toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13534 discussions

RE: NT + Unix access rights
by mark.muhlestein＠netapp.com 01 Jun '00

01 Jun '00

I see your problem: WEBMAILER\Administrator is not a member of BUILTIN\Administrators on the filer. You should add "WEBMAILER\Domain Admins" as a member of BUILTIN\Administrators on the filer using User Manager for Domains. By default, only the "Domain Admins" group from the domain the filer is installed into is placed as a member of the filer's BUILTIN\Administrators group. After fixing this, you're going to want to do a "wcc -x" to force a remapping. Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 4:20 PM > To: Muhlestein, Mark > Cc: mlelstv(a)xlink.net > Subject: Re: NT + Unix access rights > > > On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 04:02:42PM -0700, > mark.muhlestein(a)netapp.com wrote: > > Hi, > > > This is a mixed qtree, right? Can you send the output of > "wcc -dvv" after > > attempting to do the "chown"? The mapped user doing the > "chown" has to be a > > member of builtin\administrators. > > here is the relevant part: > > root (UID 0) from 123.45.67.89 => WEBMAILER\Administrator > *************** > UNIX uid = 0 > > NT membership > WEBMAILER\Administrator > WEBMAILER\Domain Users > WEBMAILER\Domain Admins > User is also a member of Everyone, Network Users, > Authenticated Users > *************** > > Michael van Elst > > > > > Mark > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 2:56 PM > > > To: Muhlestein, Mark > > > Cc: mlelstv(a)xlink.net; toasters(a)mathworks.com > > > Subject: Re: NT + Unix access rights > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 01:34:03PM -0700, > > > mark.muhlestein(a)netapp.com wrote: > > > > > Apparently the file uses the NT security model in the > mixed qtree > > > > > and the file owner has locked himself and others out. > > > > > > > > > > If this is the case, you should be able to take > ownership from NT. > > > > > > This was unsuccessful so far. > > > > > > > > > > There was a > > > > bug with take ownership (#21325), which is fixed in 5.3.5R2. > > > > > > I have to check with other people if upgrading the > current production > > > system to, what I was told is an early-access release, is > an option. > > > > > > > > > > You should also be > > > > able to do a "chmod" or "chown" from NFS root and get > > > control of the file. > > > > > > This is not possible. Both fail with the error "Not owner". > > > > > > > > > > If > > > > that fails, you should do the rc_toggle_basic command > > > "lock_dump -f" and see if > > > > your file is locked. > > > > > > The files are not locked according to lock_dump -f. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 > > > 721 9652 330 > > > Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 > > > 721 9652 349 > > > Emmy-Noether-Strasse 9 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ > > D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: > > hostmaster(a)xlink.net > > [ KPNQwest Germany GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe > > ] > > [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Koen > > Bertoen ] > > -- i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 721 9652 330 Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 721 9652 349 Emmy-Noether-Strasse 9 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: hostmaster(a)xlink.net [ KPNQwest Germany GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe ] [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Koen Bertoen ]

2 1

Ait2 Robots supported?
by Brian Hostetter 01 Jun '00

01 Jun '00

Has anyone hooked up an AIT2 drive to their filers? I had two 760's shipped out today and am going to need a nice large tape system to back them up. I plan on using the time manager ndmp solution for backups and would like to use a Qualstar 4400 series tape library. Anyone have any luck with them or can anyone suggest a 4-8 tape DLT system? --Brian

4 3

Looking for ST15150W
by Stephen C. Woods 01 Jun '00

01 Jun '00

Does anyone here have some 4 GB Wide (ST15150W) drives that are: (1) netapp qualified and (2) you are interested in selling? We have a partially populated shelf that we'd like to fill or at least add to. <scw> ----- Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASnet; 2567 Boelter hall; LA CA 90095; (310)-825-8614 Finger for public key scw(a)cirrus.seas.ucla.edu,Internet mail:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU

1 0

Raid scrubbing overloading a 540
by Stephen C. Woods 01 Jun '00

01 Jun '00

We have discovered an interesting feature on our toasters, and after some consideration have come to the conclusion that it is a misfeature. As many of you are aware the raid.reconstruct_speed number determines how much CPU to use in raid reconstruction. This directly controls how long it takes to reconstruct a missing disk. If you are concerned about double disk failure, you set this number higher. Unfortunately this number also controls how much CPU is to be used in raid scrubbing, to make things worse if you have multiple raid volumes they seem to be scrubbed in parallel not sequentially. These are the numbers that we obtained, 540 2 raid groups 0 (20X4GB Wide) 1 (12 X 4GB Narrow) no scrubbing CPU = 6% raid.reconstruct_speed =1 CPU = 11-12% raid.reconstruct_speed =2 CPU = 29-33% raid.reconstruct_speed =3 CPU = 59-65% With raid.reconstruct_speed = 8 the filler didn't seem to be responding to nfs requests, which is how discovered this. Now clearly this affects lower end machines (540) more than faster machines. But since scrubbing seems to be very CPU bound it would seem to us that almost any machine could be brought to its knees by this condition. Our question is this: Would it be reasonable to ask Netapp for one or both of the following: (1) Separate raid reconstruct speed from raid scrub speed. (2) Add an option to force raid scrubbing to be sequential. perhaps raid.scrub_parallel == off Clearly for those concerned about dual disk failures a high raid.reconstruct_speed is important. Equally clearly moderatly high raid.reconstruct_speed can bring a 540 to its knees with 2 Raid groups. Spliting the speeds or, running raid scrubbing sequentially might avoid this. ----- Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASnet; 2567 Boelter hall; LA CA 90095; (310)-825-8614 Finger for public key scw(a)cirrus.seas.ucla.edu,Internet mail:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU

