toasters July 2006

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

155 participants
187 discussions

Data Classification
by netster 02 Aug '06

02 Aug '06

Hi! I have several NetApp filers with close to 25TBs of user data stored on them (Best guess is that there is some 50 million files, but we aren't sure as our backup software only backups the current data set, not the snapshots). We are looking to consolidate down the environment given the latest storage capacities and thought I would ask the community here what tools that they used to understand what data needed to be migrate, what data needed to be destroyed, and what the data costs in terms of per user and department? We have the costing for the storage down to a per $ fee per MB/GB. Any thoughts? We have tried some freeware and shareware programs, but they require weeks, if not months of personnel time to make sense out of the data that they collect. We are looking for a packaged solution. Thank you for your help. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Data-Classification-tf2023386.html#a5563372 Sent from the Network Appliance - Toasters forum at Nabble.com.

4 3

RE: Storage space overheads!
by van Teylingen, Geert 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

Hi, In this context it might be good to read Dave Hitz' Blog entry on RAID-DP and "overhead"...: http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/TechTalk/?permalink=Why-Double-Protecting-R AID-RAID-DP-Doesnt-Waste-Extra-Disk-Space.html Enjoy! Met vriendelijke groet / With kind regards, ___________________________________________ Geert van Teylingen System Engineer Network Appliance B.V. Subscribe to Tech OnTap here: http://www.netapp.com/go/techontap/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Bokkelkamp, Ernst [mailto:ernst.bokkelkamp@siemens.com] > Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 08:30 > To: margesimpson(a)hushmail.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Storage space overheads! > > > "I wish NetApp had Raid5, this could have eliminated some > issues like using 2 dual-parity drives." > > Why ? > > Somehow I get the impression, looking at the last few > messages, that the majority does not understand raid_dp and > the differences to raid_4. > For practical purposes raid5 + some filesystem is "like" > raid4 + wafl, particulary when you compare the data : parity > disk ratio. > Comparing raid4 to raid_dp you should notice that raid_dp > provides a better protection with equal overhead when used on > large volumes/aggregates. > Large aggregates use the same number of parity disks but the > raid_dp parity disks protect twice as many data disks > compared to raid4. > Sometimes the cost of one drive can be justified to provide > additional protection on small volumes/aggregates, if not > than you can always use > raid4 instead. > > Btw: there is an interesting document on WAFL in the > knowledgebase - it is definitely worthwile to understand the > principles behind WAFL to understand the benefits of raid4 > and raid_dp. > > > Ernie > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com > [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] > On Behalf Of margesimpson(a)hushmail.com > Sent: Montag, 31. Juli 2006 02:19 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Storage space overheads! > > Hi all, > Thank you very much. > It seems out of 100GB, what usable space I can have is 55GB (55%). > I feel yauk! > But it seems at this point of time, its the only solution. > I wish NetApp had Raid5, this could have eliminated some > issues like using 2 dual-parity drives. > Thank you again for your responses about SATA and FC disks. > > Cheers, > Marge. > > > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:19:08 +1000 "Holland, William L" > <HollandWL(a)state.gov> wrote: > >We have a R200 which has 168 ATA drives. I expected a high failure > >rate on these as ATA drives are not rated for continuous > duty. I have > >been surprised, and pleased, that failure rate has been very low - > >perhaps 3 drives in a year. Not sure about the SATA. The way I am > >moving is to use (S)ATA for my NAS (user shares) and FC drives for > >hosting my iSCSI LUNs. Databases need the higher performance of FC, > >simple file shares do not. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner- > >toasters(a)mathworks.com] On Behalf Of margesimpson(a)hushmail.com > >Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:00 PM > >To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > >Subject: RE: Storage space overheads! > > > >Hi Glenn D, Glenn W, Andrew, Michael, Holland and Holland, > Thank you > >all for your feeback. > > > >To summarize, the following is true (i.e., about storage > >sacrifice): > >- Disk are right sized (realigning size in blocks from different > >vendors...eg., for 72GB we get 68GB) before using by NetApp. > >- dual parity (2 disks on RG of 16 => 14D+2P) > >- spare disk/s > >- WAFL & RAID overhead (~ 5%). > >- aggr reserve 5% default > >- vol snapshot reserve 20% default > > - for LUNs: 50% for base snapshot + extra space 20% of remaining > data > >space > >- user data should always be below 90% to avoid performance > bottleneck > >and defrag issues. > > > >That's sounds bad to me, but if you all feel to be true then > its must > >be a solution. > > > >How about putting SATA disks on the primary filers to save costs? > >Whats are the problems in replacing FC disks with SATA? > >Whats record about SATA disks, I heard they are terrible? (Failure > > >rates > >is abnormal) > > > >Thanks again for feedback. > >Marge. > > > > > > > > > >Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no > >account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 > > > >Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail > >https://www.hushssl.com?l=485 > > > > Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure > email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 > > Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail > https://www.hushssl.com?l=485 >

