, so maybe you could be more specific in your > question. Also, just for more info, is this QSM, or volume level? > > Rich > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ngoh, Clarence [mailto:clarence.ngoh@cba.com.au] > > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 5:04 PM > > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > > > Hi folks > > > > I am having some difficulties tracking down a particular user > > or qtree that is causing delays on our SnapMirror process. > > The most relevant information of our setup are this: > > > > Filer head : FAS940 > > OS: DOT 6.3.1 > > Filername : Let's call it "FilerA" > > OS to troubleshoot from : Windows, but open sourced solutions > > welcomed. > > > > Filer A contains several different qtrees with different > > business units. > > Every so often, the snapshots are SnapMirrored to our DR > > site. Of late, we noticed that FilerA is lagging behind the > > DR site by a fair amount of time > > -- 16 hours. The amount of data transferred for this period > > is around 15 GB. > > > > Please do not offer solutions regarding network latency, as > > the amount of data change is the cause of the lag. > > > > I would like to trace the particular user or qtree that is > > making this changes. We are using DFM 2.1 for W2K server. > > DFM did not register data deletions or additions for any > > business unit -- I suspect then that data changes are the > > culprits, but where is this coming from? > > > > > > Cheers > > Clarence. > > > > > > ************** IMPORTANT MESSAGE ************** > > This e-mail message is intended only for the addressee(s) and > > contains information which may be confidential. If you are > > not the intended recipient please advise the sender by return > > email, do not use or disclose the contents, and delete the > > message and any attachments from your system. Unless > > specifically indicated, this email does not constitute formal > > advice or commitment by the sender or the Commonwealth Bank > > of Australia (ABN 48 123 123 124) or its subsidiaries. > > ************************************************** > > > > >

1 0

Network Appliance's used equipment policies
by ScottUCE＠aol.com 09 Mar '03

09 Mar '03

An active secondary market is developing for NetApp systems, parts, add-ons and maintenance. This market is enabling NetApp users to save money on current products as well as to secure out-of-production features, parts and add-ons that are no longer available from Network Appliance. Unfortunately -- and with increasing frequency -- we are hearing of NetApp sales reps making false statements about NetApp's used equipment policies. Examples are: 1) "The installation of used NetApp add-ons will void your filer's maintenance service agreement" 2) "If you buy used NetApp add-ons, you will be required to pay NetApp's recertification fee, even if you elect not to place these add-ons under your existing NetApp service contract" 3) "Used NetApp gear can only be purchased from "authorized" NetApp dealers" 4) "3rd party maintenance coverage is not allowed, as it will void your filer's software license agreement" 5) "Allowing hardware or software coverage to lapse will void your filer's software license agreement" 6) "NetApp has never negotiated transferable protocol licenses on new filer purchases." Should you ever be confronted with claims such as these, you might want to ask your NetApp rep to put them in writing ;-) 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 "Helping our customers make each dollar go further -- since 1991!" www.unioncomputer.com

1 0

← Newer
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 March 2003