1 0

RE: Ait2 Robots supported?
by Parker, Michael 31 May '00

31 May '00

I have been researching AIT2. FYI please look at http://www.spectralogic.com/NetApp/ which describes a SAN solution for multiple filer environments. Michael Parker Director Information Services Rosetta Inpharmatics 12040 115th Ave NE Kirkland, WA 98034 425-823-7333 mparker(a)rii.com -----Original Message----- From: Marcus Kamenzin [mailto:kamenzin@netapp.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 9:41 AM To: Brian Hostetter Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Ait2 Robots supported? Brian, I made some small test with AIT2 last week and it works great (up to 13,5MB/sec)?? Marcus Brian Hostetter wrote: > Has anyone hooked up an AIT2 drive to their filers? I had two 760's shipped out today and am going to need a nice large tape system to back them up. I plan on using the time manager ndmp solution for backups and would like to use a Qualstar 4400 series tape library. Anyone have any luck with them or can anyone suggest a 4-8 tape DLT system? > > --Brian

1 0

RE: NT + Unix access rights
by mark.muhlestein＠netapp.com 31 May '00

31 May '00

> Apparently the file uses the NT security model in the mixed qtree > and the file owner has locked himself and others out. If this is the case, you should be able to take ownership from NT. There was a bug with take ownership (#21325), which is fixed in 5.3.5R2. You should also be able to do a "chmod" or "chown" from NFS root and get control of the file. If that fails, you should do the rc_toggle_basic command "lock_dump -f" and see if your file is locked. These steps and others are all spelled out in the troubleshooter guide referred to earlier in this discussion. Let us know if you still can't solve this problem. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] > Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 5:20 PM > To: Bruce Sterling Woodcock > Cc: Michael van Elst; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: NT + Unix access rights > > > On Mon, May 29, 2000 at 05:05:39PM -0700, Bruce Sterling > Woodcock wrote: > > > Is the mapping only for access, or only for ownership? > > > > I understand that if root creates a file, and you look at > it from NT, > > it will be owned by Administrator (with the mapping given above). > > But when Administrator tries to access it, he'll be mapped to > > ntadmin, which doesn't have access?? > > This is correct. > > But in this case an ordinary NT user (u12345) has created a file and > neither this user nor the NT administrator seems to have any > access rights. > > Unfortunately this is also true for the UNIX side. Neither root > nor the UNIX user to which u12345 is mapped (also called u12345 with > a uid of 12345) has access to the file despite the fact that it shows > up as > > -rwx------ 1 12345 1101 2215 May 8 17:48 structure.cnf > > in a listing. > > Apparently the file uses the NT security model in the mixed qtree > and the file owner has locked himself and others out. > > > -- > i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 > 721 9652 330 > Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 > 721 9652 349 > Emmy-Noether-Strasse 9 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ > D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: > hostmaster(a)xlink.net > [ KPNQwest Germany GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe > ] > [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Koen > Bertoen ] >

2 1

RE: F740 and subnet problems
by Dennis.Haag＠netapp.com 31 May '00

31 May '00

Check your routing tables with 'netstat -rn' is there a route to the other subnet? Is there a default route? Can you ping the router? Does ifconfig show the expected netmask? -----Original Message----- From: Gregory T Rotunda [mailto:grotunda@brk.photronics.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 5:39 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: F740 and subnet problems what are you IP ranges? how many subnets are there? Double check your subnet mask. We had the same problem and it turned out to be the mask was incorrectly set on the filer. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]On Behalf Of Uros Lampret Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 1:58 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: F740 and subnet problems Hi! I'm relatively new to this business and I have some problems. I recently installed F740 and everything works joust great. BUT I have some access problems. Filer is installed in subnet 10.0.1.XXX and everybody can see it and use it. But from subnet 10.0.2.XXX or 10.0.10.XXX the filer is not accessible. If I PING form Filer someone to 10.0.10.XXX everything is OK and also if I PING Filer from 10.0.10.XXX - OK. We use CIFS and this is single Domain. Any suggestions? Uros Lampret Our Space d.o.o. Malnarjeva 47 1000 Ljubljana EU - Slovenia

