toasters May 2005

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

61 participants
76 discussions

Number of Files in a NFS dir
by rob-7704＠austin.rr.com 06 May '05

06 May '05

We are mounting storage for a (brain dead) application which stores files generated daily on a Filer Volume. The dir has 125,000 files and growing. The mount point is on a Solaris 2.8 box. What is the limit on number of files in a folder in this context? Anybody know? Thanks -Rob

4 3

OnTap 7.0.1 and Legato Network 7.2
by John Stoffel 06 May '05

06 May '05

Hi all, We're about o refresh our Netapps and move to OnTap 7.0.1 and back them up with Legato Networker 7.2, and hopefully NDMP, though we currently do NFS mounts to the (Solaris 5.8, E450) backup server. We'd like to setup one large aggregate, with a small root FlexVol and a large large large data FlexVol, with a bunch of qtrees inside the flexvol. So what are others doing to make their backups run quicky, and their restores to run reliably? I've got the release notes for Networker 7.2 and I see the limitation of one (1) million files in DAR restores, and since I know our volumes have lots more files than that... it could be a problem. But maybe if we broke down our backups on a per-qtree basis, that would work? What are other people doing for backups? Any gotchas or performance tuning hints would be appreciaited. Thanks, John John Stoffel - Senior Staff Systems Administrator - System LSI Group Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. - http://www.toshiba.com/taec john.stoffel(a)taec.toshiba.com - 508-486-1087

4 6

Re: [Fwd: Home directories become owned by root]
by johnk 05 May '05

05 May '05

> -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Home directories become owned by root > Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 12:32:31 -0700 > From: Michael Coxe <mcoxe(a)opsware.com> > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Hi, > > We have a Netapp using shared NFS/CIFS. > Yesterday several accounts became owned by root. > Users couldn't even cd to their homes via NFS, > though from the Windows side all looked OK. > > As root from the administration server I couldn't > access their directories either. > I thought of restoring from .snapshot but those > directories (nightly.o, etc) are also onwed by root > and are inaccessable from the Unix side. > > The only way to allow access was to use SecureShare > from the Windows side and change ownership from > "root" back to the username. > > Files & subdirectories appear to be owned by the user > but the Unix permissions are all set to 777, and they > can't access these files/directories. I could reset > them via SecureShare (and did so for 2 users) but they > won't be what the user(s) originally set them to. > > Ontap: NetApp Release 6.1.2D1 > Filer: F740 > > Anyone have an idea how I can restore the original > ownership & file permissions other that restoring > from tape. > > > > -- > Michael Coxe, IT > <mcoxe(a)opsware.com> > > Michael, I pray that by this time, you have fixed your problem! In the event that you are still wanting to correct lost UNIX permissons (or for in the future), I thought that I would share with the world a simple perl script that I wrote. This program will take a directory (or directories) and reset the permissions for each found file, based on the file permissions inside of the related snapshot directory. For instance, if you have: bash-2.05b# pwd /home/johnk/tmp/netapp bash-2.05b# ls -l total 1264 ---------- 1 root wheel 24 Oct 7 2004 e0_20041007_132410.trc ---------- 1 root wheel 24 Oct 7 2004 e3a-4_20041007_132410.trc ---------- 1 root wheel 1286589 Oct 7 2004 e3a-8_20041007_132410.trc ---------- 1 root wheel 24 Oct 7 2004 e3a_20041007_132410.trc ---------- 1 root wheel 24 Oct 7 2004 e3b_20041007_132410.trc ---------- 1 root wheel 24 Oct 7 2004 e3c_20041007_132410.trc ---------- 1 root wheel 24 Oct 7 2004 e3d_20041007_132410.trc ---------- 1 root wheel 24 Oct 7 2004 lo_20041007_132410.trc bash-2.05b# and the snapshot looks like: bash-2.05b# ls -l /home/johnk/tmp/.snapshot/nightly.1/netapp total 1264 -r-------- 1 johnk wheel 24 Oct 7 2004 e0_20041007_132410.trc -r-------- 1 johnk wheel 24 Oct 7 2004 e3a-4_20041007_132410.trc -r-------- 1 johnk wheel 1286589 Oct 7 2004 e3a-8_20041007_132410.trc -r-------- 1 johnk wheel 24 Oct 7 2004 e3a_20041007_132410.trc -r-------- 1 johnk wheel 24 Oct 7 2004 e3b_20041007_132410.trc -r-------- 1 johnk wheel 24 Oct 7 2004 e3c_20041007_132410.trc -r-------- 1 johnk wheel 24 Oct 7 2004 e3d_20041007_132410.trc -r-------- 1 johnk wheel 24 Oct 7 2004 lo_20041007_132410.trc ...this script will reset all of your broken root owned files, to be owned by 'johnk' with the correct permission bits (as found in .snapshot). http://www.southwestern.edu/~johnk/scripts/NAfixperms/NAfixperms-v1.6.pl Please use caution when using this script, as I am an amateur perl coder (things may not be done "correctly"). HTH Sincerely, --johnk John C. Koen Systems & Network Administrator Southwestern University, Georgetown, TX johnk(a)southwestern.edu || TEL:512.863.1586 || FAX:512.863.1605

