toasters August 2006

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

45 participants
54 discussions

RE: So where has all the <<luncheon meat>> gone?
by Hadrian Baron 17 Aug '06

17 Aug '06

Good point. The spam has been annoying. Knocks on wood. Hadrian Baron Network Engineer VEGAS.com Office: 702-992-4853 Cell: 702-553-5699 -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Chris Thompson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 1:17 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: So where has all the <<luncheon meat>> gone? So what happened to the toasters mailing list? With spam approaching 75% of the messages in late July, there was a sudden silence from 2nd - 9th August, and then it started up again with _absolutely_ no spam (cross fingers). I have been able to turn off my holding tank folder for toasters e-mail which I used just to filter out the spam. -- Chris Thompson Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk

1 0

So where has all the <<luncheon meat>> gone?
by Chris Thompson 16 Aug '06

16 Aug '06

So what happened to the toasters mailing list? With spam approaching 75% of the messages in late July, there was a sudden silence from 2nd - 9th August, and then it started up again with _absolutely_ no spam (cross fingers). I have been able to turn off my holding tank folder for toasters e-mail which I used just to filter out the spam. -- Chris Thompson Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk

1 0

RE: Data Ontap 7.2
by Fox, Adam 14 Aug '06

14 Aug '06

This was put there for early testers of FlexShare. Those folks were supported by Engineering directly during the testing. I would not recommend using the 7.1 FlexShare code in production as it is not supported at all now that the production FlexShare code is released. So use at your own risk. -- Adam Fox adamfox(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Filip Sneppe [mailto:filip.sneppe@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 12:04 PM To: Reinoud Reynders Cc: ggwalker(a)mindspring.com; thelastman(a)gmail.com; markallen(a)micron.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Data Ontap 7.2 On 8/13/06, Reinoud Reynders <reinoud.reynders(a)uz.kuleuven.ac.be> wrote: > > Flexshare is indeed the 'commercial' name of gardrail, availible in 7.2. > It's indeed a great killer ap. > Hi, Note that the "priority" command is already available from ONTAP 7.1 from "priv set advanced" mode, eg: na-demo01*> priority show volume Volume Priority Relative Sys Priority Service Priority (vs User) iscsi_luns on High Medium na-demo01*> sysconfig NetApp Release 7.1.1: Sun Jun 25 03:57:55 PDT 2006 I don't know if it is actually already fully supported on 7.1 systems, and if there are any differences between 7.1 and 7.2 flexshare features. (it is enabled on a test system in our environenment) Regards, Filip

1 0

Re: Data Ontap 7.2
by Reinoud Reynders 13 Aug '06

13 Aug '06

Flexshare is indeed the 'commercial' name of gardrail, availible in 7.2. It's indeed a great killer ap. See also the latest techontap: there's a nice demo. Reinoud UZ leuven Belgium -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com <owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com> To: Blake Golliher <thelastman(a)gmail.com> CC: markallen(a)micron.com <markallen(a)micron.com>; toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Sun Aug 13 00:32:29 2006 Subject: RE: Data Ontap 7.2 Blake, Flexshare - is this the 'guardrail' technology that enables QoS of particular datasets? Or is that 'future' at the moment? Glenn -----Original Message----- From: Blake Golliher [mailto:thelastman@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:46 PM To: Glenn Walker Cc: markallen(a)micron.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Data Ontap 7.2 We are testing it as well. FlexShare looks to be some killer technology we are excited to look at. But the mutliproc changes I think are key to this release. Which almost makes me want to wait until 7.2.2 or 7.2.3 before thinking about it seriously. Because if it's good now, wait until they perfect it! -Blake On 8/11/06, Glenn Walker <ggwalker(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > > > > > Not yet tested, but they did fix CIFS running on only 1 proc at a time (now > multithreaded and shouldn't be an issue with competing for resources from > WAFL anymore). Looking forward to that, especially with changenotify and > other issues that can cause problems on older systems! > > > > Glenn > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On > Behalf Of markallen(a)micron.com > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:43 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Data Ontap 7.2 > > > > > I noticed that Netapp GA'd 7.2 on the 3rd of August. I did a bug fix report > and noticed that a lot of CIFS bugs were fixed between the GD release 7.04 > and 7.2. I also noticed the same thing when I compared 7.1.1 and 7.2. I've > also heard that CIFS performs a lot better on multiproc systems with this > OS. Has anyone tested this out under a load and does the OS provide better > CIFS performance without any reliability side affects or impact to other > protocols such as NFS? I have it installed on a test system but I don't > really have a load on it yet. > > Thanks > > -Mark >

