toasters December 2004

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

49 participants
46 discussions

RE: IPsec NFS to Unix clients
by Muhlestein, Mark 17 Jun '05

17 Jun '05

Gee, 30,000 * 300 is not even 10 million entries! :-) Yes, you are right that this isn't going to work in every case. But I wanted to mention it because it is useful in some situations. As to the MultiStore comment I made, I was thinking of a case where you want to use the same physical filer to serve an unprotected network (such as your normal campus network, it sounds like) and also serve a trusted network (on a different NIC or VLAN, say). As long as there is no way to access a vfiler's IP … [View More]address using a client on the untrusted network, the vfiler boundary checks will prevent all access from all protocols (including NFS handle spoofing) coming from those untrusted clients. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Brian Parent [mailto:bparent@calvin.ucsd.edu] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 2:41 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: IPsec NFS to Unix clients Thanks Mark. We do have CIFS. However, we have >30,000 accounts, and >300 NFS clients. And besides, any account is allowed access from any NFS client. Plus, it doesn't solve the problem of spoofing IPs. We don't have MultiStore, but even if we did, I don't see how it solves the problem of spoofing IPs. Spoofing IPs is painfully simple here, (as at most Universities, I would think) where labs aren't supervised, and network jacks are not physically secured. Re: > Subject: RE: IPsec NFS to Unix clients > Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:31:42 -0700 > From: "Muhlestein, Mark" <mark.muhlestein(a)netapp.com> > To: "Steve Losen" <scl(a)sasha.acc.virginia.edu>, > "Brian Parent" <bparent(a)calvin.ucsd.edu> > Cc: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> > > Here are a couple of other things you can do to improve NFS security: > > 1. If you have CIFS you might consider using the > nfs.require_valid_mapped_uid option. That allows you to set up the > usermap.cfg file to do things like this: > > # allow the following UIDs NFS access from the specified IP addresses > tom <= 192.168.3.34:tom > jerry <= jerrypc.dorm.foo.edu:jerry > jerry <= lab1.foo.edu:jerry > jerry <= lab2.foo.edu:jerry # etc. > > # allow root from the admin network > Administrator <= 10.10.20.0/24:root > > # prevent all other NFS access > "" <= * > > The nfs.require_valid_mapped_uid option causes the usermap.cfg entries > to be consulted even for access to data on qtrees with UNIX security. > Combined with the normal export controls, this approach works as long as > clients are not allowed to successfully spoof source IP addresses. It is > also more manageable if the number of combinations of users/hosts is not > overly large or dynamic; however I know we have had sites that have used > this type of approach with a script-generated usermap.cfg. > > 2. If you have MultiStore available you can also use that to fence off > NFS access. NFS clients accessing an IP address associated with a vfiler > are not allowed to access storage assigned to another vfiler. This is > enforced at the WAFL layer, so even if clients attempt handle spoofing > the access is denied as long as the potentially rogue clients are not > allowed to access the other vfilers' IP addresses (e.g. different > networks on separate NICs). > > Mark [View Less]

