toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13534 discussions

OnTap FIler OS Upgrade Q's
by Weeks, Thomas 08 May '98

08 May '98

Hi all... Have a NA FS230 box running 4.2aD9... I need to do CIFS inter ACL/UFS-permissions testing and evaluation (for our NFS-->CIFS migration) and was PLANNING on going to 4.3.3 because I do not have a "test box" and wanted to protect myself from the possible "problems" associated with going to the full 5.x release and then trying to back out. (yes.. I am planning on EVENTUALLY going to 5.x, but I want to address one problem at a time (i.e. don't want to have to adress UFS/ACL/locking issues AND variables associates with backing out of the 5.x upgrade.. that's all)) Does anyone have any information on this subject that I should examine? I guess 4.3.3 is no longer the highest pre-5 release version.. but it is now 4.3.4? Anyone? Thanx... Tom Thomas Weeks GTE SYSTEMS ENGINEER Testing-Integration Center "The Pit" Brooks AFB, DSN 240-5444

1 0

DLT7000 stackers
by Amy Chused 08 May '98

08 May '98

Does anyone know how well the Breece-Hill Q1-15 (single drive, 15 cartridges) DLT tape stacker plays with the NetApp 630? Does anyone know how well the smallest StorageTek DLT tape stacker plays with the NetApp 630? I'm about the buy a new netapp and I'm trying to decide between these two tape drives for a locally attached tape drive. Any comments, please? Amy

1 0

F330 running at 100%
by Christoph Doerbeck 05 May '98

05 May '98

Greetings, Today we experienced an F330 pegging at 100% CPU. netstat and nfsstat didn't reviel anything eye popping, and so I'm asking for suggestions as to what might cause this? I would guess that a network interface shouldn't be capable of causing this, but I'll let you tell me.... Here's the system info: ===== SYSCONFIG-V ===== NetApp Release 3.1c: Wed Apr 3 16:40:37 PST 1996 System ID: XXXXXXXX slot 0: System Board 90 MHz (NetApp System Board I) Memory Size: 256 MB slot 0: SCSI Host Adapter 0 (QLogic ISP 1020) 0: SEAGATE ST15230N 0638 Size=3.9GB (8386733 blocks) 1: SEAGATE ST15230N 0638 Size=3.9GB (8386733 blocks) 2: SEAGATE ST15230N 0638 Size=3.9GB (8386733 blocks) 3: SEAGATE ST15230N 0638 Size=3.9GB (8386733 blocks) 4: SEAGATE ST15230N 0638 Size=3.9GB (8386733 blocks) 5: SEAGATE ST15230N 0638 Size=3.9GB (8386733 blocks) 6: SEAGATE ST15230N 0638 Size=3.9GB (8386733 blocks) slot 0: Ethernet Controller e0 MAC Address: 00:a0:98:00:00:20 (100tx) slot 4: Dual SCSI Host Adapter (NetApp SCSI Adapter I) SCSI Host Adapter 4a 0: SEAGATE ST15230N 0638 Size=3.9GB (8386733 blocks) 1: SEAGATE ST15230N 0638 Size=3.9GB (8386733 blocks) 2: SEAGATE ST15230N 0638 Size=3.9GB (8386733 blocks) 3: SEAGATE ST15230N 0638 Size=3.9GB (8386733 blocks) 4: SEAGATE ST15230N 0638 Size=3.9GB (8386733 blocks) 5: SEAGATE ST15230N 0638 Size=3.9GB (8386733 blocks) 6: SEAGATE ST15230N 0638 Size=3.9GB (8386733 blocks) SCSI Host Adapter 4b slot 6: NVRAM (NetApp NVRAM I) Memory Size: 8 MB Battery 1 Status: 100% (3.29v) Battery 2 Status: 100% (3.29v) slot 7: Ethernet Controller e7 (Znyx) MAC Address: 00:c0:95:f8:4b:6c (100tx) slot 8: FDDI Network Adapter f8 (DEC 3002) MAC Address: 08:00:2b:b3:10:71 (Dual Attach Fiber) slot 9: Dual SCSI Host Adapter (NetApp SCSI Adapter I) SCSI Host Adapter 9a 0: SEAGATE ST15230N 0638 Size=3.9GB (8386733 blocks) 1: SEAGATE ST15230N 0638 Size=3.9GB (8386733 blocks) 2: SEAGATE ST15230N 0638 Size=3.9GB (8386733 blocks) 3: SEAGATE ST15230N 0638 Size=3.9GB (8386733 blocks) 4: SEAGATE ST15230N 0638 Size=3.9GB (8386733 blocks) 5: SEAGATE ST15230N 0638 Size=3.9GB (8386733 blocks) 6: SEAGATE ST15230N 0638 Size=3.9GB (8386733 blocks) SCSI Host Adapter 9b - Christoph

