toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13534 discussions

Re: Console server?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 05 Feb '99

05 Feb '99

On 02/03/99 20:54:15 you wrote: >I know someone was able to get conserver to work on a Sun (Solaris) >and using a portmaster for the physical connections. I do know he had >to work on it for quite a while to get it work... > >We use Portmasters for console access. It's a pretty basic setup and >the things just plain work... can't really argue against >reliability... :) Thanks, Craig. I had a lot of fun setting it up. :) And actually, I didn't even do the method without the port number, although I always wanted to go back and change that once I figured out how to do it on the Portmaster. That being said, if you don't like Livingston, er, Lucent, you can probably get Xylogics, er, Bay Networks, to work just as well. And as a former Purdue student, I have nothing against conserver at all, but I've yet to see it in full implementation across an entire machine room to know if it's truly worth the effort or not. Bruce

2 1

FreeBSD3.0 compatible with Packet Engines Gigabit?
by Peter Martinez 05 Feb '99

05 Feb '99

I have a customer who recently upgraded from FreeBSD2.8 to FreeBSD3.0 and they can't seem to get their PacketEngines gigabit card to work. The card worked flawlessly with FreeBSD2.8. Is there anyone out there running this type of configuration? The customer is still waiting to hear back from their vendor. \ / ____ -- 0 --_IMMI_ ~~ " ' / \_/_I==I__\_ ~ ~ ' _/___I==I____\_ 8888888888888888888 _/_____I==I _____\ 888\8888\8888/8888888 /______ I==I _____0o< 88II88888II88888II88 Peter Martinez Customer Support Network Appliance

1 0

Re: watchdog resets
by Steven D'Aurora 05 Feb '99

05 Feb '99

We had similar problems on our F630s. Turns out this was due to the system backplane stack height. The backplane standoffs were about 3mm too short! Since we have always been running 5.x.x of some flavor I'm not sure if it's OS related or not. Check to see if the card edges are fully seated in the backplane. The watchdog resets were a problem only after I had reseated all cards and the system was up for a couple of days/weeks (it did vary that much). Flex in the chassis was enough to dislodge the environment card that has the stupid watchdog cable on it. One system was bad enough the CPU board had "intermittent" connection to the rest of the system. The frustrating part was that Adaptec was the only site in this area to have this problem :( And it took me about 5 weeks to find it wasn't bad hardware. I went to a local hardware store and picked up some washers to pick up the backplane. A real pain to install but fixed the problems. After NetApp had found out about this manufacturing problem, all our F630 chassis were replaced with newer rev units that fix the stack height. Good luck! ____________________________________________________ Steve D'Aurora ESN - Engineering Systems and Network Administrator Adaptec Milpitas, CA, USA phone: 408 957 2351 fax: 408 957 4895 mailto: nevets(a)eng.adaptec.com ____________________________________________________ > Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 09:12:59 -0600 > From: John Tatar <tatar(a)dis.anl.gov> > X-Accept-Language: en > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: watchdog resets > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > We have had a particularly annoying problem with our 540 filer over the > last several months. We keep getting watchdog resets. As a matter of > fact we just got another as I was composing this message. We get an > average of one every other day. > > We have checked the cables, reseated cards, replaced cards, replaced the > head. I am going to start replacing the power supplies on the shelves > tonight. If that doesn't work, we'll replace the SCSI cables between > the shelves and the head. > > This problem started after we upgraded the firmware and OS to 1.11a and > 5.0.2R3 respectively. Has anyone else experienced this problem? How was > the problem resolved? > > TIA > > -- > =================================================================== > John J. Tatar > Systems & Network Engineering Section > Advanced Computer Applications Group > Decision & Information Sciences Division > Argonne National Laboratory > > mailto:tatar@dis.anl.gov or john(a)tatar.com > Office: 630-252-3242 > Fax: 630-252-5128 > Pager: 630-266-1063 > ===================================================================

1 0

watchdog resets
by John Tatar 05 Feb '99

05 Feb '99

We have had a particularly annoying problem with our 540 filer over the last several months. We keep getting watchdog resets. As a matter of fact we just got another as I was composing this message. We get an average of one every other day. We have checked the cables, reseated cards, replaced cards, replaced the head. I am going to start replacing the power supplies on the shelves tonight. If that doesn't work, we'll replace the SCSI cables between the shelves and the head. This problem started after we upgraded the firmware and OS to 1.11a and 5.0.2R3 respectively. Has anyone else experienced this problem? How was the problem resolved? TIA -- =================================================================== John J. Tatar Systems & Network Engineering Section Advanced Computer Applications Group Decision & Information Sciences Division Argonne National Laboratory mailto:tatar@dis.anl.gov or john(a)tatar.com Office: 630-252-3242 Fax: 630-252-5128 Pager: 630-266-1063 ===================================================================

