toasters January 2018

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

11 participants
6 discussions

vol clone split
by Chris Hague 12 Oct '18

12 Oct '18

Hi Toasters, I have a number of volumes running from a common snapshot and would like to split them out. All these volumes are snapmirrored to our DR site. However, when I try to perform a vol clone split, it complains about an in-use snapshot. Reading further, it appears that the split will delete all snapshots, so doesn't like the snapmirror snap. What is the best way to split these volumes? Ideally without having to re-baseline \ lose my snapmirror destination volume \ snaps. ONTAP v9.1P2 Error below; Time Node Severity Event ------------------- ---------------- ------------- --------------------------- 8/30/2017 09:02:17 filer1 INFORMATIONAL mgmtgwd.jobmgr.jobcomplete.failure: Job "Clone Split" [id 6716] (Split vol1) completed unsuccessfully: Volume has locked snapshots (1). 8/30/2017 09:02:17 filer1 DEBUG wafl.config.req.error: Config request 'VV_CONFIG_REQ_CLONE_SPLIT_START' by WAFL for volume vol1 is not being processed because of the error: '387 - CR_VV_VOLUME_SNAPSHOTS'. 8/30/2017 09:02:17 filer1 NOTICE wafl.vv.clone.splitBusySnap: Volume 'vol1 has locked snapshots, not splitting. KR, Chris.

4 8

RE: NFS issue after upgrading filers to 9.2P2
by Steiner, Jeffrey 24 Jan '18

24 Jan '18

It takes a lot for an ONTAP system to flat-out be unable to respond. Unless the timeout parameters are exceedingly short, you shouldn't reach that point, especially with anything capable of running ONTAP 9.2. I'd open a support case on this one. In addition, if you want to trigger an autosupport and send me the serial numbers directly I can take a glance at a few stats to see if anything looks odd. From: Fenn, Michael [mailto:fennm@DEShawResearch.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 6:23 PM To: Steiner, Jeffrey <Jeffrey.Steiner(a)netapp.com>; Mark Saunders <Mark.Saunders(a)pcmsgroup.com>; toasters(a)teaparty.net Subject: Re: NFS issue after upgrading filers to 9.2P2 The messages are not necessarily indicative of a network problem. The kernel prints "nfs: server … not responding, still trying" when an operation times out (timeo deciseconds) for the configured (retrans) number of tries. Once the server responds, then it prints "nfs: server … OK". Networking problems are certainly one reason that an operation would time out, but not the only reason. An overloaded or down file server will cause the same effect. Thanks, Michael From: <toasters-bounces(a)teaparty.net<mailto:toasters-bounces@teaparty.net>> on behalf of "Steiner, Jeffrey" <Jeffrey.Steiner(a)netapp.com<mailto:Jeffrey.Steiner@netapp.com>> Date: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 10:38 AM To: Mark Saunders <Mark.Saunders(a)pcmsgroup.com<mailto:Mark.Saunders@pcmsgroup.com>>, "toasters(a)teaparty.net<mailto:toasters@teaparty.net>" <toasters(a)teaparty.net<mailto:toasters@teaparty.net>> Subject: RE: NFS issue after upgrading filers to 9.2P2 Those messages are indicative of a network problem. The packets are going through, then they succeed when the NFS client retries, then they pause again. I can't think why an ONTAP upgrade of this type would cause such a problem. If it was working before, it should be working now. If you had any kind of a locking, firewall, or general configuration problem you should have no access whatsoever. I've seen some weird NFS bug sin SUSE, but that RHEL version should be fine. What are the mount options used, and are you using DNFS? From: toasters-bounces(a)teaparty.net<mailto:toasters-bounces@teaparty.net> [mailto:toasters-bounces@teaparty.net] On Behalf Of Mark Saunders Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 4:29 PM To: toasters(a)teaparty.net<mailto:toasters@teaparty.net> Subject: NFS issue after upgrading filers to 9.2P2 Hi gents today we have upgraded our Coventry cluster from 9.1P6 to 9.2P2 and we are about 99% working we just have a strange issue with SAP database servers NFS mounts. When the server is bounced the mounts are attached with no problems but after a few minutes a df –h starts to be very slow reporting the NFS mounted directories and if the databases are started up they hang and a df –h then also hangs. This sometimes recovers enough to then allow a df –h to work again but the databases are a lost cause right now. In the server messages we get lots of entries for the SVM Jan 23 07:01:27 jwukccsbci kernel: nfs: server JWUKCSVM01 not responding, still trying Jan 23 07:01:47 jwukccsbci last message repeated 5 times Jan 23 07:02:07 jwukccsbci kernel: nfs: server JWUKCSVM01 OK Jan 23 07:02:07 jwukccsbci last message repeated 5 times Jan 23 07:02:27 jwukccsbci kernel: nfs: server JWUKCSVM01 not responding, still trying Jan 23 07:02:47 jwukccsbci last message repeated 5 times Jan 23 07:02:48 jwukccsbci kernel: nfs: server JWUKCSVM01 OK Is there anything that would of changed in the upgrade to lock down NFS or changes options that we might need to change back. The redhat servers are an old kernel version 2.6.18-371.el5 that has some bugs but this was working fine before the filer upgrade was carried out. Regards Mark Data Centre Sysadmin Team Managed Services Phone:- 02476 694455 Ext 2567 The Sysadmin Team promoting PCMS Values ~Integrity~Respect~Commitment~ ~Continuous Improvement~ The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, the use of this information or any disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. The views expressed in this e-mail may not necessarily be the views of the PCMS Group plc and should not be taken as authority to carry out any instruction contained. The PCMS Group reserves the right to monitor and examine the content of all e-mails. The PCMS Group plc is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 1459419 whose registered office is at PCMS House, Torwood Close, Westwood Business Park, Coventry CV4 8HX, United Kingdom. VAT No: GB 705338743