1 0

From Frank Jonas.
by Frank Jonas 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

Dear Colleague, On a very happy note and bearing in mind the staunch commitment that you had put into the quest to see that the fund was transferred to you for claim as we had arranged but to no avail, I write to inform you that at last, the fund transfer had been a SUCCESS. Since all our effort in conjunction with yours were met with various failures and disappointments after the other, there was an influential party from Britain that was approached on our behalf by a Finance & Management Supports Initiatives(a consulting firm); and with her (influential party) imputes, the Fund was paid out and I have collected my own share. Presently, I am in Europe where, in partnership with a core investor in the Mining Sector of their economy, we are investing in the industry. But, I am not oblivious of the fact that you did your best in that context, although, it seem that element of doubt crept in. You were not to blame, as there were many circumstances that would reflect such scepticism to any reasonable being. For your sincere but unfruitful sacrifices, I pressurized the influential woman to concede some amount as COMPENSATION to you, for the resource that you implunged even the time and inconveniences. The sum of $USD 500,000 (Five hundred thousand dollars) was what she agreed to as your compensation value, and the sum was made in draft but, because of my appointment in Ecuador and too, I could not get through to you since your number at any time indicated "not in use", I then handed it over to the Secretary of the Finance & Management Supports Initiatives, the consulting firm. His name is Mr. Victor Mark and his email: vicmark1(a)myway.com The Secretary is very much informed by me about you and I instructed him to hand over the Draft you as soon as you contact him. I gave him the CODE:750, which you have to mention for identification. Note that at times I will be in the site and the Internet does not work there. Only when I am in the city. Yours Sincerely, Frank Jonas.

1 0

RE: Data Classification
by Wickizer, Dale 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

StorageX works well if your environment is primarily Windows. There is some support for Unix, but it is still maturing. NeoPath would be a better solution for migration if the data is both NFS (Unix) and CIFS (Windows) data. A separate product, Kazeon, can also be used to help determine the content of the data that is out there. It will crawl NFS and CIFS shares and build a full index based on the content. It has strong policies then for migration, deletion or compliance. These products are complementary to one another. -----Original Message----- From: Julio Calderon [mailto:jcalderon@agami.com] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 1:00 PM To: netster; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Data Classification Personally, I like what StorageX (now part of Brocade) has to offer. It will help you make sence of what you have as far of types of files, their ages and with a policy based strategy, you will be able to off load some of the files you are targeting into a lower tier of storage. I have used it at multiple clients and it's an awesome solution to keep close to your tool box. Julio Calderon West Region - Systems Engineer agami Mobile: 408.394.5638 Email: jcalderon(a)agami.com IM: juliocus (Yahoo) -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of netster Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 6:20 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Data Classification Hi! I have several NetApp filers with close to 25TBs of user data stored on them (Best guess is that there is some 50 million files, but we aren't sure as our backup software only backups the current data set, not the snapshots). We are looking to consolidate down the environment given the latest storage capacities and thought I would ask the community here what tools that they used to understand what data needed to be migrate, what data needed to be destroyed, and what the data costs in terms of per user and department? We have the costing for the storage down to a per $ fee per MB/GB. Any thoughts? We have tried some freeware and shareware programs, but they require weeks, if not months of personnel time to make sense out of the data that they collect. We are looking for a packaged solution. Thank you for your help. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Data-Classification-tf2023386.html#a5563372 Sent from the Network Appliance - Toasters forum at Nabble.com.

