toasters June 2004

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

76 participants
86 discussions

RE: Turning off Logging output
by Thorsten.Lemke＠computacenter.com 16 Jun '04

16 Jun '04

That is right. With "ctrl-r" you can bring back the line that you were about to type when the logging messages got you. Regards, Thorsten jeff.mery@ni.com@mathworks.com on 16.06.2004 16:01:30 Sent by: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com To: Dirk.Schmiedt(a)munich.netsurf.de, rbaus(a)swbell.net cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Turning off Logging output -------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is also a ctrl-key command that will bring whatever you were typing to the current command line (like up-arrow in bash or Windows). Would someone from NetApp enlighten us on this one? Our SE showed me once, but I've slept since then =). Jeff Mery, MCP National Instruments ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Allow me to extol the virtues of the Net Fairy, and of all the fantastic dorks that make the nice packets go from here to there. Amen." TB - Penny Arcade ------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Dirk.Schmiedt(a)munich.netsurf.de Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 3:51 PM To: rbaus(a)swbell.net Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Turning off Logging output Robert Borowicz wrote: > Is there a way to temporarily turn off the logging output in a Telnet > session? > > Too often I'm typing tedious commands and "BLAM" someone connects to a > CIFS session and.... Change the /etc/syslog.conf and reduce the level of severity or disable the messaging of some services completely. There is a man page about this config file and there is a template file named /etc/syslog_conf_template (or so ...). Copy this template file to /etc/syslog.conf and edit it you will see the wished result. b.t.w. The "syslog(d)", "syslog.conf" man pages at ONTAP are in my humble opinion not the best. Have a look at the syslog.conf man page of any other unix derivate. It might help you more. :-) Just my 2 cents. Smile & regards! Dirk COMPUTACENTER (UK) LTD The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. Computacenter information is available from http://www.computacenter.com This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. ***************************************************************************************************************************

1 0

Re: Turning off Logging output
by Thorsten.Lemke＠computacenter.com 16 Jun '04

16 Jun '04

I don't know if you can stop the whole logging output. But regarding the cifs sessions you can turn off the option cifs.trace_login. I guess that this alone will help a lot. Regards, Thorsten Robert Borowicz <rbaus(a)swbell.net>@mathworks.com on 16.06.2004 15:21:56 Sent by: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com To: toasters(a)mathworks.com cc: Subject: Turning off Logging output -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is there a way to temporarily turn off the logging output in a Telnet session? Too often I'm typing tedious commands and "BLAM" someone connects to a CIFS session and.... TIA -Rob {looking through the docs...} COMPUTACENTER (UK) LTD The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. Computacenter information is available from http://www.computacenter.com This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. ***************************************************************************************************************************

1 0

RE: Turning off Logging output
by Traitel, Eyal 16 Jun '04

16 Jun '04

Hi ! You can play with /etc/syslog.conf or specifically for your issue - "options cifs.trace_login off". Eyal. _____ From: Robert Borowicz [mailto:rbaus@swbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 3:22 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Turning off Logging output Is there a way to temporarily turn off the logging output in a Telnet session? Too often I'm typing tedious commands and "BLAM" someone connects to a CIFS session and.... TIA -Rob {looking through the docs...}

1 0

RE: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler
by Thorsten.Lemke＠computacenter.com 16 Jun '04