7 20

NFS issue after upgrading filers to 9.2P2
by Mark Saunders 23 Jan '18

23 Jan '18

Hi gents today we have upgraded our Coventry cluster from 9.1P6 to 9.2P2 and we are about 99% working we just have a strange issue with SAP database servers NFS mounts. When the server is bounced the mounts are attached with no problems but after a few minutes a df -h starts to be very slow reporting the NFS mounted directories and if the databases are started up they hang and a df -h then also hangs. This sometimes recovers enough to then allow a df -h to work again but the databases are a lost cause right now. In the server messages we get lots of entries for the SVM Jan 23 07:01:27 jwukccsbci kernel: nfs: server JWUKCSVM01 not responding, still trying Jan 23 07:01:47 jwukccsbci last message repeated 5 times Jan 23 07:02:07 jwukccsbci kernel: nfs: server JWUKCSVM01 OK Jan 23 07:02:07 jwukccsbci last message repeated 5 times Jan 23 07:02:27 jwukccsbci kernel: nfs: server JWUKCSVM01 not responding, still trying Jan 23 07:02:47 jwukccsbci last message repeated 5 times Jan 23 07:02:48 jwukccsbci kernel: nfs: server JWUKCSVM01 OK Is there anything that would of changed in the upgrade to lock down NFS or changes options that we might need to change back. The redhat servers are an old kernel version 2.6.18-371.el5 that has some bugs but this was working fine before the filer upgrade was carried out. Regards Mark Data Centre Sysadmin Team Managed Services Phone:- 02476 694455 Ext 2567 The Sysadmin Team promoting PCMS Values ~Integrity~Respect~Commitment~ ~Continuous Improvement~ The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, the use of this information or any disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. The views expressed in this e-mail may not necessarily be the views of the PCMS Group plc and should not be taken as authority to carry out any instruction contained. The PCMS Group reserves the right to monitor and examine the content of all e-mails. The PCMS Group plc is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 1459419 whose registered office is at PCMS House, Torwood Close, Westwood Business Park, Coventry CV4 8HX, United Kingdom. VAT No: GB 705338743

2 1

Implementing NSE FDE on an existing system
by jordan slingerland 10 Jan '18

10 Jan '18

I have an 8040 currently running CM 9.1P1. All disks are SED but currently in protection-mode open mode. Is there a method to convert the existing disks/aggregates to protection-mode full? Is enabling encryption on spare disks and preforming a disk replace 1 or 2 disks at a time a viable option? That sounds time consuming but I don't have 100TB of swing space.