2 1

RE: Data Ontap 7.2
by Glenn Walker 13 Aug '06

13 Aug '06

That's exactly what I wanted to hear!!!! Now to let 7.2 cook a bit longer :-) (the Access-Based Enumeration for Windows is also another great feature, FYI) ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Reinoud Reynders Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 2:35 AM To: Glenn Walker; thelastman(a)gmail.com Cc: markallen(a)micron.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Data Ontap 7.2 Flexshare is indeed the 'commercial' name of gardrail, availible in 7.2. It's indeed a great killer ap. See also the latest techontap: there's a nice demo. Reinoud UZ leuven Belgium -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com <owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com> To: Blake Golliher <thelastman(a)gmail.com> CC: markallen(a)micron.com <markallen(a)micron.com>; toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Sun Aug 13 00:32:29 2006 Subject: RE: Data Ontap 7.2 Blake, Flexshare - is this the 'guardrail' technology that enables QoS of particular datasets? Or is that 'future' at the moment? Glenn -----Original Message----- From: Blake Golliher [mailto:thelastman@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:46 PM To: Glenn Walker Cc: markallen(a)micron.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Data Ontap 7.2 We are testing it as well. FlexShare looks to be some killer technology we are excited to look at. But the mutliproc changes I think are key to this release. Which almost makes me want to wait until 7.2.2 or 7.2.3 before thinking about it seriously. Because if it's good now, wait until they perfect it! -Blake On 8/11/06, Glenn Walker <ggwalker(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > > > > > Not yet tested, but they did fix CIFS running on only 1 proc at a time (now > multithreaded and shouldn't be an issue with competing for resources from > WAFL anymore). Looking forward to that, especially with changenotify and > other issues that can cause problems on older systems! > > > > Glenn > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On > Behalf Of markallen(a)micron.com > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:43 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Data Ontap 7.2 > > > > > I noticed that Netapp GA'd 7.2 on the 3rd of August. I did a bug fix report > and noticed that a lot of CIFS bugs were fixed between the GD release 7.04 > and 7.2. I also noticed the same thing when I compared 7.1.1 and 7.2. I've > also heard that CIFS performs a lot better on multiproc systems with this > OS. Has anyone tested this out under a load and does the OS provide better > CIFS performance without any reliability side affects or impact to other > protocols such as NFS? I have it installed on a test system but I don't > really have a load on it yet. > > Thanks > > -Mark >

1 0

RE: Data Ontap 7.2
by Glenn Walker 12 Aug '06

12 Aug '06

Blake, Flexshare - is this the 'guardrail' technology that enables QoS of particular datasets? Or is that 'future' at the moment? Glenn -----Original Message----- From: Blake Golliher [mailto:thelastman@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:46 PM To: Glenn Walker Cc: markallen(a)micron.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Data Ontap 7.2 We are testing it as well. FlexShare looks to be some killer technology we are excited to look at. But the mutliproc changes I think are key to this release. Which almost makes me want to wait until 7.2.2 or 7.2.3 before thinking about it seriously. Because if it's good now, wait until they perfect it! -Blake On 8/11/06, Glenn Walker <ggwalker(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > > > > > Not yet tested, but they did fix CIFS running on only 1 proc at a time (now > multithreaded and shouldn't be an issue with competing for resources from > WAFL anymore). Looking forward to that, especially with changenotify and > other issues that can cause problems on older systems! > > > > Glenn > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On > Behalf Of markallen(a)micron.com > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:43 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Data Ontap 7.2 > > > > > I noticed that Netapp GA'd 7.2 on the 3rd of August. I did a bug fix report > and noticed that a lot of CIFS bugs were fixed between the GD release 7.04 > and 7.2. I also noticed the same thing when I compared 7.1.1 and 7.2. I've > also heard that CIFS performs a lot better on multiproc systems with this > OS. Has anyone tested this out under a load and does the OS provide better > CIFS performance without any reliability side affects or impact to other > protocols such as NFS? I have it installed on a test system but I don't > really have a load on it yet. > > Thanks > > -Mark >

1 0

RE: Data Ontap 7.2
by Glenn Walker 12 Aug '06

12 Aug '06

Not yet tested, but they did fix CIFS running on only 1 proc at a time (now multithreaded and shouldn't be an issue with competing for resources from WAFL anymore). Looking forward to that, especially with changenotify and other issues that can cause problems on older systems! Glenn ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of markallen(a)micron.com Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:43 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Data Ontap 7.2 I noticed that Netapp GA'd 7.2 on the 3rd of August. I did a bug fix report and noticed that a lot of CIFS bugs were fixed between the GD release 7.04 and 7.2. I also noticed the same thing when I compared 7.1.1 and 7.2. I've also heard that CIFS performs a lot better on multiproc systems with this OS. Has anyone tested this out under a load and does the OS provide better CIFS performance without any reliability side affects or impact to other protocols such as NFS? I have it installed on a test system but I don't really have a load on it yet. Thanks -Mark