2 2

Re: Converting Netcache to Filer
by masterlolo 28 Jan '05

28 Jan '05

Model is C760 (700 series). Netapp system board V. The problem is why the server accept only netcache license and not nfs license ? Thanks, Laurent. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Reeves, Gary" <garyr(a)netapp.com> To: "masterlolo" <masterlolo(a)noos.fr> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 4:17 PM Subject: RE: Converting Netcache to Filer What Model Appliance ? if 7xx series, tel me what system board version it is. Open the chassis and pull forward, then look on the … [View More]motherboard at the back and you should see something like "SYSTEM BOARD V or V or VII" let me know what model it is. One you can, another you can with difficulty and one you cant. Regards -----Original Message----- From: masterlolo [mailto:masterlolo@noos.fr] Sent: 22 September 2004 14:34 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Converting Netcache to Filer Hi all, I have replace the HS battery, now the system is ok, but after each initialize all disk the server tell me that i must enter a valid license. As if the server do not reconize my valid license for NFS or CIFS !!! but if I enter a license for netcache, the system valid it but the installation is a netcache system !!! Someone can help me about it ? Maybe jumper on motherboard ?? Thanks, Laurent. ----- Original Message ----- From: "masterlolo" <masterlolo(a)noos.fr> To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 11:51 AM Subject: Re: Converting Netcache to Filer > Hi all, > > I have unset netcache by this command : > ok unsetenv netcache > ok setenv netcache? false > > I have check environnement : > ok printenv > Variable Name Value Default Value > netcache? false > > That's ok at this point. > I boot on DATA ONTAP Diskettes, and choose " (4) Initialize all disks " at > the menu : > Zero disks and install a new file system? y > This will erase all the data on the disks, are you sure? y > Zeroing disks takes about 15 minutes..... > > I enter some configuration information (as hostname, ip...) & i am stopped > by " Please enter your license: " > I have tested to enter a valid license for nfs, cifs : " You must enter a > valid system license " > I have tested to enter a valid license for netcache : that's ok (but after I > have a system problem : low battery and the system shutdown !) > So I would like to know if it's right to enter netcache license to convert > netcache in filer ?? > Do must change the netcache firmware to filer firmware ?? > > Thanks for your help, > Laurent. > [View Less]

2 1

RE: EMC vs NetApp
by SKIP HOFMANN 31 Dec '04

31 Dec '04

Simply put NO! There is something nice about ease of use -----Original Message----- From: Kelsey Cummings [mailto:kgc@sonic.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 3:34 PM To: Dirk Schmiedt Cc: SKIP HOFMANN; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: EMC vs NetApp On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 12:07:24AM +0100, Dirk Schmiedt wrote: > SKIP HOFMANN wrote: > >the FASTEST NAS is BLUEARC > ??? I'm using NAS for stabilty, reliabilty, easy of use and, performance in that order. Does anyone beat … [View More]