1 0

NetApp CPU upgrade
by Dane Jasper 05 Feb '99

05 Feb '99

Has anyone considered upgrading the CPU on their NetApp product? It's a closed product, so NetApp won't talk about it, but it seems to me that the Pentium 90 in my F230 (66mhz external speed, 90mhz core?) could be replaced with a Pentium 133 with the same 66mhz external speed without any need for jumpers, etc. My NetApp is in heavy service, so I'm a bit hesitant. Has anyone tried this, or does anyone have a NetApp in light service that they'd like to try this with? I've searched the listserve archive and don't see any subjects that would seem to have previously addressed this. Somewhat busy CPU: CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 24% 431 0 0 74 672 573 0 0 0 2 36% 639 0 0 149 1035 768 0 0 0 2 30% 524 0 0 129 708 639 0 0 0 2 44% 868 0 0 158 925 868 0 0 0 2 42% 857 0 0 179 734 560 0 0 0 2 37% 658 0 0 133 735 1069 0 0 0 2 29% 494 0 0 100 737 752 0 0 0 2 27% 459 0 0 80 834 724 0 0 0 2 44% 886 0 0 189 1078 668 0 0 0 2 53% 717 0 0 151 923 2249 35 0 0 2 86% 589 0 0 104 1050 2678 3423 0 0 2 28% 535 0 0 101 563 212 0 0 0 2 36% 712 0 0 133 654 244 0 0 0 2 Regarding cache age, this unit already has the full 256M of RAM, so we can't address that issue in the conventional way either. -- Dane Jasper Sonic (707)522-1001 (33.6kbps) (707)522-1000 (Voice) mailto:support@sonic.net http://www.sonic.net Key fingerprint = A5 D6 6E 16 D8 81 BA E9 CB BD A9 77 B3 AF 45 53

5 5

NetApp Customer Satisfaction Survey
by Wentz, Michael 05 Feb '99

05 Feb '99

All, On behalf of Network Appliance, I'd like to apologize for the multiple survey requests that were sent to many of our customers recently. We had a process breakdown that resulted in a large number of surveys being sent all at once, in some cases, as many as 5 or 6 to the same customer. The survey has been stopped while we correct the process problem and address feedback regarding the frequency of the survey. Customer feedback is important to NetApp as we seek to continually improve our products and services. The responses we've received through the survey have been instrumental in driving improvements throughout the entire company, but we've also heard that customers want to be surveyed less often. The original process was to survey for every closed case, but many customers have indicated that once a month is more preferable. For this reason, when the survey process starts again, we will insure that no customer is surveyed more than once in any 30 day period. Thank you for your understanding and patience, and my apologies for any inconvenience the survey has caused. Michael L. Wentz Director, Service Operations Network Appliance 408.367.3685

1 0

Re: Console server?
by Ketil Kirkerud Elgethun 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

Jim Davis <jdavis(a)CS.Arizona.EDU> writes: > We've been using some flaky old Wyse terminals for consoles on our > netapps; I'd rather hook them up to a terminal server of some sort. I > assume most any terminal server should work, but are there any favorites > people have? (Or ones that should be avoided?) What we use, and are very happy with, is a piece of software, combined with a lot of serial ports on a computer. The software (conserver/console, from Purdue), gives us things like - logging of all activity on all ports, - the possibility for operators to "hijack" console connections, in a controlled fashion. And lots of other cool stuff. Basically, we're extremely happy with it. We use conserver both with a linux box with multiport serial boards (Stallion), and with a Sun using terminal servers (we've had luck with Central Data Etherlite, there are probably oodles of others out there that work just as well.) If you want to use the conserver package, the only thing to keep in mind is that the server part of the software wants to see local devices, this might exclude some of the terminal servers out there. (The Etherlite comes with drivers that makes it appear as local devices on a Solaris box) -- ---Ketil Kirkerud Elgethun, SOL System

3 2

Obnoxious Satisfaction Survey
by Jason D. Kelleher 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

Anyone open a service call with NetApp within the last week? I opened two last week. After closing the first call, I received an email with the subject "Your Satisfaction with Network Appliance" that contained a survey to evaluate my satisfaction with the call. Since I was happy with the outcome I decided to fill out the survey and sing the proaises of NetApp tech support. (I can be a real bastard when I have a problem and need their help and I was hoping this would somehow make up for that in the cosmic scheme of things.) That done I deleted the email and went back to pretending to work. The next morning, after closing my second service call, I received another email survey from NetApp. (Actually, the email says NetApp "engaged CustomerCast, an independent research company, to conduct the following short email survey".) I decided that since I just sent out a glowing report I could ignore this surevey. ...But I was wrong!!! Every morning since I colsed the call I've received this survey. I even called NetApp yesterday to see if this could be stopped and this morning I received two copies of the survey! Does anyone know who I can call? Where to I send my first born to put and end to this? The email address we have listed with NetApp is an internal mailing list (so the other 6 people in my group can handle issues if I'm out) and I'm getting nasty grams... :( Getting spam'd by some weasely little con-artist trying to get me to take part in a "MAKE MONEY FAST" scheme is one thing, but I certainly don't expect this from a company I do business with. jason --- Jason D. Kelleher kelleher(a)susq.com Susquehanna Partners, G.P. 610.617.2721 (voice) 401 City Line Ave, Suite 220 610.617.2916 (fax) Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-1122

