toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13534 discussions

Re: Quad Fast Ethernet vs. Single Fast Ethernets
by Daniel Quinlan 22 Sep '98

22 Sep '98

Val Bercovici <valb(a)netapp.com> writes: > Unfortunately, one of the things we don't automatically trigger a > failover on in our first Clustered Failover release will be a "normal" > interface link failure (OTOH, if a NIC fries its PCI slot, we will > failover). Using a Cisco Fast EtherChannel across at least two > interfaces would be a nice way to protect yourself from a single > interface failure on a filer. We were hit by an interface link failures once last year. What options are there or will there be (either with or without Clustered Failover) to offer failover or redundancy for failed interfaces? I'm especially concerned about this as we plan to transition from one or two quad fast ethernet cards on each filer to one or two gigabit ethernet cards per filer. Thanks. - Dan

6 10

Soft Links ON NT ( again)
by Raymond Brennan 22 Sep '98

22 Sep '98

Hello, Look what I found in the mailist list archive : From madhatta Tue Nov 18 18:52 EST 1997 Received: from odin.netapp.com (odin.netapp.com [198.95.224.183]) by turing.mathworks.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA03647 for <toasters(a)mathworks.com>; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 18:51:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from herra.netapp.com (172.20.6hide.netapp.com [198.95.224.200]) by odin.netapp.com (8.8.7/8.8.7/GNAC-GW-2.1) with ESMTP id PAA11514; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:44:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from netapp.com (keith-pc.netapp.com [172.20.6.61]) by herra.netapp.com (8.8.7/8.8.7/GNAC-GW-2.1) with ESMTP id PAA26897; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:47:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3472290E.C00B8959(a)netapp.com> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:47:27 -0800 From: Keith Brown <keith(a)netapp.com> Reply-To: keith(a)netapp.com Organization: Network Appliance, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: quinlan(a)transmeta.com CC: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: links using CIFS References: <199711182300.PAA22605(a)sodium.transmeta.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------FBDEBC85A108A84A65F02E8D" Content-Length: 2731 X-Keywords: Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------FBDEBC85A108A84A65F02E8D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Daniel Quinlan wrote: > Could someone explain exactly what works and what doesn't when using > symbolic links from a CIFS client (Windows95 or WindowsNT, primarily) > from a Netapp with Unix symbolic links? Certainly. In Data ONTAP releases prior to 4.3, Windows systems saw symbolic links that had been created in the WAFL file system (from the UNIX side) as exactly what they *really* are. That is to say, plain files which contain the full or relative pathname to the place that they are a symbolic link to. Technically, the UNIX symlink attribute has no meaning in the Windows client world, and so they don't treat symlink files as "special" in the same way that UNIX systems do. However, in our brand spanking new 4.3 release, this has changed. If you install and run this release on your filer(s), you will find that Windows systems will now automagically follow UNIX symlinks, with a single, necessary limitation. The symlink must point to a place that the client *can* actually make the jump to. The client can only be redirected to another location under the same share in which it encountered the symlink in the first place. Just in case you have designed your symlinks in such a way that this is not entirely feasible for you to easily arrange, the new mechanism also features a symlink pathname translation mechanism that works very simililarly to the existing "httpd.translations" mechanism with which customers may already be familiar. You can use this mechanism to yank meandering symlinks back into your share, but of course you probably have to put a copy of the data that they were originally going to take you to in the share also. Ooh.. I should probably mention that the new symlink following feature does contain machinery to stop a Windows client from looping in a file system when it is following the symlinks. That base is covered! :-) Keith This mentions Release 4.3. However, I'm on 5.1D4 and does this work ? In a word : NO. Yours beleaguredly, Raymond the Depressed "Your future depends on your dreams. So go to sleep "- Lao Tse

1 0

Soft Links on NT
by Raymond Brennan 22 Sep '98

22 Sep '98

Hello All, I've got an F520 running release 5.1D4. I've got a problem with reading Unix soft links on NT. NetApps Inc. say that soft links only work on NT within one quota tree. That is a difficult thing t live with, but I suppose I'll have to. I can make soft links with relative pathnames work OK, but what about links with absolute pathnames ? On the NOW NetApp site, I found a sysadmin man page mentioning the /etc/symlink.translations file, which is apparently a way to make this work. Well, I've tried it and for the life of me I can't get it to work. Anyone else have a similar experience with this ? Raymond Brennan mailto: ray_brennan(a)mentorg.com "Children in back-seats cause accidents; Accidents in back-seats cause children!" -Ike Turner

1 0

Re: Quad Fast Ethernet vs. Single Fast Ethernets
by Daniel Quinlan 22 Sep '98

22 Sep '98

kls(a)netapp.com (Karl Swartz) writes: > On the other hand, there probably are a lot of customers who would > rather have failover *now* even if it only works with 100base-TX or > FDDI (or requires extra GbE NICs). If we told a FDDI customer that > we'd be able to give them failover today but we won't because we've > not finished a driver for a GbE NIC that can handle multiple MAC > addresses, they'd probably be a bit peeved. I agree about "failover *now*". FDDI -- isn't it dead yet? ;-) > So, your options at the moment are > (a) use GbE but not have failover > (b) use failover but not GbE > (c) buy a second GbE NIC and have both failover and and GbE > (d) wait until we have a GbE NIC and driver which will allow you > to have failover with a single GbE What about GbE and failover to non-GbE (fast ethernet)? Just to make sure, does failover require EtherChannel? - Dan

2 1

Log rotation.
by just me. 22 Sep '98

22 Sep '98

Anyone know of a knob i can turn to adjust the log rotation interval, or, alternately, a way to turn it off? I'd much rather have my own script doing this, but don't want to mess around with race conditions. Thanks. matto --matt(a)snark.net----------------------------------------------------- Matt Ghali MG406/GM023JP - System Administrator, interQ, Inc AS7506 "Sub-optimal is a state of mind." -Dave Rand, <dlr(a)bungi.com>

1 0

subscribe : toasters
by Ron Neuenberger 21 Sep '98

21 Sep '98

1 0

(no subject)
by ian.gardner＠vf.vodafone.co.uk 21 Sep '98

21 Sep '98

unsubscribe toasters

1 0

None
by DESCHAMPS, Stephane 21 Sep '98

21 Sep '98

> unsubscribe >

1 0

(no subject)
by ian.gardner＠vf.vodafone.co.uk 21 Sep '98

21 Sep '98

unsubscribe

1 0

Re: Does your e0 on the F330 work? HELP (Solved)
by Daniel Wong 19 Sep '98

19 Sep '98

The Catalyst 5000 port that the laptop had verified is indeed the culprit. I am now up at 100tx-fd. Why it verified I don't know. I don't know why swaping the e0/f7 didn't work either. TGIF Guess now if have to figure out why it says the fan has stopped, else find the fan that has stopped. Thanks all, Dan -- Daniel E Wong GIS System/Network Administrator City of Spokane mailto:dewong@sprintmail.com 808 W Spokane Falls Blvd mailto:dwong@spokanecity.org Spokane WA 99201-3344 (o) 509/625-6499 (fax) 509/625-6550

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