toasters October 2012

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

35 participants
21 discussions

IBM N Series and NetApp FAS -- Mixing Parts
by Ray Van Dolson 18 Oct '12

18 Oct '12

First of all -- I don't want to do this. :) But am curious -- can you mix parts (disks, shelves, etc) between IBM's N-Series and a FAS? e.g. use a NetApp disk in an N-Series or vice versa? I'm sure neither IBM nor NetApp would support this, but am curious if it would work. Ray

1 0

Fm 7.3.x to 8.1.1-what's about a roll back action?
by Milazzo Giacomo 17 Oct '12

17 Oct '12

Hi all, I'm quite sure that upgrade fm 7.3.x to 8.1.1 is a (quite) sure action to perform and this is not my first upgrade... But what's about if something fail? Is there a "revert to"? Thanks

2 1

RE: 8.1.1 CIFS and Snow Leopard Slowness?
by Randy Rue 17 Oct '12

17 Oct '12

For a hoot I tried using software update to load the 8.1.1P5 tgz file from the NOW download page. Loaded without errors but after a reboot my version hadn't changed. Worth a try. So how are we supposed to test an upgrade? -----Original Message----- From: Randy Rue [mailto:rrue@fhcrc.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 9:14 AM To: 'toasters(a)teaparty.net' Subject: RE: 8.1.1 CIFS and Snow Leopard Slowness? Looks like there's no simulator later than 8.1.1 available yet. Is there any way to upgrade a simulator to 8.1.1P1? On that subject, do they have any way yet to upgrade a simulator at all or do we still just scrap the old one and build a new one? -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Cleverley [mailto:jeff.cleverley@avagotech.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:56 PM To: Randy Rue Subject: Re: 8.1.1 CIFS and Snow Leopard Slowness? Randy, I know there was at least one BURT for Mac behavior, one in particular that could hang a filer. I think that may have been NFS though. I was looking at the 8.1.1P1 release yesterday. There were several CIFS related fixes in it. We do virtually no CIFS so I just skimmed over them. You may check it out and see if anything was fixed or applies. Jeff On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Randy Rue <rrue(a)fhcrc.org> wrote: > Hello All, > > We're gearing up to upgrade our v3170 pair from 7.3.5P5 to 8.1.1 at > the end of this month. > > We're testing some things against a 8.1.1 simulator and have had > reports of CIFS timeouts when running tests from a Mac OS X 10.6 (Snow > Leopard) client. > > Performance on the simulator is obviously abysmal when we're running a > VMware appliance on a Windows desktop using a single SATA disk, but > this appears to be more of a protocol timeout issue. The user gets a > spinning wheel for several minutes and only in Snow Leopard. > > Anyone know of any issues with 8.1.1 CIFS and Mac? We had heard some > anecdotal accounts of Office issues but we're tested for those. > > Hope to hear from you, > > Randy > > _______________________________________________ > Toasters mailing list > Toasters(a)teaparty.net > http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters -- Jeff Cleverley Unix Systems Administrator 4380 Ziegler Road Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 970-288-4611

1 0

RE: 8.1.1 CIFS and Snow Leopard Slowness?
by Randy Rue 17 Oct '12

17 Oct '12

Looks like there's no simulator later than 8.1.1 available yet. Is there any way to upgrade a simulator to 8.1.1P1? On that subject, do they have any way yet to upgrade a simulator at all or do we still just scrap the old one and build a new one? -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Cleverley [mailto:jeff.cleverley@avagotech.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:56 PM To: Randy Rue Subject: Re: 8.1.1 CIFS and Snow Leopard Slowness? Randy, I know there was at least one BURT for Mac behavior, one in particular that could hang a filer. I think that may have been NFS though. I was looking at the 8.1.1P1 release yesterday. There were several CIFS related fixes in it. We do virtually no CIFS so I just skimmed over them. You may check it out and see if anything was fixed or applies. Jeff On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Randy Rue <rrue(a)fhcrc.org> wrote: > Hello All, > > We're gearing up to upgrade our v3170 pair from 7.3.5P5 to 8.1.1 at > the end of this month. > > We're testing some things against a 8.1.1 simulator and have had > reports of CIFS timeouts when running tests from a Mac OS X 10.6 (Snow > Leopard) client. > > Performance on the simulator is obviously abysmal when we're running a > VMware appliance on a Windows desktop using a single SATA disk, but > this appears to be more of a protocol timeout issue. The user gets a > spinning wheel for several minutes and only in Snow Leopard. > > Anyone know of any issues with 8.1.1 CIFS and Mac? We had heard some > anecdotal accounts of Office issues but we're tested for those. > > Hope to hear from you, > > Randy > > _______________________________________________ > Toasters mailing list > Toasters(a)teaparty.net > http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters -- Jeff Cleverley Unix Systems Administrator 4380 Ziegler Road Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 970-288-4611

