toasters April 2004

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

55 participants
57 discussions

AW: AntiVirus Solutions
by Scholz Wolfgang 05 Apr '04

05 Apr '04

hi everybody, we are using trendmicro to scan our filer for about 8 months now without major issues. the only very annoying thing is that the error message box presented to the client in case of an infection is not customizable. the error message that comes from the trendmicro scanner is really unusable (it´s the complete path to the file which can be very very long) . regards wolfgang > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Jack Lyons [mailto:jack.lyons@martinagency.com] > Gesendet: Freitag, 2. April 2004 15:41 > An: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Betreff: AntiVirus Solutions > > > We are looking for a virus scanning solution for our FAS960 > with 350 users accessing via CIFS. > > Trend Micro is a little cheaper than McAfee but we are a > McAfee shop. But I have also heard that Trend Micro is > better for NetApp but I can't find any specifics? > > Can anyone share their experience with either product? > > Thanks > Jack > > > > This email and its contents may be confidential. If it is > and you are not the intended recipient, please do not > disclose or use the information within this email or its > attachments. If you have received this email in error, > please delete it immediately. Thank you. > >

1 0

RE: CIFS performance Issue
by Jack Lyons 02 Apr '04

02 Apr '04

There are a lot of variables involved. What client are you using for copying the file to and from the NetApp. Are you using the Win2k server you are comparing it to? I think some of what is going is that the Win2k maybe caching the writes to the file, but when writing to the Filer it is not caching the reads (or if it is - it isn't doing it efficiently). I bet if you looked at the defrag map of the Win2k box it would be moderately fragmented. Also, for a Gig link, a 30 MB file is not that big. Try using a 300 MB file. We looked at several different solutions using different protocols and CIFS clients. Here is a snapshot of my results. Single Client WinXP client writing 300MB file over a GigE link to a Win2k Server: 40MB/s WinXP client reading 300MB file over a GigE link from a Win2k Server: 26MB/s MacOSX running the Dave Client writing a 300MB file over a GigE link to a FAS960: 22MB/s MacOSX running the Dave Client reading a 300MB file over a GigE link from a FAS960: 38MB/s However with 5 clients connected to a gig switch to a single GigE connected server WinXP client writing 300MB file over a GigE link to a Win2k Server: 6MB/s WinXP client reading 300MB file over a GigE link from a Win2k Server: 14MB/s MacOSX running the Dave Client writing a 300MB file over a GigE link to a FAS960: 18MB/s MacOSX running the Dave Client reading a 300MB file over a GigE link from a FAS960: 23MB/s My analysis is the Wintel box cannot handle the load at GigE speeds. I haven't had a chance to try using a TCP Offload Engine NIC which would probably help. -----Original Message----- From: Tim Driggers [mailto:timd@birthdayexpress.com] Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 11:59 AM To: NetApp List (E-mail) Subject: CIFS performance Issue Hi All, I have been playing with an F760 with ONTAP 6.4.1 for about thirty days. I am having a problem understanding a CIFS transfer rate difference I am seeing between writing to and from the NetApp. First, a little background: The F760 has a X1025B gigabit card (SX fiber) in it, connected to an Extreme BlackDiamond 6808. The BlackDiamond does -not- have jumbo frames enabled at this time. The NetApp has full flow control configured. I am able to copy a single (30GB) file (generated by mkfile in FreeBSD) to and from the NetApp over NFSv3 at between 92-96mbit consistently, with the FreeBSD using an NFS mount having a 100mbit link. I am able to copy the same 30GB file from the NetApp to a Windows 2000 server using CIFS at 130-160mbit consistently. The Win2k server has a gigabit SX card. When copying the file to the NetApp from the Win2k server, I am seeing a maximum throughput of 69mbit, and usually it settles around 33-40mbit. I am monitoring this transfer rate using 'sh port utillization' on the BlackDiamond. I have tested this on three different Win2k boxes, with nearly identical results. I have also followed instructions on NetApp's website on how to 'improve' performance through registry edits, with no apparent result (positive or negative). I have tried three different flowcontrol settings on the Win2k cards (send, recieve and full) - again with no change in performance. I'm thrilled with the NFS performance, but we are a windows shop. I need to get performance increased on the CIFS writes to the NetApp if it's possible. I have tried every tweak I could find, and nothing seems to change the rate at which I can write to the NetApp via CIFS. I have included some NetApp information: slot 8: Gigabit Ethernet Controller II e8 MAC Address: 00:03:47:25:36:6a (auto-1000sx-fd-up) slot 9: NVRAM Memory Size: 32 MB netapp1> options cifs cifs.audit.autosave.file.extension cifs.audit.autosave.file.limit 0 cifs.audit.autosave.onsize.enable off cifs.audit.autosave.onsize.threshold 500k cifs.audit.autosave.ontime.enable off cifs.audit.autosave.ontime.interval cifs.audit.enable off cifs.audit.file_access_events.enable on cifs.audit.logon_events.enable on cifs.audit.logsize 524288 cifs.audit.saveas /etc/log/adtlog.evt cifs.bypass_traverse_checking on cifs.comment cifs.guest_account cifs.home_dir cifs.home_dir_namestyle ntname cifs.home_dirs_public_for_admin on cifs.idle_timeout 1800 cifs.max_mpx 50 cifs.netbios_aliases cifs.netbios_over_tcp.enable on cifs.nfs_root_ignore_acl on cifs.oplocks.enable off cifs.oplocks.opendelta 8 cifs.per_client_stats.enable off cifs.perm_check_ro_del_ok on cifs.perm_check_use_gid on cifs.restrict_anonymous.enable off cifs.save_case on cifs.scopeid cifs.search_domains cifs.show_snapshot off cifs.shutdown_msg_level 2 cifs.sidcache.enable on cifs.sidcache.lifetime 1440 cifs.snapshot_file_folding.enable off cifs.symlinks.cycleguard on cifs.symlinks.enable on cifs.tcp_window_size 64240 cifs.trace_dc_connection off cifs.trace_login off cifs.wins_servers <edited> netapp1> options ip ip.fastpath.enable on ip.ipsec.enable off ip.match_any_ifaddr on ip.path_mtu_discovery.enable on ip.ping_throttle.alarm_interval 0 ip.ping_throttle.drop_level 10 ip.tcp.newreno.enable on ip.tcp.sack.enable off If anyone can help, I would really appreciate it. If I need to supply more information, please just ask. Thanks, Tim This email and its contents may be confidential. If it is and you are not the intended recipient, please do not disclose or use the information within this email or its attachments. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately. Thank you.