1 0

RE: Samba Vs CIFFS
by John.Davis＠netapp.com 31 May '00

31 May '00

Thank You, Todd..I much prefer customer testimonials to Netapp folk chiming in but I've seen lots of Enterprises disappointed that TAS and Samba don't scale out into the Enterprise..thanks again for the kind words. -----Original Message----- From: Todd C. Merrill [mailto:tmerrill@mathworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 9:41 AM To: Davis, John Cc: thomas(a)act.sps.mot.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Samba Vs CIFFS On Sat, 27 May 2000 John.Davis(a)netapp.com wrote: > Netapp glues the MS smb(cifs) code into our microkernel at the > protocol level; Samba and other bolt-ons sit above kernel > space as any other user app would and is subject to the > context switching and shufflings that go on in a general purpose > server; this (primarily) is why the Netapp CIFS solution both scales > well and performs well as we add hundreds of users(see our Netbench > results, for example); this is why the solution is not "free" Way back when, about 2-3 years ago, I came into an environment that had Syntax TAS servers doing our CIFS services. It's not free like SaMBa, and SaMBa was a bit faster than TAS, but comparable. Regardless, I had a dozen or so Sun Ultra2 boxes running as many different CIFS servers, which could each support one development build, one NFS development build, and one CIFS development build. It was a pain to keep each of these suckers up to date and running. The Sun server could barely keep up with one NFS and one CIFS client. One upgrade choice was an 8 - 16 processor Sun box, to keep up with running all those TAS or SaMBa servers and NFS. I converted the whole thing over to a single 400 MHz 21164A processor F740 filer. Lock, stock and barrel. And, today, I'm still sane. We needed consolidation and horsepower. WAFL and snapshots and the other features mentioned were just icing on the cake. The microkernel-level CIFS implementation is just so much *faster* than SaMBa, TAS, or anyone else's user-level implementation. A lot of companies will tell you they have NFS and CIFS multi-protocol file sharing. But, if you ask them if they do it "natively," there are only three players we found: NetApp, EMC, and Auspex. My biggest problems today are adding more disk to support even more development sandboxes, and worrying about now managing a bank of filers. "An 800, an 800, my kingdom for an 800-series filer!" Until next time... The Mathworks, Inc. 508-647-7000 x7792 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick, MA 01760-2098 508-647-7001 FAX tmerrill(a)mathworks.com http://www.mathworks.com ---

1 0

RE: Samba Vs CIFFS
by John.Davis＠netapp.com 31 May '00

31 May '00

Many enterprises have tried employing "free" software like Samba and even some vendors like SGI have tried to incorporate it into a "product"; hopefully some of these folks on this list will respond to your request but from working with "some" of these enterprises I can tell you from experience that Samba neither "scales" in the enterprise nor does it perform beyond about 75 clients doing useful work in a medium to large domain structure..it also is not an easy beast to administer( as explained to me be by several admins); it is "free" , however... Netapp glues the MS smb(cifs) code into our microkernel at the protocol level; Samba and other bolt-ons sit above kernel space as any other user app would and is subject to the context switching and shufflings that go on in a general purpose server; this (primarily) is why the Netapp CIFS solution both scales well and performs well as we add hundreds of users(see our Netbench results, for example); this is why the solution is not "free" -----Original Message----- From: Philip Thomas [mailto:thomas@act.sps.mot.com] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 11:03 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Samba Vs CIFFS Hi, Why should some one pay good money to buy CIFFS license from NetApp when apparently the similar functionality is available "free", Samba? I am hoping folks out there, with experience in both products would be willing to share their knowledge as much their internal policy allows. I am specifically looking for pros and cons with respect to (a) performance (what ever than means) (b) scalibility (500+ users) (c) reliability (d) functionality (e) coexistence with Windows Terminal Server (f) 'cost' (not just dollars) (g) administration (h) interaction or lack of it with commercial apps ...any thing else ?? Perhaps this list is biased to CIFFS, by definition of the mailing list. But I have seen folks willing to speak out in the past. [BTW, please don't shoot the messenger:-)] Thanks. Philip Thomas Motorola - DDL-ITG, M/S M360 2200 W. Broadway Rd Mesa, AZ 85202 rxjs80(a)email.sps.mot.com (480) 655-3678 (480) 655-3881 (fax)

2 1

RE: F740 and subnet problems
by Adam.Fox＠netapp.com 31 May '00

31 May '00

If ICMP (ping) traffic can cross subnets, but CIFS traffic can't, I might suspect an access list on a router between those subnets is blocking TCP traffic (or specific TCP ports). You may want to check with your networking folks to make sure that they don't have access lists that are blocking your traffic. Also check your subnet mask and your default gateways to make sure they are working as well. As a last resort, you could try to run a packet trace on the network to see if packets are reaching the filer. Hope this helps. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Uros Lampret [mailto:uros.lampret@ourspace.si] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 1:58 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: F740 and subnet problems Hi! I'm relatively new to this business and I have some problems. I recently installed F740 and everything works joust great. BUT I have some access problems. Filer is installed in subnet 10.0.1.XXX and everybody can see it and use it. But from subnet 10.0.2.XXX or 10.0.10.XXX the filer is not accessible. If I PING form Filer someone to 10.0.10.XXX everything is OK and also if I PING Filer from 10.0.10.XXX - OK. We use CIFS and this is single Domain. Any suggestions? Uros Lampret Our Space d.o.o. Malnarjeva 47 1000 Ljubljana EU - Slovenia

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

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