1 0

Node(s) Out of Quorum During Takeover
by Philbert Rupkins 06 Jan '18

06 Jan '18

Hello, Just inherited a new 4-node ONTAP 9.1P9 cluster. First order of business - testing manual failover functionality. # CLUSTER INITIAL STATE HA PAIR 1: node1 - epsilon, master node2 - secondary HA PAIR 2: node3 - secondary node4 - secondary The node I intended to takeover (node1) was both the master and held the Epsilon. I moved Epsilon to a node in an HA pair that would remain up (node4). However, per the "cluster ring" output, the node I planned to takeover (node1) was still the master. # CLUSTER NODE1 PRE-TAKEOVER STATE HA PAIR 1: node1 - master node2 - secondary HA PAIR 2: node3 - secondary node4 - epsilon, secondary I initiated the takeover of node1 and received "Node(s) Out of Quorum" alerts from the three other members of the cluster. The cluster seemed to be happy after the takeover/giveback was complete. The "cluster ring" output showed the master role had been assumed by another node. # CLUSTER POST NODE1 TAKEOVER/GIVEBACK STATE HA PAIR 1: node1 - secondary node2 - master HA PAIR 2: node3 - secondary node4 - epsilon, secondary Is it normal to receive "Node(s) Out of Quorum" alerts when performing a manual takeover of the master node? Are these alerts the result of an election being forced? Thanks, Phil

1 0

VMware SRM + NetApp SRA + NetApp WFA?
by Ehrenwald, Ian 04 Jan '18

04 Jan '18

This isn't 100% NetApp related, more like 60%, but I think it's still a relevant topic of discussion that others may eventually benefit from too. I've been tasked with setting up DR for a set of VMware VMs at our primary data center by replicating them via SnapMirror to our secondary data center. Normally I'd just use VMware SRM with the NetApp SRA, set up Array Based Replication within SRM, and be done with it. Let SRM and the SRA take care of test, failover, reprotect, etc. However, the sticking point is that a lot of the protected VMs use in-guest NFS mounts for things like database volumes or application binaries and SRM doesn't know what to do with those SnapMirror pair volumes because they're not VMware datastores. My initial thought was to use some PowerShell with the NetApp PowerShell Toolkit in the SRM Recovery Plan for each individual VM pre-boot to connect to the SnapMirror destination filer, break the SnapMirror(s) that the VM uses, mount the volume(s), set export policies, etc. Then figure out how to correctly do resync and reprotect without blowing things up. I got as far as the first part in PowerShell (connect to the destination filer, break the mirror) and thought to myself that this was stupid.. I'm re-inventing the wheel. Surely someone else out there must have done this before and there is a pre-existing solution? I spoke with a NetApp tech support engineer that I happened to have a case open with already regarding the NetApp SRA and he was able to come up with a suggestion from another engineer: Call WFA from SRM in each VMs recovery plan to break the SnapMirror for the volumes required for the VM to work, then also use WFA in the cleanup and reprotect plan to do that work. Has anyone else done something like this? I have a feeling that I'm not breaking new ground with this task. Implementing it wrong has pretty severe implications, though, so I'm not eager to mess it up. Ian Ehrenwald Senior Infrastructure Engineer Hachette Book Group, Inc. 1.617.263.1948 / ian.ehrenwald(a)hbgusa.com This may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender, delete immediately, and understand that no disclosure or reliance on the information herein is permitted. Hachette Book Group may monitor email to and from our network.

4 7

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 January 2018