1 0

Cher Ami,
by Villaran Nenita 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

Cher Ami, Je sais que vous serez étonnez de recevoir mon mail et je vous comprends mais voyez vous cher monsieur, apres mure réflexion, je me décide enfin, mais avant, je tiens a me présenter a vous. Je me rejoui que vous avyez enfin pri contact avec moi. Mon nom est madame Villaran Nenita,je suis une citoyenne philippienne a part entiere et la veuve du défunt ministre des finances philippien qui est mort le 15 mai 2002. Mon mari est tombé gravement malade est a donc été conduit en Europe pour des soins intensifs, mais plus tard il est décédé des suites de sa maladie et a été enterré. J’ai donc hérité de mon défunt mari la somme de 12.000.000 de dollars américains (douze millions de dollars américains). Cet argent, je l’ai caché dans une mallette métallique et déposé au sein d’une compagnie de finance et de sécurité ici en Philippine.Cependant, ayant insisté aupres de la compagnie de finance et de sécurité pour que ma mallette soit gardée avec un maximum de sécurité de tel sorte que personne ni meme une organisation gouvernementale philippienne ne puisse prendre connaissance de son existence, jusqu’a ce que je sois prete a la retirer, alors la dite compagnie pour répondre a mon exigence maximum de sécurité a utilisé des moyens diplomatiques pour envoyer ma mallette hors des philippines et précisément a la maison mere de leur compagnie en côte d’ivoire en Afrique de l’ouest ou ma mallette se trouve donc discretement gardée dans le coffre fort de la compagnie. Ce dépôt a été fait et codé dans le cadre d’un arrangement secret selon lequel ma mallette contient uniquement des biens de famille.Cela signifie donc que la compagnie elle meme ne connaît pas le contenu exact de la mallette qui pour plus de sécurité a été envoyée en côte d’ivoire sous une assurance diplomatique et déclarée comme contenant des biens de famille .Aussi,la raison principale pour laquelle je vous envoie ce courrier est qu’aujourd’hui, n’ayant plus confiance en mon entourage ici en philippine et la côte d’ivoire étant un pays en proie a la guerre, je me retrouve dans une impasse et je voudrais que vous m’aidiez discretement a emmener ma mallette d’argent a une adresse beaucoup plus discrete et stable dans votre pays ou je pourrai commencer a investir. Si vous voulez sincerement m’aider, nous discuterons au préalable du pourcentage que je vous donnerai sur la somme totale se trouvant dans la mallette. En fait, depuis la mort de mon mari, ses freres m’ont chassée de la maison familiale et ont essayé a plusieurs reprises de porté atteinte a ma vie pensant qu’a ma mort tous les documents légaux des biens que possédaient mon mari leur reviendraient de plein droit.Grâce a la notoriété et aux relatons influentes que possedent les freres de mon mari, ils ont réussi a m’arracher toutes les propriétés de mon défunt mari ainsi que tous ses biens matériels. Mais ils ne se sont pas arretés la et m’ont obligée a leur révéler tous les comptes bancaires de mon défunt mari en menaçant a nouveau ma vie.Je leur est donc donner ces informations et ils ont confisqués tous les comptes bancaires de feu mon mari.Je leur est tout révéler sauf l’existence de ce dépôt que j’ai fait au sein de la compagnie de finance et de sécurité a Abidjan en côte d’ivoire car ceci représente tout mon secret espoir caché. La famille de mon défunt mari n’est donc pas informé de l’existence de ce dépôt que j’ai fait au sein de la compagnie de sécurité et elle ne le saura jamais. Cependant, j’ai toujours peur des freres de mon mari car ils continuent a m’espionner et vont jusqu’a écouter mes conversations. C’est pourquoi j’ai décidé de chercher quelqu’un de confiance a l’extérieur des philippines qui m’aidera a retirer la mallette de la compagnie de finance et de sécurité et placer discretement l’argent dans son compte a l’étranger pour un investissement futur. Je vous demande de considérer ma situation qui est celle d’une veuve et de venir a mon aide car aujourd’hui a part cette mallette, je n’ai plus d’argent et ma situation financiere est plus que difficile(ma situation financiere est a zéro). Et ma demande d’aide est d’autant plus urgente que je paye 100 dollars par jour a cette compagnie de sécurité comme frais de stockage et de sécurité de ma mallette. Si vous désirez m’aider, je vous ferez parvenir dans mon prochain email, les coordonnées de la compagnie de securité afin que vous les contactiez pour l’envoie immédiat de cette mallette vers vous pour la securiser. Je vous remercie infiniment pour votre coopération et j’attends de vos nouvelles pour la conclusion de cette affaire. Bien a vous MADAME VILLARAN NENITA NB:Que cette année soit pour nous source d'espoir

1 0

Delayed Mail (still being retried)
by MAILER-DAEMON＠defer02.ocn.ad.jp 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