1 0

CIFS performance Issue
by Tim Driggers 02 Apr '04

02 Apr '04

Hi All, I have been playing with an F760 with ONTAP 6.4.1 for about thirty days. I am having a problem understanding a CIFS transfer rate difference I am seeing between writing to and from the NetApp. First, a little background: The F760 has a X1025B gigabit card (SX fiber) in it, connected to an Extreme BlackDiamond 6808. The BlackDiamond does -not- have jumbo frames enabled at this time. The NetApp has full flow control configured. I am able to copy a single (30GB) file (generated by mkfile in FreeBSD) to and from the NetApp over NFSv3 at between 92-96mbit consistently, with the FreeBSD using an NFS mount having a 100mbit link. I am able to copy the same 30GB file from the NetApp to a Windows 2000 server using CIFS at 130-160mbit consistently. The Win2k server has a gigabit SX card. When copying the file to the NetApp from the Win2k server, I am seeing a maximum throughput of 69mbit, and usually it settles around 33-40mbit. I am monitoring this transfer rate using 'sh port utillization' on the BlackDiamond. I have tested this on three different Win2k boxes, with nearly identical results. I have also followed instructions on NetApp's website on how to 'improve' performance through registry edits, with no apparent result (positive or negative). I have tried three different flowcontrol settings on the Win2k cards (send, recieve and full) - again with no change in performance. I'm thrilled with the NFS performance, but we are a windows shop. I need to get performance increased on the CIFS writes to the NetApp if it's possible. I have tried every tweak I could find, and nothing seems to change the rate at which I can write to the NetApp via CIFS. I have included some NetApp information: slot 8: Gigabit Ethernet Controller II e8 MAC Address: 00:03:47:25:36:6a (auto-1000sx-fd-up) slot 9: NVRAM Memory Size: 32 MB netapp1> options cifs cifs.audit.autosave.file.extension cifs.audit.autosave.file.limit 0 cifs.audit.autosave.onsize.enable off cifs.audit.autosave.onsize.threshold 500k cifs.audit.autosave.ontime.enable off cifs.audit.autosave.ontime.interval cifs.audit.enable off cifs.audit.file_access_events.enable on cifs.audit.logon_events.enable on cifs.audit.logsize 524288 cifs.audit.saveas /etc/log/adtlog.evt cifs.bypass_traverse_checking on cifs.comment cifs.guest_account cifs.home_dir cifs.home_dir_namestyle ntname cifs.home_dirs_public_for_admin on cifs.idle_timeout 1800 cifs.max_mpx 50 cifs.netbios_aliases cifs.netbios_over_tcp.enable on cifs.nfs_root_ignore_acl on cifs.oplocks.enable off cifs.oplocks.opendelta 8 cifs.per_client_stats.enable off cifs.perm_check_ro_del_ok on cifs.perm_check_use_gid on cifs.restrict_anonymous.enable off cifs.save_case on cifs.scopeid cifs.search_domains cifs.show_snapshot off cifs.shutdown_msg_level 2 cifs.sidcache.enable on cifs.sidcache.lifetime 1440 cifs.snapshot_file_folding.enable off cifs.symlinks.cycleguard on cifs.symlinks.enable on cifs.tcp_window_size 64240 cifs.trace_dc_connection off cifs.trace_login off cifs.wins_servers <edited> netapp1> options ip ip.fastpath.enable on ip.ipsec.enable off ip.match_any_ifaddr on ip.path_mtu_discovery.enable on ip.ping_throttle.alarm_interval 0 ip.ping_throttle.drop_level 10 ip.tcp.newreno.enable on ip.tcp.sack.enable off If anyone can help, I would really appreciate it. If I need to supply more information, please just ask. Thanks, Tim