1 0

RE: VFM and DFS
by Louis Elias 05 May '05

05 May '05

Guys, I have no intention of vendor slamming or trying to sell anything. However, once again, for the sake of posterity (and accurate technical knowledge) I am compelled to set the record straight. This unsolicited slam on VFM, DFS, or whoever the intended target was is very inaccurate. I will only respond to the inaccuracies. Please see my responses below. 1.==================================================================== [Original] VFM or NuView StorageX (they are the exact same product) is an enhanced management GUI for Microsoft DFS with some additional hooks for automating failover in a NetApp(and other?) environment. [Response] Actually, StorageX is an integrated set of applications that enables enterprises to build unified, global namespaces across CIFS and NFS protocols and enables administrators to perform policy-based heterogeneous data management activities without interrupting end user access to data. These policies automate data and storage services, such as: heterogeneous network data management, data migration and consolidation, business continuity, storage optimization, data lifecycle management, remote site data management, and data classification and reporting. Yes, VFM/StorageX supports Microsoft DFS, as well as NFS. It is used to manage data on platforms such as Windows, NetApp, Linux, Unix, Netware and much more from a single, easy-to-use GUI. 2.==================================================================== [Original] If there is anything Microsoft hates more than anything else, it is telling a customer that they need to purchase a third party product to manage a Microsoft service. This means that either A) Microsoft is going to purchase technology so that they can give it to you for free or B) they are going to develop technology so that they can give it to you for free. Either way a commercial third party product for managing DFS has a relatively short shelf life with a fairly steep price tag if you have significant amount of storage. [Response] What backup software do you use and why aren't you using the built-in Windows backup software? Using VFM/StorageX reaps many benefits for organizations, including those that are currently running Microsoft DFS. The truth is that VFM/StorageX is not limited to managing only DFS, nor does it come with a steep price tag, despite the author's assertions. We have many advocates at Microsoft that like us because we make DFS scalable and offer an alternative to FRS (which caused their field much pain). Microsoft likes anyone who promotes their technologies. 3.==================================================================== [Original] NuView knows this and has started bundling additional "modules" with their StorageX/VFM product to make it a more attractive solution. [Response] We never set out to be a DFS management tool. VFM/StorageX is an integrated suite of applications, which are not bundled modules, rather they are included as part of the product as a whole. There are instances of customers who initially purchased VFM/StorageX for a migration project and later found that they didn't have to purchase additional software for archiving, or to create global namespaces for uninterrupted user access to their data, since it was already in StorageX. The reality is that hundreds of customers love the integrated applications and continue to leverage it, while managing and moving multiple terabytes of data. 4.==================================================================== [Original] All I can say is that you need to take a close look at where it has been installed and ask to talk to customers that have implemented the add-on modules to see what level of success they have seen. [Response] There are numerous cases studies and customers who freely talk about the immediate and long-term benefits that their organizations have gained, since implementing VFM/StorageX. Another aspect that one needs to look at is how long a vendor has been providing these solutions, as well as what the industry says about them. Finally, one only needs to look at the recent industry awards that VFM/StorageX have received to see that VFM/StorageX is a cost-effective, scalable solution that can manage the unstructured CIFS and NFS data of medium and enterprise customers. 5a.==================================================================== [Original] If you are considering a 3rd party tool to configure and manage your DFS environment you should understand a couple of things. 1) You MUST be running MS Server 2003 for your DFS root. Win200 is missing some key functionality and stability enhancements which will create a less than stable and less than scaleable DFS environment. Even VFM/StorageX require a Windows 2003 Server./ Their GUI is just that, a "better" GUI for administering DFS. It still requires MS Windows DFS. [Response] The author would do well to familiarize himself with chapter 17 of the 2000 resource kit before making assertions about DFS. Most of our 300+ customers are running DFS on 2000. 2003 lets you host more than one root on a single box and improves site referrals. I don't know how it is more stable. DFS is stable. It is part of the CIFS protocol. 5b.===================================================================== [Original] 2) Your DFS root will either need a Active Directory Domain Controller(s) or a dedicated DFS root server (cluster) depending upon the size and complexity of your environment and the level of authority you want to assign to your DFS administrators. [Response] DFS roots are stored in the Active Directory (domain-based roots) or in the registry of a server (stand-alone roots). This does not mean the roots are on DCs. The benefit is that VFM/SX is software and therefore you can leverage resources you already own, rather than purchase additional hardware or an appliance. The other benefit is that you can adjust the configuration and storage of your resource as you see fit and without affecting your CIFS/NFS management. VFM/StorageX supports and can leverage Active Directory, but it isn't required. 5c.====================================================================== [Original] 3) If you want to delegate the administration of DFS to less than domain administrators, you cannot install your DFS root on your AD domain controllers. You will be implementing distributed domain DFS. This means you need one or more clusters of DFS root servers to insure the availability of your DFS resources. [Response] It is not best practice to load a DFS root on a DC as field experience has shown. You can grant a user rights to the DFS configuration bucket in AD without making that user an admin. But most of our customers are domain admins so that seldomly comes up anyway. It is common to use one domain admin-like account to run the VFM service under and then delegate authorities through VFM. (pretty cool as MS did not provide this granularity.) 5.d====================================================================== [Original] 4) If you install DFS on your domain controllers, you must create a domain administrator account to administer DFS. [Response] Not a true statement although it does make things easier. We have customers not using domain admin accounts to manage DFS. See the above response. 5.e====================================================================== [Original] 5) DFS R2 is currently in beta. Patches have been released in December and again in 2005 (March?) which have significantly improved the Microsoft tools for configuring and managing DFS. If you are seriously looking gat DFS, contact Microsoft and ask them to come in and show you what they have currently available for free before you spend any significant time or $$ or a tool you will have to pay for. [Response] Since R2 is still in beta we can't discuss specifics, but we agree that customers should evaluate R2 and they'll find that VFM/StorageX fully supports and enhances R2. It's important to recognize the environments that R2 supports and for those that aren't supported under R2 or those that desire additional value-add can leverage VFM/StorageX. Finally, benefits have been realized by customers who initially chose DFS and realized that they could immediately and seamlessly manage their roots after installing VFM/StorageX. 6.======================================================================== [Original] If what you are really looking for is a tool to transparently monitor, manage and optimize your storage environment, both CIFS and NFS and support multiple vendors without having to install software on your filers or clients, without having to install Windows servers and 3rd party software to manage your heterogeneous environment, there are significantly more robust solutions which integrate into industry standard global name spaces and which ELIMINATE downtime, not just reduce it. [Response] A final thought regarding product viability is further evidenced by the recent industry awards that StorageX/VFM has received in the past couple of months, including: * Network Magazine - 2005 Innovation Award for the "Most Influential" solution in the storage product category (April, 2005) * Redmond Magazine - Redmond Most Valuable Product award (May, 2005) * TechTarget's Storage Magazine and SearchStorage.com - 2004 "Product of the Year" Silver Medal in the category of storage management (December, 2004) You can download a copy of StorageX/VFM and test it out immediately in your environment. Sorry I had to do this, Louis