3 4

Re: file locking problem
by Jason D. Kelleher 02 May '98

02 May '98

In message <000801bd74bc$4537cb40$ba032599(a)Ritch.earthlink.net>, "David B. R itch" writes: >We have had numerous problems dealing with SunOS and Solaris mailtool file >locking after moving our mail spool off our Solaris server. Initially, we >moved the spool to a Network Appliance and used a Digital Unix system as the >mail server. In an attempt to solve the locking problem, we moved the spool >to a local filesystem on the Digital Unix box, but we still had problems. >When we switched from binmail to procmail as our mail delivery agent, most >of the problems were resolved. Odd, our problems seem to stem from mailtool / procmail interaction. It doesn't look like mailtool is freeing locks, so procmail can't write to the spool. But this didn't occur (at least procmail didn't complain about) before we moved the spool from the 4.1.3_U1 mail server to the NetApp. >In all of the mess, we learned a couple of things to look for: Is there a >cron job on the Sun that clears locks older than a few minutes? If so, you No, and that shouldn't be necessary. procmail is smart enough to timeout stale locks. >might need a similar workaround on the NetApp filesystem. Are your users >exiting OpenWindows without clicking "Done" (to save changes)? It is a bug >to leave the file locked, but I believe that some versions of mailtool do >this. Do your users find that their mailtools get confused? We found that >to be a symptom of locking problems. Do your users have large inboxes? Our >mailtool and dtmail users have a tendency to keep lots of old mail in their >inboxes, and the resultantly large mail files take longer to update. This >increases the likelihood of two processes needing to lock the file at the >same time. These problems occur while users are running mailtool. We have the latest pathes regarding filelocking installed for SunOS 4.1.3_U1 and Solaris 2.5, 2.5.1, & 2.6. When they exit mailtool, everything is fine. >You might also want to rebuild procmail. When you build it, one thing it >does is to test locking in your mail spool directory, so that it can >determine what locking mechanisms work reliably. It may be that it needs to >run those tests again on your new filesystem. Yep. Already tried it. >On the other hand, you might want to switch to pop3 or imap4 (if possible) >to get mail to your users' workstations. These seem to be more robust >protocols than nfs with locking. If I could just get them to use something other than mailtool, I wouldn't have a problem. pine, elm, nmh, qpopper, and Netscape (movemail) all seem to be ok. mailtool seemed to be fine when mounting from the 4.1.3_U1 spool, now it's brain-dead. >Good luck. Dealing with mail problems can be unpleasant. Tell me about it... Thanks for your help. jason

3 3

file locking problem
by Jason D. Kelleher 01 May '98

01 May '98

This past Saturday we moved our mail spool from a SunOS 4.1.3_U1 system to our NetApp F330 running ONTAP 4.3.3. Since then, we've had problems with procmail processes hanging on open file locks. This only occurs when someone leaves mailtool or dtmail running. Does anyone have any idea why mailtool won't handle file locking when mounting the spool from a NetApp, but will when mounting from a SunOS system? Any insight would be greatly appreciated. jason --- Jason D. Kelleher kelleher(a)susq.com Susquehanna Investment Group 610.617.2721 (voice) 401 City Line Ave, Suite 220 610.617.2916 (fax) Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-1122

2 1

Re: file locking problem
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 30 Apr '98

30 Apr '98

On 04/30/98 10:59:37 you wrote: > > > > This past Saturday we moved our mail spool from a SunOS 4.1.3_U1 >system to our NetApp F330 running ONTAP 4.3.3. Since then, we've had >problems with procmail processes hanging on open file locks. This only >occurs when someone leaves mailtool or dtmail running. > > Does anyone have any idea why mailtool won't handle file locking >when mounting the spool from a NetApp, but will when mounting from a >SunOS system? > > Any insight would be greatly appreciated. I would try applying the numerous patches for 4.1.3_U1, particularly the NFS patches and the mailtool patches from your descriptions. I might also check out upgrading to 4.1.4 and it's associated patches. Actually, I'm assuming your clients are the same flavor as your old mail spool server. If you have Solaris 2.x clients, there are patches for them as well. If the problem still persists you can talk to Netapp, probably get them a trace and they can find out who isn't doing locking correctly. Bruce

1 0

Re: syslog.conf
by varun＠netapp.com 29 Apr '98

29 Apr '98

> From dfinkels(a)siac.com Wed Apr 29 10:05:13 1998 ... > > Gentle readers, > Before I ask NetApp directly, I was curious if anyone knew of > the > syslog level that NetApp filers use? I want to redirect syslog daemon > messages to a remote host but keep the NetApp-specific messages in a > different file from the regular UNIX system messages. I was hoping it > used something like level1 or level2. If anyone knows the answer I'd be > most appreciative to this kind person. > I'm not sure you can log NetApp specific messages to a different file since the filer uses the same levels as regular Unix systems - (see na_syslog.conf(5)). What you could do is log NetApp specific messages to a remote system and grep for the filer's hostname in the remote system's messages file. It's probably easiest to drive this with a cron script. You might also be interested in Swatch which is a tool (publically available, I think) that allows you to monitor messages files and trigger on user defined events.

1 0

syslog.conf
by dfinkels＠siac.com 29 Apr '98

29 Apr '98

Gentle readers, Before I ask NetApp directly, I was curious if anyone knew of the syslog level that NetApp filers use? I want to redirect syslog daemon messages to a remote host but keep the NetApp-specific messages in a different file from the regular UNIX system messages. I was hoping it used something like level1 or level2. If anyone knows the answer I'd be most appreciative to this kind person. -- Daniel Alex Finkelstein Infrastructure Enhancement Group Systems and Technologies Support phone 212.383.2951 pager 917.427.1630 Securities Industry Automation Corporation

1 0

subscribe
by Lisa Malgeri 29 Apr '98

29 Apr '98

1 0

RE: RAM and NVRAM for F330
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 27 Apr '98

27 Apr '98

On 04/27/98 10:24:26 you wrote: > >> Sounds very much like a shipping issue to me. > > >NetApp Field Support 101: >------------------------- >Practice saying: > >"Of Course We test this hardware! It must be a shipping problem!". > >We've only had one in here for 6 months and I've already learned >that. I don't know if there's anything to it, but it sounds like >a prevalent enough story that NetApp should change their >shipping/handling/packing procedures. Sounds like they've >identified it as a problem to many of us, so how long before >it's fixed? > >-Jeff >(2 bad drives and an EMU shelf with a bad slot in two weeks) If you really want this question answered, you should probably contact Netapp directly, not email this list. While there are employees of Netapp that answer questions here from time to time, it's certainly not the usual channel of communication for addressing issues such as the one you bring up. Bruce

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