16 Jun '04

As I understand you have two volumes called "Volume1" that are both in snapmirrored state? One is a normal snapmirror and the other one is a DR backup of the vfiler? In this case you have to do the enlargement also on the original (third) source volume which is not in snapmirrored state and therefore does not have the fs_size_fixed set to "on". The size of the filesystem of snapmirrored volumes will adapt to the source volume after the next scheduled update as Adam pointed out earlier (of course you have to add the same amount of space to each of them first). Regards, Thorsten <toaster(a)chopel.de>@mathworks.com on 16.06.2004 11:22:11 Please respond to <toaster(a)chopel.de> Sent by: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com To: "Fox, Adam" <Adam.Fox(a)netapp.com>, "Uehara; Tsuneyuki (Gen)" <tsuneyuki.uehara(a)gs.com>, <toasters(a)mathworks.com> cc: Subject: RE: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hallo, maybe my initial situation was not clear: On the "main site" I spent VfilerA a new disk. Volume1 before "vol add" : 201 GB Volume1 after "vol add" : also 201 GB vol status -b Volume1: Vol Size (blocks) FS Size (blocks) ----------------- ---------------- 76996480 61597184 The filer notified that "..the disk was successfully added to volume Volume1" IMHO this results because Volume1 is in "snapmirrored-state" an the option "fs_size_fixed" is set "on". On the "desaster site" I spent VfilerA' (vfiler dr) also a new disk for volume Volume1. Same results. I think I must break the mirror but is this possible without side effects on VfilerA because he is in "vfiler dr" Thanks a lot Michael Fox, Adam <Adam.Fox(a)netapp.com> schrieb : > You don't need to do this. It looks like you are doing Volume > SnapMirror. All you have to do is add the disks to both volumes. > You won't see the change on the destination until the next update, > then the destination will become the size of the source. > > -- Adam Fox > GS Tools Developer > adamfox(a)netapp.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Uehara, Tsuneyuki (Gen) [mailto:tsuneyuki.uehara@gs.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 7:23 AM > To: 'toaster(a)chopel.de'; > toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler > > > We perform "snapmirror quiesce" then "snapmirror break" then turn off > "fs_size_fixed". > > # Gen Uehara > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com > [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] > On > Behalf Of toaster(a)chopel.de > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 10:12 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler > > Hi, > > I have a problem to enlarge a volume owned by a "dr"-vfiler. > > Vfiler1 Vfiler1 (dr backup) > |--> vol1 |-->vol1 > > It was possible to add a disk to vol1 on both sites. But I can't disable the > volume option "fixed fs_size", because vol1 is in "snapmirrored-state". > > How can I enlarge the volume without deleting the dr-filer? > > Thanks for help, > > Michael COMPUTACENTER (UK) LTD The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. Computacenter information is available from http://www.computacenter.com This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. ***************************************************************************************************************************

1 0

RE: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler
by toaster＠chopel.de 16 Jun '04

16 Jun '04

Hallo, maybe my initial situation was not clear: On the "main site" I spent VfilerA a new disk. Volume1 before "vol add" : 201 GB Volume1 after "vol add" : also 201 GB vol status -b Volume1: Vol Size (blocks) FS Size (blocks) ----------------- ---------------- 76996480 61597184 The filer notified that "..the disk was successfully added to volume Volume1" IMHO this results because Volume1 is in "snapmirrored-state" an the option "fs_size_fixed" is set "on". On the "desaster site" I spent VfilerA' (vfiler dr) also a new disk for volume Volume1. Same results. I think I must break the mirror but is this possible without side effects on VfilerA because he is in "vfiler dr" Thanks a lot Michael Fox, Adam <Adam.Fox(a)netapp.com> schrieb : > You don't need to do this. It looks like you are doing Volume > SnapMirror. All you have to do is add the disks to both volumes. > You won't see the change on the destination until the next update, > then the destination will become the size of the source. > > -- Adam Fox > GS Tools Developer > adamfox(a)netapp.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Uehara, Tsuneyuki (Gen) [mailto:tsuneyuki.uehara@gs.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 7:23 AM > To: 'toaster(a)chopel.de'; > toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler > > > We perform "snapmirror quiesce" then "snapmirror break" then turn off > "fs_size_fixed". > > # Gen Uehara > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com > [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] > On > Behalf Of toaster(a)chopel.de > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 10:12 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler > > Hi, > > I have a problem to enlarge a volume owned by a "dr"-vfiler. > > Vfiler1 Vfiler1 (dr backup) > |--> vol1 |-->vol1 > > It was possible to add a disk to vol1 on both sites. But I can't disable the > volume option "fixed fs_size", because vol1 is in "snapmirrored-state". > > How can I enlarge the volume without deleting the dr-filer? > > Thanks for help, > > Michael

1 0

RE: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler
by toaster＠chopel.de 16 Jun '04

16 Jun '04

Hi, ...does not work :-( Are you sure that this procedure normaly works? bye Michael McCarthy, Tim <timothy.mccarthy(a)netapp.com> wrote : > If you added a disk to both sides, then simply do a snapmirror update > against the destination and the filesystem sizes should remain in sync. > > --tmac > > -----Original Message----- > From: toaster(a)chopel.de > [mailto:toaster@chopel.de] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 9:12 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler > > Hi, > > I have a problem to enlarge a volume owned by a "dr"-vfiler. > > Vfiler1 Vfiler1 (dr backup) > |--> vol1 |-->vol1 > > It was possible to add a disk to vol1 on both sites. But I can't disable > the volume option "fixed fs_size", because vol1 is in > "snapmirrored-state". > > How can I enlarge the volume without deleting the dr-filer? > > Thanks for help, > > Michael