2 1

RE: EMC vs NetApp
by Bokkelkamp Ernst 30 Dec '04

30 Dec '04

Hallo Dirk, Good job, I didn't know that you dig into the NAS equipment that deep (even without the use of a screwdriver). However, I am missing one important point in the discussion: Performance is nice, but what about the services offered by the equipment. Even I, and you know my preferences, do advise to look at EMC as a potential platform for certain solutions if the most important factor happens to be the price and not the services offered by the operating system. If you need plain NFS … [View More]without the need to do snapshots for ie databases, a-/synchronous replication, diskbased backup, iscsi, tape backup, SAN, CIFS, flexible volumes, highly reliable filesystem, security, support, etc. then you can just aswell look at any supplier based on performance figures. But if you need a particular service to be able to do the job effeciently and/or economically then you must weigh the performance against the needs, and then any of the named suppliers could just have the right solution (at least on paper) available. What our favorite company offers is a proven trackrecord that other companies would like to reach...... Btw. If you need low-cost plain NAS and don't worry to much about performance and security: http://www.serverelements.com/naslite.php ;-) Bye Ernie -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Dirk Schmiedt Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 12:07 AM To: SKIP HOFMANN Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: EMC vs NetApp SKIP HOFMANN wrote: > the FASTEST NAS is BLUEARC ??? Hello Skip Do you have real new comparative test results or are you just citing the press releases from Bluearc? ;-) http://www.bluearc.com/html/news/press_releases/pr_specsfs_110104.shtml Neither NetApp nor BlueArc are the fastest NAS providers ... They are both "slow" compared to ... Exanet, IBM, Panasas, Spinnaker, ... Let's have a look at the NFS-Benchmarks BlueArc cites ( http://www.spec.org/sfs97r1/results/sfs97r1.html ) I will focus on the TCP results: Company System Proto Result Overall Response Time BlueArc Inc. Titan 32 TCP 101571 1.78 Exanet Inc. ExaStore EX600FC TCP 178156 1.04 IBM Corporation IBM eServer p5 570 TCP 145362 1.17 Panasas, Inc. Panasas ActiveScale TCP 305805 1.76 (!!!) Spinnaker Networks SpinServer 4100 TCP 134385 1.90 But ... first let's stay at a small BlueArc <-> NetApp comparison as this is the toasters list. :-) BlueArc Titan 32 50858 1.76 Many io/s with bad response time. NetApp FAS980 36063 0.95 Less io/s with fast response time. The Fas980 has three quarters (72 %) of io/s with almost half response time (54%) in this benchmark. (Yes, I know about the saturation with high loads... More about this later.) Does the fastest mean 1) highest i/o rates? 2) lowest response times? 3) (1) and (2) at the same time? 4) With which kind of protocols? UDP / TCP, NFS / CIFS / ...? If you check the details, you can see many of them getting into saturation/overload problems.... http://www.spec.org/sfs97r1/results/res2003q4/sfs97r1-20031103-00166.htm l The graph really shows that Panasas wanted to hit the 300k mark and hit the saturation with 7.8 msec. :-) Same thing with BlueArc: http://www.spec.org/sfs97r1/results/res2004q3/sfs97r1-20040913-00203.htm l NetApp already stops at 2.5 msecs and not at 5.2msecs response time like BlueArc does ... One of the lousiest results comes from the EMC Celerra NS600 cluster: 38459 ios @ 10.3 msecs ... ( http://www.spec.org/sfs97r1/results/res2003q1/sfs97r1-20030203-00125.htm l ) Let me try to have a look at still comparable "Real" and not Overall Response Times at 35k-40k io/s: (That's where NetApp stops with the single head.) Vendor Model CPU RAM NVRAM IO/s "Real" RT @ 35k-40k GB GB (if value is available, if not, next higher value) BlueArc Titan 32 1(+7) 14+8 1 40488 2.6 (1 FS) BlueArc Titan 32 2FS-Mod 2(+14) 28+8 2 40513 1.3 (2 FS) Exanet EX600FC 12 72 84 36390 0.8 IBM eServer p5 570 4(8) 128 16 44175 0.7 NetApp FAS980 2 8 0.5 36063 2.5 (1 FS) NetApp FAS980c 4 16 1 41157 1.0 (2 FS) Panasas Active Scale 60 240 240 60864 0.8 Spinnaker SpinServer 4100 12 24 10 35536 1.1 Smaller (not even the half) RAM size than Titan 32: ==================================================== The FAS980 (8 GB RAM) is still almost as fast as the Titan 32 (22 GB): 36063 @ 2.5 msec. <-> 40488 @ 2.6 msec. Same RAM size comparison: ==================================== The FAS980 cluster (16 GB RAM) is 2.5 (!) times faster than the Titan 32 (14+8 GB): 41157 @ 1.0 msec. <-> 40488 @ 2.6 msec. Dual "Head" comparison: ===================================== The FAS980 cluster (16 GB RAM) is still faster than the Titan 32 with two FileSystemModules (24+8 GB) which is not even is a cluster. 41157 @ 1.0 msec. <-> 40513 @ 1.3 msec. b.t.w. :The FAS980c is a real cluster and afaik BlueArc doesn't have clustered high availability solutions: http://www.bluearc.com/html/library/downloads/titan_spec.pdf => If I compare the RAM and cache sizes of NetApp to the competitors ... I finaly see one thing: NetApp offers a very thin, io-optimized operating system with an excellent filesystem that is able to create a still "good" performance with even small "cheap" hardware. Please, don't start discussing the prices for the software licenses... ;-) but afaik they are still acceptable. :-) So, if you change your expression about the fastest BlueArc NAS-solution to something like "fastest NAS with one single CPU (with many (7) FPGAs support), with ...". In this very small area, BlueArc "appears" to have the fastest solutions, currently. Imho: If NetApp would start the same lousy saturation trick with the FAS980, they would reach the same results. But beside this small area where BlueArc "tops", I only can see big marketing efforts of them in trying to cheat/fool/mislead (don't know which one of these expressions is the softest...) the customers in yelling out loud "we are the fastest". And this is something I really don't like ... and reminds me to other storage vendors I also prefer to not use ... ;-) So imho we should give the "Fastest-NAS-crown" to the IBM eServer p5 570 (SingleHead/Backplane) 145362 @ 1.17 or the Panasas AS Cluster (ClusteredMultiHead) 305805 @ 1.76. BlueArc gets my current "We did the lousy saturation trick and/but yell it out loud" crown. :-( ;-) So therefore my question once again: Why do you believe that "Bluearc" is the fastest NAS-solution provider? I tried to explain my current opinion and hope you or anyone else can enlighten me if I'm wrong. Best regards! Dirk Schmiedt By the way: I still haven't found out, wether the SFS97r1 response time is measured on the client (including network delays) or on the server side? Can anybody explain this to me? So therefore I'm still dreaming of a multiprotocol high available, fault tolerant clustered NAS head which can do takeovers without loosing the states/connections (even at CIFS), with OS upgrades without visible reboots, with ... and it should not cost more than 1000$ @ head ... Just dreaming ... ;-) [View Less]