11 10

Re: Obnoxious Satisfaction Survey
by Mike Smith 03 Feb '99

03 Feb '99

Having read the submissions to mathworks I'm putting them all into one email and sending them to the appropriate people. Hmmm, maybe if we don't turn them off nobody will open any more cases... :) just kidding. Seriously I am sending the comments to the right folks to see if something can be done about it right away. Regards, Mike Smith Technical Support Engineer Network Appliance. ------- Forwarded Message Return-Path: E.Samsonova(a)wxs.nl Received: (from majordom@localhost) by herra.corp.netapp.com (8.8.7/8.8.7/GNAC-GW-2.1) id JAA19528 for dl-toasters-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:25:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx01-ext.netapp.com (mx01-ext.netapp.com [198.95.224.34]) by herra.corp.netapp.com (8.8.7/8.8.7/GNAC-GW-2.1) with SMTP id JAA19480 for <toasters(a)netapp.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:25:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 8319 invoked from network); 3 Feb 1999 17:56:13 -0000 Received: from turing.mathworks.com (144.212.100.12) by mx01-ext.netapp.com with SMTP; 3 Feb 1999 17:56:13 -0000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by turing.mathworks.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA03276 for toasters-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:15:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp05.wxs.nl (smtp05.wxs.nl [195.121.6.57]) by turing.mathworks.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA03262 for <toasters(a)mathworks.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:15:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from amf04060.office.wxs.nl ([195.121.4.60]) by smtp05.wxs.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.61) with ESMTP id AAA59DE for <toasters(a)mathworks.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 18:15:39 +0100 Received: from localhost (esamsono@localhost) by amf04060.office.wxs.nl (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA07108 for <toasters(a)mathworks.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 18:15:53 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: amf04060.office.wxs.nl: esamsono owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 18:15:53 +0100 (MET) From: Elena Samsonova <E.Samsonova(a)wxs.nl> X-Sender: esamsono(a)amf04060.office.wxs.nl To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Obnoxious Satisfaction Survey In-Reply-To: <199902031534.KAA09196(a)jagular.dev.susq.com> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.93.990203180955.5361R-100000(a)amf04060.office.wxs.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dl-toasters(a)netapp.com Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1176 Oh, I can relate!! I am also completely overwhelmed by those surveys! I filled in one and ignored all the others. > this morning I received two copies of the survey! Does anyone know > who I can call? Where to I send my first born to put and end to > this? Oh, this is too bad. Actually, I never received any *repeated* surveys after I deleted the ones I wanted to ignore. Perhaps you should open a service call for this problem? :) (Sorry, just could not resist. :) Or may be someone from NetApp is actually reading it here? The worst thing about those surveys is that besides the questions about this particular call, they *always* include tons of questions about tech. support in general, and really, I think we should not be asked to fill in those over and over again! Regards Elena - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elena Samsonova e-mail: E.Samsonova(a)wxs.nl World Access / Planet Internet phone: +31 33 45 40 417 PO Box 2529, 3800 GB Amersfoort fax: +31 33 45 40 401 The Netherlands - ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Re: Obnoxious Satisfaction Survey
by Jason D. Kelleher 03 Feb '99

03 Feb '99

In message <7F608EC0BDE6D111B53A00805FA7F7DA02BE9004(a)TAHOE.netapp.com>, "Sul livan, Shelly" writes: >Jason, > >I'm looking into this now. I don't know at this point if this is a >problem with our mail server, CustomerCast's or some other glitch. Are >you getting spammed for the same exact case, or have different cases >been closed over the last few days? > >We're certainly not in the business of trying to spam anyone, especially >after they had nice things to say about us :) > >I'm investigating now and will get back to you with the outcome. > >Thanks, > >Shelly Sullivan >Technical Support Shift Manager >Network Appliance, Inc. >2770 San Tomas Expressway >Santa Clara, CA 95051 >408-367-3531, 408-367-3450 Fax All the email concerns the same case number. Thanks for you help with this, it's greatly appreciated. BTW, I the email stated that surveys will be sent out after every closed case. Was sampling considered at all? It might be better received than email after every case. Then again, I wonder how many people actually have to open cases more than every couple of months. jason

2 1

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