Does anyone have any info on AV scan engines that are available for
Netapp? We have been using Symantec but are wondering if any of the
other vendors do a better job.
-Mark
I've used TrendMicro and had no issues.
I am curious with the issues that you've had and what version of TrendMicro you were running. Just something to be aware of in case I run into it.
Thanks,
Andre
-----Original Message-----
>From: John Clear <jclear(a)ati.com>
>Sent: Mar 16, 2006 4:36 PM
>To: markallen(a)micron.com, toasters(a)mathworks.com
>Subject: RE: AV Scan Engines
>
>We use Trendmicro, and are migrating to MacAfee (corporate standard).
>
>The only …
[View More]problems with Trendmicro we had were all Windows authentication
>based issues (AD migration, password expirations, etc).
>
>Our MacAfee scanners aren't in production yet, so no comment on them.
>
>John
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]
>On Behalf Of markallen(a)micron.com
>Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:24 PM
>To: toasters(a)mathworks.com
>Subject: AV Scan Engines
>
>Does anyone have any info on AV scan engines that are available for
>Netapp? We have been using Symantec but are wondering if any of the
>other vendors do a better job.
>
>-Mark
>
[View Less]
We use Trendmicro, and are migrating to MacAfee (corporate standard).
The only problems with Trendmicro we had were all Windows authentication
based issues (AD migration, password expirations, etc).
Our MacAfee scanners aren't in production yet, so no comment on them.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]
On Behalf Of markallen(a)micron.com
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:24 PM
To: toasters(a)mathworks.com
Subject: AV …
[View More]Scan Engines
Does anyone have any info on AV scan engines that are available for
Netapp? We have been using Symantec but are wondering if any of the
other vendors do a better job.
-Mark
[View Less]
Agreed on the EMC comment. Thanks to all that have responded
to my initial question regarding Hitachi Systems.
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Walker [mailto:ggwalker@mindspring.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:48 AM
To: jeff.mery(a)ni.com; Linux Admin
Cc: bjacobson; Kristian Ejvind (KI/EAB); owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com;
toasters(a)mathworks.com
Subject: RE: Hitachi SAN Systems
Last I heard, Hitachi was no longer reselling the GFILER product.
However, NetApp has …
[View More]considerable effort behind the V-SERIES (same thing,
basically) which you can stick in front of pretty much any other
SAN-based storage platform. I can't see that going away, and I'm sure
it will still support Hitachi.
I personally can't wait to see someone implement a V-Series NetApp in
front of an EMC array... I'm sure that would make the EMC guys have a
small kitten.
Glenn
________________________________
From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of jeff.mery(a)ni.com
Sent: Thu 3/16/2006 11:03 AM
To: Linux Admin
Cc: Bret Jacobson; Kristian Ejvind (KI/EAB);
owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com
Subject: Re: Hitachi SAN Systems
There's no NetApp equivalent from HDS because they resell (oem maybe?)
the V-Series from NetApp. You can have your cake and eat it too! =)
As to your other points:
Japan-glish documentation - 'nuff said
We only use two tools (Storage Navigator and the HORCM stuff) - no
complaints LUN Deletion - not a problem on the 9900V-series systems
USP: Yep
USP: Yep
USP: Yep
On the USP stuff (issues apply to our 9900V's as well), I do wish we
could layout our own LDEVs. We use a mixture of 20GB and 40GB OPEN-V
LDEVs and would love to be able to change them from time to time. If
for any other reason that to make scheduling the work easier. HDS is
super-sensitive about who gets on their boxes...wish they weren't.
Jeff Mery - MCSE, 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
"Linux Admin" <sysadmin.linux(a)gmail.com> Sent by:
owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com
03/15/2006 01:54 PM
To
"Kristian Ejvind (KI/EAB)" <kristian.ejvind(a)ericsson.com> cc "Bret
Jacobson" <bjacobson(a)micron.com>, toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject
Re: Hitachi SAN Systems
HDS storage is great for many reason. 95xx series and USP definitely
have great features. USP shows great performance. (to many to discuss, I
am sure HDS sales rep will cover that)
I just want to point out few obvious caveats (sorry HDS):
No equivalent of toasters in HDS world (or any support forum/mailing
list, etc.) Cryptic Documentation.
To many GUI/CLI to learn (Storage NAV, Device Manager, HSSM, DUMP, DUMP
CLI) 95xx can not delete LUNS (only last one you created) USP raid
groups and basic config are laid out by HDS
USP: can not touch it with HDS FE.
USP: you loose 1 additional chip port for each external chip port.
On 3/13/06, Kristian Ejvind (KI/EAB) <kristian.ejvind(a)ericsson.com
<mailto:kristian.ejvind@ericsson.com> > wrote:
> Has anyone had experience with Hitachi's SAN devices?
> What I have always heard is that their products are
> good but their support is terrible. Any experiences
> with these units and/or support? Thx.
In a former life, I used to manage a couple of HDS 95xx
series boxes. My experience was that to get started you
definitely need to have an experienced person close by
to guide you through the terms and language. All written
information is in "japaneese in english", so you have to
think a little when reading anything. (Label on the box:
"Be careful of the drop. It is heavy." Another label that
I don't remember exactly, something like "HOT to the hand.
Careful!" :)
Management software is terribly slow, it takes ages to do
anything. Booting the HDS is oh-so-slow (3-12 minutes).