1 0

Support for big-endian DCs
by Luke Howard 30 Dec '04

30 Dec '04

Is there any update on when Data ONTAP will support big-endian domain controllers? (This is bug 15548.) -- Luke --

2 2

can we do this together?
by akwanga＠terra.com.mx 30 Dec '04

30 Dec '04

Dear Friend I am a Director with the Department of Power and Steel and I represent a group that is interested in engaging your service as Manager of a large volume of fund for investment purpose. If this proposal is acceptable to you, please get back to me, so that we can work out a remuneration for your participation in the transaction,and also let you know on how we hope to acheive this objective. Please reply and as well send your telephone and fax number respectively for further contacts.… [View More]

1 0

RE: EMC vs NetApp
by SKIP HOFMANN 30 Dec '04

30 Dec '04

These products are really different animals. EMC is the leader for SANs Netapp is the leader for NAS they both have their place in business the FASTEST SAN is Hitachi the FASTEST NAS is BLUEARC NAS is good for CIFS SAN is good for High performance DAS replacement -----Original Message----- From: aaron hirsch [mailto:aaronh@uptime.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:21 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: EMC vs NetApp Me to!!! Me to!!! Aaron -----Original Message----- … [View More]

3 3

RE: EMC vs NetApp
by Haber, David J. 29 Dec '04

29 Dec '04

Ditto -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of aaron hirsch Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 12:21 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: EMC vs NetApp Me to!!! Me to!!! Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Grant, Derek [mailto:Derek.Grant@StrategIT.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:45 AM To: Kelsey Cummings; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: EMC vs NetApp I just wanted to add my name to the … [View More]

1 0

RE: EMC vs NetApp
by aaron hirsch 29 Dec '04

29 Dec '04

Me to!!! Me to!!! Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Grant, Derek [mailto:Derek.Grant@StrategIT.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:45 AM To: Kelsey Cummings; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: EMC vs NetApp I just wanted to add my name to the list. Could everyone who responded to Kelsey please forward their responses. I'd like to see how others felt about the two products and their experiences. Thanks Derek -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [… [View More]

1 0

RE: EMC vs NetApp
by Grant, Derek 29 Dec '04

29 Dec '04

I just wanted to add my name to the list. Could everyone who responded to Kelsey please forward their responses. I'd like to see how others felt about the two products and their experiences. Thanks Derek -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Kelsey Cummings Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 4:30 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: EMC vs NetApp I just wanted to say thanks to everyone that responded to me … [View More]

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 December 2004