1 0

offline folder support?
by Brubaker, Paul 15 Jun '04

15 Jun '04

Does anyone know if the Netapp / Ontap support offline folders (caching)... this is a microsoft windows 2000 and above feature (CIFS). We are running a FAS960 with Ontap 6.4.2 (soon to be Ontap 6.5.1). It appears not to be a supported feature; any plans Netapp will support it in the future? thanks! Paul Brubaker, Jr. RIDS - Intel System Support AT&T Wireless Services * office phone: 717-526-5011 * cell phone: 717-578-2254 * e-mail: paul.brubaker(a)attws.com

1 0

Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler
by toaster＠chopel.de 15 Jun '04

15 Jun '04

Hi, I have a problem to enlarge a volume owned by a "dr"-vfiler. Vfiler1 Vfiler1 (dr backup) |--> vol1 |-->vol1 It was possible to add a disk to vol1 on both sites. But I can't disable the volume option "fixed fs_size", because vol1 is in "snapmirrored-state". How can I enlarge the volume without deleting the dr-filer? Thanks for help, Michael

1 0

RE: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler
by Uehara, Tsuneyuki (Gen) 15 Jun '04

15 Jun '04

We perform "snapmirror quiesce" then "snapmirror break" then turn off "fs_size_fixed". # Gen Uehara -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of toaster(a)chopel.de Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 10:12 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler Hi, I have a problem to enlarge a volume owned by a "dr"-vfiler. Vfiler1 Vfiler1 (dr backup) |--> vol1 |-->vol1 It was possible to add a disk to vol1 on both sites. But I can't disable the volume option "fixed fs_size", because vol1 is in "snapmirrored-state". How can I enlarge the volume without deleting the dr-filer? Thanks for help, Michael

1 0

RE: Best practices for new RAID group
by Moshe Linzer 15 Jun '04

15 Jun '04

I agree with Tom. Your best bet is to add 6 disks to a new raid group. No sense in having all those spares sitting around doing nothing. I would try to avoid expanding a 36GB-disk raid group past 14 disks for reliability. Moshe Linzer IT Manager National Semiconductor, Israel Phone: 972-9-970-2247 Fax: 972-9-970-2001 "Yarmas, Tom" <Tom.Yarmas(a)netapp.com> Sent by: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com 04/06/2004 04:19 To: "Stewart, John" <johns(a)artesyncp.com>, toasters(a)mathworks.com cc: "IT Technical Services" <ITTech(a)artesyncp.com> Subject: RE: Best practices for new RAID group The paper you reference is a little dated unless you are still running 5.x of Data ONTAP. Data ONTAP version 6.x included some significant changes to the WAFL and ONTAP RAID. The number of RAID groups is much less relevant than the total number of data drives in the volume. However, adding 1 or two drives to a volume (or RAID Group) is still not the best approach. Your best bet is to add a new RAID group of 6 disks to the volume. You will be adding the disks anyway (over time), and you are using qtrees to divvy up the space, so just add them all at one time and not worry about it. As Chris Thompson pointed out you can use RAID-DP (assuming you are running DOT 6.5), and add 2 disks to the existing RAID group. But that would likely not be optimal because you would still have a small number of "empty" disks in the RAID group and they will be utilized more than the other "more full" disks until space gets more evenly distributed across all of the drives. -tom -----Original Message----- From: Stewart, John [mailto:johns@artesyncp.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 5:44 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Cc: IT Technical Services Subject: Best practices for new RAID group We've got an F740 with three shelves of 36GB disks (the 3rd recently added). We've only got one volume, vol0, with 14 disks in it now (13 data and one parity). We use both CIFS and NFS. We have 7 spare disks (6 of which we'd like to eventually use for data, with one spare of course). I just went to add one of the spare disks to vol0 (running low on space) and got the error: vol add: starting a new RAID group; at least two disks are needed So, as I (now) understand it, we've got to either: - Override the 14 disk limit for a RAID group or - Add a new RAID group to the current volume or - Add a new volume The 3rd choice is unattractive because we like the idea of One Huge Filesystem, that we can divvy up as needed into different qtrees. The 2nd choice sounds like a Bad Idea in that according to this document, section 3.4: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3027.html, that the filer will try to distribute writes evenly between the old and new RAID group... if the new RAID group only contains two disks (we don't want to add more disk space than is needed now), this could be disatrous to performance So is the 1st choice, increasing the size of the RAID group, a viable option? What is the downsize? Only increased risk of a double disk failure taking out the whole system? Is it possible to add a second parity disk to the same RAID group? Am I missing something here? Any clue-by-fours quite welcome. thanks johnS

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
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 June 2004