1 0

8.1.1 CIFS and Snow Leopard Slowness?
by Randy Rue 16 Oct '12

16 Oct '12

Hello All, We're gearing up to upgrade our v3170 pair from 7.3.5P5 to 8.1.1 at the end of this month. We're testing some things against a 8.1.1 simulator and have had reports of CIFS timeouts when running tests from a Mac OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard) client. Performance on the simulator is obviously abysmal when we're running a VMware appliance on a Windows desktop using a single SATA disk, but this appears to be more of a protocol timeout issue. The user gets a spinning wheel for several minutes and only in Snow Leopard. Anyone know of any issues with 8.1.1 CIFS and Mac? We had heard some anecdotal accounts of Office issues but we're tested for those. Hope to hear from you, Randy

1 0

100% CPU utilization on "bored" IBM N6240E21 (FAS3240C)
by Ray Van Dolson 16 Oct '12

16 Oct '12

Hello all; A week or so ago, our N6240E21 (FAS3240C) started reporting 100% CPU utilization. Graphs from our monitoring system show the typical random peaks and valleys averaging around 20-30% utilization, then suddenly a plateau at 100% lasting for an entire week (and still ongoing). The weird thing is -- the filer really *isn't* that busy: red-str-napc1-p2> sysstat -x -c 10 1 CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Total Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache Cache CP CP Disk OTHER FCP iSCSI FCP kB/s iSCSI kB/s in out read write read write age hit time ty util in out in out 100% 1489 530 0 2019 13174 10363 14636 11588 0 0 4s 84% 20% : 21% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 2001 636 0 2637 29590 20895 25112 14140 0 0 4s 77% 15% Hn 16% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 1140 608 0 1748 11829 6349 14396 58396 0 0 4s 95% 100% :f 22% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99% 3703 404 0 4107 38005 108512 164912 23204 0 0 4s 65% 46% : 60% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 1429 195 0 1627 15986 10483 23296 53132 0 0 3s 93% 37% Hn 25% 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 1440 35 0 1475 32821 11302 16796 35488 0 0 3s 91% 68% : 20% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 1461 0 0 1461 10467 8030 7912 32 0 0 3s 75% 0% - 23% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 1845 280 0 2125 28710 17652 19624 12636 0 0 3s 83% 17% Hn 24% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 2070 191 0 2261 6911 20148 23964 80048 0 0 3s 94% 66% : 19% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 1477 153 0 1633 29005 8196 8536 24 0 0 3s 76% 0% - 12% 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 red-str-napc1-p2*> sysstat -m -c 10 1 ANY AVG CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3 47% 65% 85% 70% 74% 30% 74% 76% 87% 78% 83% 56% 47% 65% 85% 70% 75% 31% 59% 68% 84% 71% 76% 41% 49% 66% 85% 72% 76% 32% 50% 68% 83% 77% 79% 33% 56% 70% 87% 76% 79% 37% 47% 66% 85% 72% 76% 29% 29% 62% 86% 70% 75% 16% 36% 64% 86% 72% 76% 23% red-str-napc1-p2*> priv set advanced red-str-napc1-p2*> ps -c 5 Process statistics over 1218393.619 seconds... ID State Domain %CPU StackUsed %StackUsed Name 5 RR i 76% 1016 24% idle_thread0 6 RR i 76% 904 22% idle_thread1 7 RR i 75% 904 22% idle_thread2 8 RR i 64% 1024 25% idle_thread3 89 BG 1 5% 4440 6% NwkThd_01 108 RR 2 7% 1944 5% 10GbE/e1b 294 BR r 12% 4104 25% raidio_thread 1539 BR w 6% 5736 17% wafl_exempt_0 1540 BR w 6% 5736 17% wafl_exempt_1 1541 BR w 6% 5736 17% wafl_exempt_2 1544 BR k 9% 13720 41% wafl_lopri (A few other processes are >0%, but these are the most notable). We are running on ONTAP 8.0.2P3 (7-mode) and the filer is primarily doing NFS for VMware datastores with a bit of CIFS sharing mixed in. We have opened a support case with IBM, but so far they are telling us that this may be "normal". They're still helping us investigate, so we may yet get something from that route, but wanted to throw this out here because this certainly doesn't seem normal. I'm guessing a controller reboot would solve the problem, but would like to see if there is an alternative or an explanation first. This thread[1] seems similar, but there wasn't really a resolution. Thanks, Ray [1] https://communities.netapp.com/thread/14321