2 1

Data Ontap 7.2
by markallen＠micron.com 11 Aug '06

11 Aug '06

I noticed that Netapp GA'd 7.2 on the 3rd of August. I did a bug fix report and noticed that a lot of CIFS bugs were fixed between the GD release 7.04 and 7.2. I also noticed the same thing when I compared 7.1.1 and 7.2. I've also heard that CIFS performs a lot better on multiproc systems with this OS. Has anyone tested this out under a load and does the OS provide better CIFS performance without any reliability side affects or impact to other protocols such as NFS? I have it installed on a test system but I don't really have a load on it yet. Thanks -Mark

1 0

RE: CIFS homedir offline file synchronization
by Glenn Walker 11 Aug '06

11 Aug '06

One other thing to be aware of (ran into it today as I was reconfiguring my personal offline cache): If the share where the data resides does not provide the user with access, even if their personal directory does, then synchronization will fail. In that case, you'd have to have each user access their own share (essentially using the homedir functionality) or make it so that each user has privileges to the share itself (assuming read will be enough). Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Mende Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 5:02 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS homedir offline file synchronization Thanks for your response Marty & Glenn, This KB looks like it should tackle this issue. Windows can't synchronize files into the cache for a share that essentially doesn't exist -- the share is only accessible when authenticated as that particular user. But not sure if it's practical to stamp primary SIDs on the desktops ... the users are relatively mobile. I'm far from a strong Windows admin (Unix background) so this is a bit of learning for me. I may suggest to create a top-level share, homedirs$ and reference each user's directory as \\filer\homedir$\%username% instead of \\filer\%username% (using the CIFS.HOMEDIR functionality). That way the share always exists ... and Windows can blindly sychronize stuff that doesn't need to be. :-D C Christopher Mende Systems Engineer Infinity Solutions Ltd P O Box 3323, Auckland Ph: +64 9 921 8039, Mob: +64 21 227 7590 Fax: +64 9 309 4142 www.infinitysolutions.co.nz > -----Original Message----- > From: Marty Wise [mailto:Marty.Wise@jlab.org] > Sent: Thursday, 10 August 2006 11:10 p.m. > To: Christopher Mende; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: CIFS homedir offline file synchronization > > Chris, > > I am not familiar with the error masking behavior you describe, but I have > done some tinkering with this issue from another perspective. > > Apparently, Windows uses a global offline file cache on a system. A > synchronization event will trigger a synchronization of files for all > users > by default. This is made even more annoying by various files which cannot > be > synchronized (MS Access files among others) that generate errors during > the > synchronization attempt. In our specific situation, it is users who only > occasionally log in to a system (mostly admins and support folks) that get > synchronized needlessly during sync events triggered by the real user of > the > system. A bit of digging revealed that Windows provides controls that > alleviates much of this problem for us. > > There are registry entries (that can be set via group policy) that allow > you > to specify a list of "Primary" users of a system for offline files (other > entries allow you to ignore specific file extensions during > synchronization). Offline files uses the list of primary users to attempt > synchronization of only files for those users. In our case, this avoids > synchronizing files for our admins, etc. The configuration is described in > MS KnowledgeBase article ID # 811660. > (http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=811660) > > I'm not sure if this is useful in your situation. > > Regards, > > Marty Wise > Computer Center, Windows Systems Team > Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility > 12000 Jefferson Ave. > Newport News, VA, 23606 > > > ________________________________________ > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] > On > Behalf Of Christopher Mende > Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:49 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: CIFS homedir offline file synchronization > > Hi All, > > Anyone run into issues with offline file synchronization for homedirs? > > Have an issue where user1 logs in and out, and sync works just fine. > > User 2 logs in and out & syncs, plus it tries to sync user1 again, which > fails. > > According to M$, if you were using one of their servers, the share > permissions on the user share would be set to Full Control, and Windows > would actually mask the failure. > > Seems this isn't happening when using the filer - any ideas short of > scrapping the auto-homedir feature? How does one change the share > permissions on these auto-gen'd shares which aren't accessible via > traditional methods? If that's really the fix. > > Christopher Mende > > The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and > intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, > you > are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make > use > of its contents. If received in error you are asked to destroy this email > and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated. The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents. If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.

1 0

CIFS homedir offline file synchronization
by Christopher Mende 10 Aug '06

10 Aug '06

Hi All, Anyone run into issues with offline file synchronization for homedirs? Have an issue where user1 logs in and out, and sync works just fine. User 2 logs in and out & syncs, plus it tries to sync user1 again, which fails. According to M$, if you were using one of their servers, the share permissions on the user share would be set to Full Control, and Windows would actually mask the failure. Seems this isn't happening when using the filer - any ideas short of scrapping the auto-homedir feature? How does one change the share permissions on these auto-gen'd shares which aren't accessible via traditional methods? If that's really the fix. Christopher Mende The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents. If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.

2 1

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 August 2006