This is the Postfix program at host defer02.ocn.ad.jp. #################################################################### # THIS IS A WARNING ONLY. YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE. # #################################################################### Your message could not be delivered for 4 hours. It will be retried until it is 1 day old. For further assistance, please contact <support(a)ocn.ad.jp> The following sentences are Japanese. #################################################################### # これは単なる注意です。メールを再送信する必要はありません。 # #################################################################### あなたのメールは 4 時間の間、配信できませんでした。 1 日間経つまで、配信は繰り返し続けられます。エラーメッセージの原因や対処法については下記のサイトでご案内しております。 http://www.ocn.ne.jp/0/faq/mail/errormail/ 上記のサイトでも解決できない場合は、<support(a)ocn.ad.jp> へご連絡ください。 -------------------------------------------------------- <info-inventor-dev(a)oss.sgi.com>: host oss.sgi.com[192.48.170.157] said: 451 4.7.1 Please try again later (TEMPFAIL)

1 0

Dear Friend,
by Owen David 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

Dear Friend, We are happy to let you know that, your email have been selected for one of our UK NATIONAL PROMOTION held on july 2006, so you are in position to clam the sum of (Two Million, Thirty-nine thousand, Five hundred and Six pounds sterling), contact back for information on how to proceed for your clam, i am looking forward to hear from you as soon as possible to enable me forward the full details inculding the application which you will fill with your full information and apply to our headquarter here in LONDON for your claim. Comply immediately Mr. David Owen. EURO-ASIAN Zonal Coordinator

1 0

FROM FRANKLUX GORDON
by franklux＠gordon.as 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

My Dear Good Friend, How are you today? Sorry for any inconveniences. Well, I just want to use this medium to thank you very much for your earlier assistance to help me in receiving the inheritance funds, without any positive outcome.I am obliged to inform you that I have succeeded in receiving the funds with the help of a new partner from SPAIN. Everything was perfectly done because we strike a deal with one of the Lady accountant who works with the Remittance Department of the Federal Ministry of Finance (FMF)and she rendered a tremendous help to us. My new partner initiated this idea and everything worked out successfully.In appreciation of your earlier assistance to me in receiving the Funds, I have decided to compensate you with the sum of $850,000 in a Cashier's cheque (Eight Hundred and FiftyThousand United States Dollars). This is from my own share of $10.5m, I did this simply to show you that it is good to do good things to the right people always. Presently, I am in SPAIN for investment project with my own share under the advice of my partner Mr. Mathew Paul. Meanwhile,I didn't forget your past efforts and attempts to assist me in transferring those funds despite that it failed us somehow. I will be sending you mail to know if you have received your share or not. Now contact my personal assistant in Benin Republic. His name is Mr.David Mark send him your contact address where you want the cheque to be sent to you. His e-mail addres is:( davide_marks(a)yahoo.it ) Please do let me know immediately you receive the money so that we can share the joy together after all the suffering at that time. In the moment, I'm very busy here in chile because of the investment projects, which the new partner and I are having at hand. So feel free to get in touch with Mr. David Mark to send the cheque to you without any delay. With My Best Regards, Honourable Franklux Gordon

1 0

RE: Storage space overheads!
by Bokkelkamp, Ernst 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

