toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

RE: Intermittent "Permission denied" on NTFS qtree
by George, Andrew 30 Nov '06

30 Nov '06

It's a long shot but...anything changed on the DC's recently? (Hotfixes, service packs, replacements)? -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Myles Uyema Sent: Thursday, 30 November 2006 3:31 AM To: Simon Vallet Cc: Glenn Walker; Andrey.Borzenkov(a)fujitsu-siemens.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Intermittent "Permission denied" on NTFS qtree This sort of reminds me of bug 147265 which I encountered a while back, but you said you're running 7.1.1, and the Bugs Online says it's fixed in that release. I would expect that ONTAP should acquire a new token if getting disconnected in such a manner... If you can take a packet trace between the filers and DC that might help support escalate the case quicker? I suppose you've already done that. On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Simon Vallet wrote: Hi, On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 07:41:58 -0500 "Glenn Walker" <ggwalker(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > Enable the option (temporarily) 'cifs.trace_dc_connection'. The output (via screen\messages file) will help. > > It may not be an issue with complete connectivity drop, but the DC is > definitely rejecting the RPC request to look up group membership (SamrGetAliasMembership). Apparently, there are some connectivity problems, but it seems they are quite random -- a trace of network traffic between the filer and the PDC reveals some unexpected TCP resets issued byt the DC : [...] filer -> DC [FIN,ACK] DC->filer [ACK] DC->filer [RST,ACK] [...] this shouldn't be a problem, since the filer requested a FIN anyway, but the time coincidence is troubling... Enabling cifs.trace_dc_connection and cifs.trace_login yields some more information: AUTH: notice- The context has expired. AUTH: notice- No error. AUTH: notice- Unexpected GSSAPI security context error. AUTH: notice- The context has expired. AUTH: notice- No error. CIFSRPC SamrGetAliasMembership: Exception rpc_s_unknown_reject caught. AUTH: Error looking up domain groups during login from 192.168.x.x:RPC_NT_CALL_FAILED (0xc002001b). and ten seconds later: AUTH: TraceLDAPServer- Starting AD LDAP server address discovery for domain.tld AUTH: TraceLDAPServer- Found 2 AD LDAP server addresses using generic DNS query. AUTH: TraceLDAPServer- AD LDAP server address discovery for domain.tld complete. 2 unique addresses found. AUTH: notice- Unexpected GSSAPI security context error. [...] This goes on for ten minutes, then the filer tries to locate a DC again, and then everything works fine again AUTH: TraceDC- Starting DC address discovery for domain. AUTH: TraceDC- Filer is not a member of a site. AUTH: TraceDC- Found 2 addresses using generic DNS query. AUTH: TraceDC- Starting WINS queries. AUTH: TraceDC- Found 2 BDC addresses through WINS. AUTH: TraceDC- Found 1 PDC addresses through WINS. AUTH: TraceDC- DC address discovery for PC complete. 2 unique addresses found. I'm not really sure of what *should* happen, but this definitely does *not* look good... I understand that a security context expires sometimes, but I wonder why it takes so long to re-negociate Simon "This e-mail and any attachments to it (the "Communication") is, unless otherwise stated, confidential, may contain copyright material and is for the use only of the intended recipient. If you receive the Communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete the Communication and the return e-mail, and do not read, copy, retransmit or otherwise deal with it. Any views expressed in the Communication are those of the individual sender only, unless expressly stated to be those of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ABN 11 005 357 522, or any of its related entities including ANZ National Bank Limited (together "ANZ"). ANZ does not accept liability in connection with the integrity of or errors in the Communication, computer virus, data corruption, interference or delay arising from or in respect of the Communication."

1 0

snaplock enterprise / compliance
by Willeke, Jochen 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

Hi toasters, i have an R200 with snaplock_enterprise. There is already an aggregate using this feature. But now i want to convert from snaplock_enterprise to snaploch_compliance. Is there a way to do this? Can i just remove the snaplock_enterprise license and than add the snaplock_compliance license or will this cause any trouble? Best Regards Jochen

2 1

Intermittent "Permission denied" on NTFS qtree
by Simon Vallet 28 Nov '06

28 Nov '06

Hi, we've been trying to solve an intermittent "Permission denied" access problem on a NTFS qtree for some time now, to no avail, so maybe some of you will have some advice. We have a CIFS- and NFS-exported NTFS qtree on a FAS3020 cluster running Data ONTAP 7.1.1. The PDC is a win2k3 server, and Unix users are managed via NIS. From time to time, legitimate users are refused access to certain files with a "Permission denied" message, especially when trying to access the qtree via NFS. These users *do* have permission to access the files in question as per NTFS ACLs -- in fact, when they retry to access the file a few minutes later, they are granted access. We're seing this problem since a bit more of a week now, and still have no clue what the cause of the problem could be... the SID cache seems to be a good suspect, but it's hard to tell; we've also thought of buggy win2k3 patches... In parallel, we're seing the following messages in the logs: CIFSRPC SamrGetAliasMembership: Exception rpc_s_unknown_reject caught. Has anybody experienced a similar problem ? Simon -- Simon Vallet Ingénieur Systèmes/Réseaux Genoscope / CNRG Tél. : 01 60 87 36 06 E-mail : svallet(a)genoscope.cns.fr