2 1

RE: Home directories become owned by root
by Sphar, Mike 05 May '05

05 May '05

Are you using "mixed" mode for security? Whenever I've seen that happen in the past it was become some windows admin made some global permissions change on a mixed-mode share. I never use mixed mode, personally. I just don't like it. I've never had sudden permission changes like that on my servers whereas a co-worker who uses mixed-mode has had them many times. Others mileage will probably vary. -- Michael W. Sphar - IS&T - Lead Systems Administrator SMBU Engineering Support Services, BMC Software -----Original Message----- From: Michael Coxe [mailto:mcoxe@opsware.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 2:33 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Home directories become owned by root Hi, We have a Netapp using shared NFS/CIFS. Yesterday several accounts became owned by root. Users couldn't even cd to their homes via NFS, though from the Windows side all looked OK. As root from the administration server I couldn't access their directories either. I thought of restoring from .snapshot but those directories (nightly.o, etc) are also onwed by root and are inaccessable from the Unix side. The only way to allow access was to use SecureShare from the Windows side and change ownership from "root" back to the username. Files & subdirectories appear to be owned by the user but the Unix permissions are all set to 777, and they can't access these files/directories. I could reset them via SecureShare (and did so for 2 users) but they won't be what the user(s) originally set them to. Ontap: NetApp Release 6.1.2D1 Filer: F740 Anyone have an idea how I can restore the original ownership & file permissions other that restoring from tape. -- Michael Coxe, IT <mcoxe(a)opsware.com>

