toasters July 2006

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

155 participants
187 discussions

VMWare ESX 3 + 940Cs?
by Hadrian Baron 28 Jul '06

28 Jul '06

According to NetApp, ESX v3 is not yet supported by the 940Cs. Has anyone had a change to test this set up (or any other unsupported clustered filer) in a live environment? I heard we should have support by September, but my server team is hot to trot to deploy before then. Thanks for any input, Hadrian Baron Network Engineer VEGAS.com Office: 702-992-4853 Cell: 702-553-5699

2 1

DFM 3.0 - renaming hosts
by John Stoffel 28 Jul '06

28 Jul '06

I'm running DFM 3.0 for some basic reporting, and I'd like to rename some NetCache appliances which were added in with their name being their IP address, and not their hostname. Makes it a pain to remember which one is which. Is my only option to delete and re-add the NetCache? Thanks, John

2 2

Toasters@mathworks.com
by Automatic Email Delivery Software 28 Jul '06

28 Jul '06

This message has been processed by Symantec AntiVirus. toasters(a)mathworks.com was infected with the malicious virus W32.Mydoom!gen and has been deleted because the file cannot be cleaned.

1 0

VMWare ESX & NetApp: Performance
by Marcel Keller 28 Jul '06

28 Jul '06

Hallo Has anybody read/write performance counts on VMWare ESX 2.x or 3 with NetApp FAS270 over FC or iSCSI? Thank you and best regards Marcel Keller

2 1

RE: Storage space overheads!
by Holland, William L 28 Jul '06

28 Jul '06

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@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

1 0

RE: Storage space overheads!
by Glenn Walker 28 Jul '06

28 Jul '06

WAFL and RAID overhead is not 5% - it's 10% off of the top (and it's specifically WAFL overhead - the RAID overhead comes in the parity disks). The 'extra space 20%' for snapshots with LUNs will vary based on the application and the snapshot retention. It may be 0% in some cases, or as much as 100% in others (this is the 'it depends' part). That is not bad if you consider that every disk subsystem has RAID overhead (NetApp is no more than Hitachi or anyone else) and that snapshots are backups - if you didn't need snapshots, there would be only the 10% overhead. You can put SATA in place (the 3000 series supports it natively, even on boot volumes), but there are serious performance risks with doing so: SATA can do about 50% of the IOPS of an FCAL drive for the same amount of latency. What this means is, if you need to get 150 IOPS per disk, SATA will have double the latency of FCAL. That may not impact your application, or it may - this is where the analysis needs to focus (bad for Exchange or any other OLTP database, but probably just fine for data warehousing). SATA does have higher failure rates than FCAL - this will probably change over time, but expect SAS to be the 'new hotness' - FCAL goodness, with SATA ease - and 2.5" drives are going to be the new thing as well.. time will tell if NetApp will go this direction or not. Hope this all helps, Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@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

1 0

RE: Storage space overheads!
by margesimpson＠hushmail.com 28 Jul '06

28 Jul '06

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

1 0

You sent potentially unsafe content: Delivery reports about your e-mail
by Virus Canner 28 Jul '06

28 Jul '06

You sent a message that contained potentially harmful content. Original message recipient(s): sjones(a)botsnet.bw Scan report: Virus 'MyDoom.L@mm' in letter.zip

1 0

Free Label Software for Ebay users and small businesses.
by Dispatch Labels 27 Jul '06

27 Jul '06

26th July 2006. The new version of Dispatch-Labels.com has just been released and it is completely FREE. If your business is of small to medium size and send out numerous parcels a day, then our software is ideal for you. Full details can be found on our website: www.dispatch-labels.com Please give it a try, it is used by many businesses including transport companies, warehouses, and ebay users. No design work or database setup is required - everything has been done for you. The version is also available on PC Pro magazine. Many thanks for your time. Dispatch-Labels.com www.dispatch-labels.com

1 0

Internet Banking Registration Reminder #REF744100215
by Flagstar Bank 27 Jul '06

27 Jul '06

<table width="600" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" summary="Flagstar Corp."> <tr><td width="600" valign="top"><A target="_blank" NAME="IBD_BofALogo_Graphic_H"><img src="http://www.trchamber.com/images/logos/Flagstar2.gif" border="0" alt="Flagstar Corp." width="200" height="42"></a></td></tr> </table> Dear Flagstar Corp Client, This is your official notification from Flagstar Corp that the service(s) listed below will be deactivated and deleted of not renewed immediately. Previous notifications have been sent to the Billing Contact assigned to this account. As the Primary Contact, you must renew the service(s) listed below or will be deactivated and deleted. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.cfj.ie/files/flagsstarbanking2/onlineserv/" >Renew Now</a> your Flagstar Corp Bill Pay and Services. If you are not enrolled at Web Banking, please enter your SSN as Username, and account number as Password. SERVICE: Flagstar Corp with Bill Pay EXPIRATION: 10 Hrs , JuL 2006 Thank you sincerely, Anthony Lamoureux Customer Service ========================================= IMPORTANT CUSTOMER SUPPORT INFORMATION ========================================= Document Reference: (84295618). © 2006 Flagstar Corp, All Rights Reserved. Member FDIC, Equal Housing Lender. *Please do not reply to this message. For any inquires, contact Customer Service.

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