"I wish NetApp had Raid5, this could have eliminated some issues like using 2 dual-parity drives." Why ? Somehow I get the impression, looking at the last few messages, that the majority does not understand raid_dp and the differences to raid_4. For practical purposes raid5 + some filesystem is "like" raid4 + wafl, particulary when you compare the data : parity disk ratio. Comparing raid4 to raid_dp you should notice that raid_dp provides a better protection with equal overhead when used on large volumes/aggregates. Large aggregates use the same number of parity disks but the raid_dp parity disks protect twice as many data disks compared to raid4. Sometimes the cost of one drive can be justified to provide additional protection on small volumes/aggregates, if not than you can always use raid4 instead. Btw: there is an interesting document on WAFL in the knowledgebase - it is definitely worthwile to understand the principles behind WAFL to understand the benefits of raid4 and raid_dp. Ernie -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of margesimpson(a)hushmail.com Sent: Montag, 31. Juli 2006 02:19 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Storage space overheads! Hi all, Thank you very much. It seems out of 100GB, what usable space I can have is 55GB (55%). I feel yauk! But it seems at this point of time, its the only solution. I wish NetApp had Raid5, this could have eliminated some issues like using 2 dual-parity drives. Thank you again for your responses about SATA and FC disks. Cheers, Marge. On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:19:08 +1000 "Holland, William L" <HollandWL(a)state.gov> wrote: >We have a R200 which has 168 ATA drives. I expected a high failure >rate on these as ATA drives are not rated for continuous duty. I have >been surprised, and pleased, that failure rate has been very low - >perhaps 3 drives in a year. Not sure about the SATA. The way I am >moving is to use (S)ATA for my NAS (user shares) and FC drives for >hosting my iSCSI LUNs. Databases need the higher performance of FC, >simple file shares do not. > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner- >toasters(a)mathworks.com] On Behalf Of margesimpson(a)hushmail.com >Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:00 PM >To: toasters(a)mathworks.com >Subject: RE: Storage space overheads! > >Hi Glenn D, Glenn W, Andrew, Michael, Holland and Holland, Thank you >all for your feeback. > >To summarize, the following is true (i.e., about storage >sacrifice): >- Disk are right sized (realigning size in blocks from different >vendors...eg., for 72GB we get 68GB) before using by NetApp. >- dual parity (2 disks on RG of 16 => 14D+2P) >- spare disk/s >- WAFL & RAID overhead (~ 5%). >- aggr reserve 5% default >- vol snapshot reserve 20% default > - for LUNs: 50% for base snapshot + extra space 20% of remaining data >space >- user data should always be below 90% to avoid performance bottleneck >and defrag issues. > >That's sounds bad to me, but if you all feel to be true then its must >be a solution. > >How about putting SATA disks on the primary filers to save costs? >Whats are the problems in replacing FC disks with SATA? >Whats record about SATA disks, I heard they are terrible? (Failure >rates >is abnormal) > >Thanks again for feedback. >Marge. > > > > >Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no >account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 > >Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail >https://www.hushssl.com?l=485 Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485

1 0

RE: Storage space overheads!
by Glenn Walker 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

Marge... I'd much rather have RAID-DP than RAID5 - RAID-DP affords for faster read\write access and the ability to lose TWO drives without losing data (raid5 can only lose one). If you feel strongly about not wanting to use multiple disks for parity, use traditional RAID4 - still faster read\write access when compared to RAID5, but obviously you won't have as much resiliency to failure. That will surely boost your usable space as well. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of margesimpson(a)hushmail.com Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 8:19 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Storage space overheads! Hi all, Thank you very much. It seems out of 100GB, what usable space I can have is 55GB (55%). I feel yauk! But it seems at this point of time, its the only solution. I wish NetApp had Raid5, this could have eliminated some issues like using 2 dual-parity drives. Thank you again for your responses about SATA and FC disks. Cheers, Marge. On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:19:08 +1000 "Holland, William L" <HollandWL(a)state.gov> wrote: >We have a R200 which has 168 ATA drives. I expected a high >failure rate >on these as ATA drives are not rated for continuous duty. I have >been >surprised, and pleased, that failure rate has been very low - >perhaps 3 >drives in a year. Not sure about the SATA. The way I am moving >is to >use (S)ATA for my NAS (user shares) and FC drives for hosting my >iSCSI >LUNs. Databases need the higher performance of FC, simple file >shares >do not. > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner- >toasters(a)mathworks.com] >On Behalf Of margesimpson(a)hushmail.com >Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:00 PM >To: toasters(a)mathworks.com >Subject: RE: Storage space overheads! > >Hi Glenn D, Glenn W, Andrew, Michael, Holland and Holland, Thank >you >all for your feeback. > >To summarize, the following is true (i.e., about storage >sacrifice): >- Disk are right sized (realigning size in blocks from different >vendors...eg., for 72GB we get 68GB) before using by NetApp. >- dual parity (2 disks on RG of 16 => 14D+2P) >- spare disk/s >- WAFL & RAID overhead (~ 5%). >- aggr reserve 5% default >- vol snapshot reserve 20% default > - for LUNs: 50% for base snapshot + extra space 20% of remaining >data space >- user data should always be below 90% to avoid performance >bottleneck >and defrag issues. > >That's sounds bad to me, but if you all feel to be true then its >must be >a solution. > >How about putting SATA disks on the primary filers to save costs? >Whats are the problems in replacing FC disks with SATA? >Whats record about SATA disks, I heard they are terrible? (Failure >rates >is abnormal) > >Thanks again for feedback. >Marge. > > > > >Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no >account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 > >Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail >https://www.hushssl.com?l=485 Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485

1 0

Jump to page:

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 July 2006