toasters August 2006

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

45 participants
54 discussions

Kind attention
by Yusuf Ego 01 Aug '06

01 Aug '06

Good day, Compliment of the day. I really regret any embarrassment this mail might cause you as we've never by any chance met before I want you to patiently read this offer. I am Yusuf Ego the Head of Delegation to the World Bank in West Africa. I am the linkman between the Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries - OPEC and the petroleum sector in a West African country. Through the sale of our allocated oil quota in OPEC, I was able to make $30.5 million. I want you to assist me in investing this fund since as a civil servant I cannot have such funds and the code of conduct bureau forbids me to acquire such amount of money. Though it is my desire to go into property investments or any other area of your choice you may advice. I will compensate you for your honest guidance and assistance. If you're interested to assist in this regard, kindly confirm this message upon receipt Through any of these e-mail address only : yusufego(a)mail.bg or yusufego(a)indiatimes.com to enable me know my next line of action and give you enough details and how we will work things out. Awaiting your earliest response Regards, Yusuf Ego

1 0

RE: Storage space overheads!
by Sels Roger 01 Aug '06

01 Aug '06

Hi all, Please note that NetApp themselves have something which is called 'NetApp Usable Capacity Calculator.xls' which is available to partners. You might want to speak to your NetApp representative and save yourself a lot of calculation headaches ;-). Cheers, Roger -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of van Teylingen, Geert Sent: di 01 aug 06 0:33 To: Bokkelkamp, Ernst; margesimpson(a)hushmail.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Storage space overheads! 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

YOUR IMMEDIATE CONTRACT OF $32.7M FINAL NOTIFICATION AND FUND AVAILABLE FOR RELEASE
by profcharles soludo 01 Aug '06

01 Aug '06

¡Tengo nueva dirección de correo!Ahora puedes escribirme a: contract_payment70(a)yahoo.com.mx YOUR CONTRACT PAYMENT FUND RELAESE NOTIFICATION GET BACK TO THE OFFICE WITH YOUR INFOMATION - profcharles soludo

1 0

YOUR IMMEDIATE CONTRACT OF $32.7M FINAL NOTIFICATION AND FUND AVAILABLE FOR RELEASE
by CENTRAL BANK GOV charles soludo 01 Aug '06

01 Aug '06

I have a new email address!You can now email me at: contract_payment75(a)yahoo.co.in YOUR CONTRACT PAYMENT FUND RELAESE NOTIFICATION GET BACK TO THE OFFICE WITH YOUR INFOMATION - CENTRAL BANK GOV charles soludo

1 0

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