2 2

CMDB for storage?
by Ray Van Dolson 12 Oct '12

12 Oct '12

Hi all; For those of you who track your SAN/NAS devices (including your NetApps) in a CMDB, I'm interestd in how you lay out your CI's. Do you have a CI for a "cluster" (two controllers), individual CI's for controllers themselves and additional CI's for shelves and disks with relationships mapped between? Our CMDB is a bit on the simplistic side, so am trying to figure out where folks have cut corners from the ideal. I'd love to track things like shares as well so we can maintain contact information and relationships with hardware for outage notifications. Mainly curious how others are handling this, and also what CMDB tools you use. Thanks, Ray

1 0

block zeroing
by Peter D. Gray 10 Oct '12

10 Oct '12

I have a question. A month or so back we had massive performance problems on our 3170A and disks were 100% for no apparent reason (SATA drives). Netapp eventually tracked down the problem to snapshot deletion. It seems that blocks are zeroed as they are returned to the aggregate. It was taking longer than 60 mins to delete the hourly snapshots. So, my questions are: 1) has anybody else seen this problem and been forced to avoid hourly snaps? 2) is there any way to disable the zeroing of freed blocks? 3) has anybody heard of a plan for a fix which would allow us to use hourly snaps again? It seems bizarre that a useful feature, which we have used for a long time, has become unusable. Basically, it appears I/O is doubled becuase the blocks are written when used, then written when freed. Regards, pdg

4 3

WAFL external cache I/O write error
by Kernel Panic 07 Oct '12

07 Oct '12

Good day. Got that message in log: Sun Oct 7 02:56:07 MSK [EMC2-a:extCache.io.writeError:error]: WAFL external cache I/O write error: FAL error: fal_response_get_status() failed , code 1. Is this fatal? We all die?

3 2

simulator 8.1.1 VMware appliance?
by Randy Rue 04 Oct '12

04 Oct '12

I'm a little torqued that NetApp has opted to change from a tarball that installs on a linux platform to a virtual appliance approach. In this case I've trying to test for an upgrade from 7.3.5 to 8.1.1 and even if the upgrade proces is different for a simulator I'd like to be able to upgrade the simulator in place to confirm that iSCSI clients can connect to existing LUNs. I did try to upgrade the simulator using the same packages the physical filer will use (v3170 HA pair) with no luck. Tried both packages from the NA download site and on "software update <file> -r" both complain about the wrong CPU architecture and bail out. So now I've moved on to bringing up an 8.1.1 simulator and maybe using ndmpcopy or snapmirror to migrate those LUNs. But still having trouble. The tarball I downloaded for the 8.1.1 VM doesn't have any VMX file in it, just a pair of VMDKs? VWware player won't let me create a new VM and then reassign a different disk? We do run vSphere here but the old simulator required the NICs to run in promiscuous mode, is that still the case? If so, I'm not inclined to put the sim on our production VM farm as it would mean tweaking production network interfaces. Anyone had any luck with the 8.x VMware appliance simulator and VMware Player?

4 3

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 October 2012