1 0

RE: AntiVirus Solutions
by Palmer, Jason (EMEA) 02 Apr '04

02 Apr '04

Hi Jack, We are currently using both vendors. In my view, a mixture of the both allows for coverge, if one of the vendors are a bit slow in reacting and releasing an update to cover a new virus type. The latest offering from Trend allows for one scanner to scan more than one NAS Appliance, which was a restriction that was becomming a pain to live with. I have had not seen McAfee for NetApps in action, but from reading the documentation it behaves in a similar way. Generally we run McAfee on Local client machines and Trend on Servers, and currently we are serving a user base of 5000+ users accross EMEA and have had no problems. Regards, Jason ----------------------------------- Jason Palmer <Team Leader> Messaging & Storage Implementation MCI [EMEA] ----------------------------------- [e]: jason.palmer(a)uk.mci.com [i]: http://www.mci.com/uk ----------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]On Behalf Of Jack Lyons Sent: 02 April 2004 14:41 To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: AntiVirus Solutions We are looking for a virus scanning solution for our FAS960 with 350 users accessing via CIFS. Trend Micro is a little cheaper than McAfee but we are a McAfee shop. But I have also heard that Trend Micro is better for NetApp but I can't find any specifics? Can anyone share their experience with either product? Thanks Jack This email and its contents may be confidential. If it is and you are not the intended recipient, please do not disclose or use the information within this email or its attachments. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately. Thank you.

2 1

AntiVirus Solutions
by Jack Lyons 02 Apr '04

02 Apr '04

We are looking for a virus scanning solution for our FAS960 with 350 users accessing via CIFS. Trend Micro is a little cheaper than McAfee but we are a McAfee shop. But I have also heard that Trend Micro is better for NetApp but I can't find any specifics? Can anyone share their experience with either product? Thanks Jack This email and its contents may be confidential. If it is and you are not the intended recipient, please do not disclose or use the information within this email or its attachments. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately. Thank you.

1 0

joining FAS 270 to samba 3.0 domain
by Tom Schuetz 01 Apr '04

01 Apr '04

Hi, We are trying to join a FAS 270 to a domain controlled by and OS X server running Samba 3.0. We choose to do it NT4-style. When we do this, the following happens: *************************************************************************** Wed Mar 31 13:45:55 PST [rc:info]: Starting DC address discovery for MYDOMAIN. Wed Mar 31 13:45:55 PST [rc:info]: Starting WINS queries. Wed Mar 31 13:45:55 PST [rc:info]: Found 1 BDC addresses through WINS. Wed Mar 31 13:45:55 PST [rc:info]: Found 1 PDC addresses through WINS. Wed Mar 31 13:45:55 PST [rc:info]: DC address discovery for MYDOMAIN complete. 1 unique addresses found. Wed Mar 31 13:45:55 PST [ALF00:info]: CIFS auditing started. Wed Mar 31 13:45:55 PST [rc:info]: CIFS - Retrying connection to \\OSXBOX with backup password. Wed Mar 31 13:45:56 PST [rc:info]: CIFS - Retrying connection to \\OSXBOX with intallation password. Wed Mar 31 13:45:56 PST [rc:info]: CIFS - Unable to create NETLOGON pipe to \\OSXBOX. CIFS - Primary Domain Controller must be active for installation. CIFS local server is shutting down... Wed Mar 31 13:45:56 PST [rc:info]: Connection with \\OSXBOX terminated Wed Mar 31 13:45:56 PST [ALF02:info]: CIFS auditing stopped. CIFS local server has shut down... **************************************************************************** * Is this an OS X issue? Or a samba 3 issue? Thanks, Tom Schuetz | tom(a)skyresearch.com Sky Research, Inc | www.skyresearch.com tel 541.482.4644 | fax 541.488.4606 ----------------------------------------

2 1

Bonjours
by Nelson Yu 01 Apr '04

01 Apr '04

Sergio Hoffmann, 25 y.o. psychotherapist, Germany: I think i'm younkger than main target group of Cialdis consumers, but i have a very hard work, i always had to listen about people's failures, about bad life et cetera. All that problems affected my selxual activity, my wife was not as happy as before with me. I tried Viagras - both genedric and Pfdizer's, but they does not act as good and as long as i want it to be. Finally, my colleague told me about Cialdis and i ordered it. The results were really better, trust a doctor. I'd recommend it to anybody with erectlion troubles. P.S.: By the way, you can mix Ciaplis with alcohol without any harm! Follow this link for more info: http://nevidew.com/4/7/index.php?ai=7411 if you hate emails go to http://chinwob.com

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 April 2004