3 2

Manual de Adiestramiento Canino
by manualcanino2＠fullzero.com.ar 05 May '05

05 May '05

Una forma completamente nueva para adiestrar perros de todas las edades basada en un sistema de alabanzas y recompensas alimenticias. Mas de 350 fotografias muestran paso a paso cada escena de adiestramiento, desde las enseñanzas basicas para vivir en casa hasta como cambiar los malos habitos de un perro adulto. El manual viene completamente es castellano y podes aplicarlo con cualquier raza canina. Para mas informacion escribinos a: *** manualcanino(a)yahoo.it ***

1 0

Home directories become owned by root
by Michael Coxe 04 May '05

04 May '05

Hi, We have a Netapp using shared NFS/CIFS. Yesterday several accounts became owned by root. Users couldn't even cd to their homes via NFS, though from the Windows side all looked OK. As root from the administration server I couldn't access their directories either. I thought of restoring from .snapshot but those directories (nightly.o, etc) are also onwed by root and are inaccessable from the Unix side. The only way to allow access was to use SecureShare from the Windows side and change ownership from "root" back to the username. Files & subdirectories appear to be owned by the user but the Unix permissions are all set to 777, and they can't access these files/directories. I could reset them via SecureShare (and did so for 2 users) but they won't be what the user(s) originally set them to. Ontap: NetApp Release 6.1.2D1 Filer: F740 Anyone have an idea how I can restore the original ownership & file permissions other that restoring from tape. -- Michael Coxe, IT <mcoxe(a)opsware.com>

1 0

RE: Simple Question on QTREES and Volumes
by Warkentin, Grant 04 May '05

04 May '05

See Below: NOTICE - This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Paul Jordison (AU) Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 12:31 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Simple Question on QTREES and Volumes Hi, I will preface this by stating that I am very green when it comes to NetApp things. I was in the same position last year. Still am to a certain extent. http://now.netapp.com is your friend! OK, we have a Filer (not sure of the exact model...I can post that if needed) and I am not sure of the level of software we use (once again I can find this) but my question is about Disks, Volumes and Qtrees. The Model does not matter too much. But the version of DataOnTap is important. We're currently running version 6.5x. Version 7 brings extra functionality (flex Vols). A volume is a bunch of disks (LUNS) yes? - ie if I get 5 66GB disks RAID 4 it gives me about a 200GB volume? - The size of the volume is directly proportional to the amount of disks added to it?? Yes, a volume is just a bunch of disks. Qtrees are effectively virtual volumes that 'break up' the volume even more (ie a 200GB volume can have 8 x 25GB Qtrees (or 1 x 50GB Qtree and 6 x 25GB Qtrees)? No, Think of a qTree as a folder on a disk. You can assign quota to a qTree to control how much it will grow. 5 qtrees on a 500 meg volume = each qtree can store a max of 500 meg. Or a combination of 500 meg till the disk gets full. Qtrees can be increased or decreased at any level (if I add a disk to a volume all of that space can go to a Qtree or none of it while the volume MUST increase by the amount of physical disk added? Only adding disks to the volume will affect the total space available to all qtrees. Space assigned to qtrees is controlled by quotas. If I want to put data on the filer (say Exchange data, user homedrives and Departmental data) I can put this data on separate Qtrees in a single volume? Or should I put the data on separate volumes and not worry about Qtrees? It's your choice. We have four volumes currently. One for livelink data One for UNIX data Two for the NT Stuff. Putting a quota on home drive was one of my directives so I have 5 qtrees dedicated to home drives. Two trees with a default quota of 250 meg / user. One with a 500m / user, one @ 1 gig / user, the last one is a 2 gig / user default plus the folders of those that go over 2 gig (quotas have to be applied manually for the over 2 gig users). The rest of the space on the NT volumes are used for departmental shares. These shares reside in their own qtrees. These qtrees have tree quotas on them (mainly to limit growth). Is it better to have 1 massive volume and split it into qtrees as needed or is there a limit on volume size (performance problems if volume too big?)? There is a limit of 250 qtrees per volume if I recall correctly. Any folder you put in the root of a volume is considered a Qtree. Sorry if this is totally incorrect...if it is please feel free to correct me as I said I have had nothing to do with NetApp stuff before (although I am quite handy on a HDS SAN :)) But if I am right, please let me know as I need this information. Sorry for taking so long with this email. HTH if I can. Grant Warkentin System Administrator II City of Calgary - Information Technology Mail Drop == 8245 Ph: (403) 268-5629 Fax: (403) 268-2546