(Btw. at that time we moved from LSI to HDS, and the LSI
unit booted in about 10-20 seconds! What a difference.)
HOWEVER: once in place - the HDS rocks! Impressing speed,
reliable, just what you want.
For support I guess it depends on your local support
channel - we were satisfied with our support, although
we never had to consult them for anything more serious
than disk replacements.
/Kristian
[View Less]
> Has anyone had experience with Hitachi's SAN devices?
> What I have always heard is that their products are
> good but their support is terrible. Any experiences
> with these units and/or support? Thx.
In a former life, I used to manage a couple of HDS 95xx
series boxes. My experience was that to get started you
definitely need to have an experienced person close by
to guide you through the terms and language. All written
information is in "japaneese in english", so you …
[View More]have to
think a little when reading anything. (Label on the box:
"Be careful of the drop. It is heavy." Another label that
I don't remember exactly, something like "HOT to the hand.
Careful!" :)
Management software is terribly slow, it takes ages to do
anything. Booting the HDS is oh-so-slow (3-12 minutes).
(Btw. at that time we moved from LSI to HDS, and the LSI
unit booted in about 10-20 seconds! What a difference.)
HOWEVER: once in place - the HDS rocks! Impressing speed,
reliable, just what you want.
For support I guess it depends on your local support
channel - we were satisfied with our support, although
we never had to consult them for anything more serious
than disk replacements.
/Kristian
[View Less]
Hello ,
Hey! I have been trying to get in touch with you. I finally got a cam so you can see me when we talk. http://ca.geocities.com/kellyluvsmas/cam.html
----------
This e-mail was sent through the "1dod =downloads=" file database. The webmasters of the "1dod =downloads=" file database take no responsibility for the e-mails sent through the database.
At 7:57, on Mar 15, 2006, Davin Milun wrote:
> > We noticed a 20% increase in CPU usage when we upgraded from 6.4.4P6
> > to 6.5.4P1. First we were worried because there was little chance that
> > this was due to changed usage patterns. Then we investiged by
> > comparing sysstat output to snmpd output. Our conclusion was that in
> > OnTAP 6.4.4P6, snmpd reports cpu utilization as the average of each
> > CPU's utilization. With the upgrade to 6.5.4P1 …
[View More]snmpd reports CPU
> > utilization as percentage of time when at least one CPU is busy, i.e.
> > ANY instead of AVG. That has not changed when we upgraded to OnTAP
> > 6.5.6P3.
>
> Oh.
>
> I'm still running 6.4.x on the filers that I watch CPU most closely on.
>
> So if NetApp broke cpuBusyTime in 6.5.x to report ANY time, then (a) I
> stand corrected, and (b) I'm quite unhappy with that change.
And I just did some manual testing, and it's indeed the case that BugID
148982 caused NetApp to break the SNMP values in 6.5.4! :-(((
So the once-useful SNMP cpuBusyTime is now showing the ANY time.
They should have fixed that bug by fixing sysstat to show AVG, not by
fixing SNMP to show ANY!
Thanks for the heads up! I would have had the same "What's causing this
20% CPU spike!?!?" issue after my upcoming upgrades, if I had not had
this discussion here.
Davin.
[View Less]
Personally, although we run mixed-mode as a necessary evil, it is one of
the most challenging tasks I have running the filer. I do wish they'd
improve it.
Just my 2 cents...
________________________________
From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]
On Behalf Of Glenn Dekhayser
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:54
To: JONES P.S.; Tracy Russell; toasters(a)mathworks.com
Subject: RE: Mixed Mode
In my 10+ years of dealing with Netapp, I have never known them …
[View More]to
remove a feature from OnTAP, and can't imagine them starting now-
especially one used by thousands of installations today. Perhaps your
users misunderstood what they heard in training? A trainer would also
never disclose that kind of information in that forum as presumably not
everyone in the room would be under NDA, and that kind of information,
if true (and I suspect not) would be confidential.
________________________________
From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]
On Behalf Of JONES P.S.
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:13 AM
To: Tracy Russell; toasters(a)mathworks.com
Subject: RE: Mixed Mode
I trust this is an individual's surmise and no more. I have not heard of
this remote possibility
in any shape or form. We rely absolutely on mixed mode presentation to
our users; its one of
the keystone elements of our single authentication, single filestore
architecture. Losing this would be
too much to contemplate.
Paul Jones, B.Sc, M.Sc, Ph.D. - Head of Systems Services,
Information Technology Service, Durham University, South Road, Durham
DH1 3LE
Email: p.s.jones(a)durham.ac.uk Phone/Fax: 0191 334 2749/2701
________________________________
From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of Tracy Russell
Sent: Wed 3/15/2006 2:19 PM
To: toasters(a)mathworks.com
Subject: Mixed Mode
Does anyone know the future of the security mode -- "mixed mode"?
Several co-workers returned from NetApp training stating that this
particular mode is not encouraged and may be dropped in the not too
distant future from NetApp support.
Has anyone else heard this or can confirm this to any degree? We are
about to set up a new Filer and I'm trying to decide what to do with a
volume that is currently configured for mixed mode security on an old
Filer.
If anyone has experiences changes from mixed mode to either all CIFS or
NFS, I'd appreciate their inputs as well.
Thanks.
Tracy
[View Less]
Does anyone have any SATA performance data? I know that there are many
variables when measuring disk i/o, so any information would be
appreciated.
Thanks,
-Carl