1 0

Simple Question on QTREES and Volumes
by Paul Jordison (AU) 04 May '05

04 May '05

Hi, I will preface this by stating that I am very green when it comes to NetApp things. OK, we have a Filer (not sure of the exact model...I can post that if needed) and I am not sure of the level of software we use (once again I can find this) but my question is about Disks, Volumes and Qtrees. A volume is a bunch of disks (LUNS) yes? - ie if I get 5 66GB disks RAID 4 it gives me about a 200GB volume? - The size of the volume is directly proportional to the amount of disks added to it?? Qtrees are effectively virtual volumes that 'break up' the volume even more (ie a 200GB volume can have 8 x 25GB Qtrees (or 1 x 50GB Qtree and 6 x 25GB Qtrees)? Qtrees can be increased or decreased at any level (if I add a disk to a volume all of that space can go to a Qtree or none of it while the volume MUST increase by the amount of physical disk added? If I want to put data on the filer (say Exchange data, user homedrives and Departmental data) I can put this data on separate Qtrees in a single volume? Or should I put the data on separate volumes and not worry about Qtrees? Is it better to have 1 massive volume and split it into qtrees as needed or is there a limit on volume size (performance problems if volume too big?)? Sorry if this is totally incorrect...if it is please feel free to correct me as I said I have had nothing to do with NetApp stuff before (although I am quite handy on a HDS SAN :)) But if I am right, please let me know as I need this information. Sorry for taking so long with this email.

1 0

RE: VFM and DFS
by Fahey_Michael＠emc.com 03 May '05

03 May '05

Guys, Let's stop vendor bashing in public. It is not good form and detracts from the spirit of the board. Everyone have a nice day. Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kimminau Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 8:14 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: VFM and DFS VFM or NuView StorageX (they are the exact same product) is an enhanced management GUI for Microsoft DFS with some additional hooks for automating failover in a NetApp (and other?) environment. I have had a number of conversations with the Microsoft DFS project manager. If there is anything Microsoft hates more than anything else, it is telling a customer that they need to purchase a third party product to manage a Microsoft service. This means that either A) Microsoft is going to purchase technology so that they can give it to you for free or B) they are going to develop technology so that they can give it to you for free. Either way a commercial third party product for managing DFS has a relatively short shelf life with a fairly steep price tag if you have significant amount of storage. NuView knows this and has started bundling additional "modules" with their StorageX/VFM product to make it a more attractive solution. All I can say is that you need to take a close look at where it has been installed and ask to talk to customers that have implemented the add-on modules to see what level of success they have seen. If you are considering a 3rd party tool to configure and manage your DFS environment you should understand a couple of things. 1) You MUST be running MS Server 2003 for your DFS root. Win200 is missing some key functionality and stability enhancements which will create a less than stable and less than scaleable DFS environment. Even VFM/StorageX require a Windows 2003 Server./ Their GUI is just that, a "better" GUI for administering DFS. It still requires MS Windows DFS. 2) Your DFS root will either need a Active Directory Domain Controller(s) or a dedicated DFS root server (cluster) depending upon the size and complexity of your environment and the level of authority you want to assign to your DFS administrators. 3) If you want to delegate the administration of DFS to less than domain administrators, you cannot install your DFS root on your AD domain controllers. You will be implementing distributed domain DFS. This means you need one or more clusters of DFS root servers to insure the availability of your DFS resources. 4) If you install DFS on your domain controllers, you must create a domain administrator account to administer DFS. 5) DFS R2 is currently in beta. Patches have been released in December and again in 2005 (March?) which have significantly improved the Microsoft tools for configuring and managing DFS. If you are seriously looking gat DFS, contact Microsoft and ask them to come in and show you what they have currently available for free before you spend any significant time or $$ or a tool you will have to pay for. If what you are really looking for is a tool to transparently monitor, manage and optimize your storage environment, both CIFS and NFS and support multiple vendors without having to install software on your filers or clients, without having to install Windows servers and 3rd party software to manage your heterogeneous environment, there are significantly more robust solutions which integrate into industry standard global name spaces and which ELIMINATE downtime, not just reduce it. YMMV. My $1.25. E. -- ---------1---------2---------3---------4---------5---------6---------7 Eric Kimminau

3 2

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 May 2005