2 1

RE: simple SAN?!
by Learmonth, Peter 26 Nov '06

26 Nov '06

Hi Fred What virtual HBA/driver would you configure in the VM? To my understanding, the only virtual HBA available are VMLSILogic and VMBusLogic. It's been that way for a long time. This isn't to say VMware couldn't invent a new VMHBA or integrate virtual port functionality into the VMLSILogic implementation. I'm just not sure what you would gain from it. One of the main points of the VM architecture is to not have to worry about what drivers you need in the VM. Another thing that comes to mind is that you couldn't use VMFS (for the VM's disk), since with a virtual FC port would talk directly to LUNs. This becomes more like RDM, and again, I don't see what you gain. It occurred to me to see what VMware had to say. The only occurrence of "NPIV" on their site yields the following: http://www.vmware.com/pdf/esx_lun_security.pdf So, from their perspective, it seems the gain from NPIV is security. It also look like this is not a shipping product/feature. Share and enjoy! Peter ________________________________ From: Fred Grieco [mailto:fredgrieco@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 4:50 AM To: Davies,Matt; Willeke, Jochen; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: simple SAN?! I'm pretty sure you can use FC to the VMs if you use virtual ports or NPIV. http://storagemagazine.techtarget.com/magLogin/1,291245,sid35_gci1228666 ,00.html This is a little like "NAT" for fibre channel. It also requires sophisticated cards and switches. Fred ----- Original Message ---- From: "Davies,Matt" <MDAVIES(a)generalatlantic.com> To: "Willeke, Jochen" <Jochen.Willeke(a)wincor-nixdorf.com>; toasters(a)mathworks.com Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 6:24:50 AM Subject: RE: simple SAN?! On the VMware side, as far as I understand you can only use FC to the physical machine, not to a virtual machine, as the VM's do not support FC. I believe you can still use VCB with Iscsi, it just needs a bit more scripting, I would check out the VMware discussion groups on the VMware website, I have always found them very helpful. Cheers Matt ________________________________ From: Willeke, Jochen [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com] Sent: 23 November 2006 11:07 To: Davies,Matt; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: simple SAN?! We already use ISCSI, but we aer thinking about VMWare and VMWare has some nice features (e.g. VCB) which need an FC-SAN. Thanks anyway Jochen ________________________________ From: Davies,Matt [mailto:MDAVIES@generalatlantic.com] Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 11:59 AM To: Willeke, Jochen; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: simple SAN?! If you are looking at low cost san, I would go Iscsi, as long as everything you need on Iscsi is on Gig ethernet ports, it should work fine. Cheers Matt ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Willeke, Jochen Sent: 23 November 2006 10:11 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: simple SAN?! Hi, as we use not too much SAN at our site i am not really used to this topic. Yesterday i read an article about "simple SAN". "Simple SAN" seems to mean as an plug-n-play solution. But what about the components espacially the SAN-switches? Do we see really new (and cheap :D) SAN-switches or only old products "reassembled" as a solution for small companies. Regards Jochen __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

RE: simple SAN?!
by Glenn Walker 26 Nov '06

26 Nov '06

You can use SD\SM with FC-SAN as well as iSCSI using software initiator or hardware initiator (QLogic 4010C for example). I'm not aware if using VMWare with guest OSs places any further limitations on this. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Holloway, Chris Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 1:42 PM To: Julio Calderon; Willeke, Jochen; Davies,Matt; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: simple SAN?! You may also want to be aware of the limitations as to when and where you can use SnapDrive and SnapManager products with the guest machines. Essentially you can only use SD and SM if you are using a software iSCSI initiator. Any other methods (and as far as I know this includes raw device mapping) and you won't be able to use them. Chris -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of Julio Calderon Sent: Thu 23/11/2006 18:07 To: Willeke, Jochen; Davies,Matt; toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: Subject: RE: simple SAN?! You should be able to levereage nfs for vmware -----Original Message----- From: Willeke, Jochen [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com] Sent: Thu Nov 23 03:25:26 2006 To: Davies,Matt; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: simple SAN?! We already use ISCSI, but we aer thinking about VMWare and VMWare has some nice features (e.g. VCB) which need an FC-SAN. Thanks anyway Jochen ________________________________ From: Davies,Matt [mailto:MDAVIES@generalatlantic.com] Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 11:59 AM To: Willeke, Jochen; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: simple SAN?! If you are looking at low cost san, I would go Iscsi, as long as everything you need on Iscsi is on Gig ethernet ports, it should work fine. Cheers Matt ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Willeke, Jochen Sent: 23 November 2006 10:11 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: simple SAN?! Hi, as we use not too much SAN at our site i am not really used to this topic. Yesterday i read an article about "simple SAN". "Simple SAN" seems to mean as an plug-n-play solution. But what about the components espacially the SAN-switches? Do we see really new (and cheap :D) SAN-switches or only old products "reassembled" as a solution for small companies. Regards Jochen Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Employees of the company are expressly required not to make defamatory statements and not to infringe or authorize any infringement of copyright or any other legal right by email communications. Any such communication is contrary to company policy and outside the scope of the employment of the individual concerned. The company will not accept any liability in respect of such communication, and the employee responsible will be personally liable for any damages or other liability arising.

1 0

DataONTAP 7.2 Cheat Sheet
by Timothy Hollingworth 24 Nov '06

24 Nov '06

I keep a command cheat sheet for my own reference. I thought I'd pass it along. Suitable for framing! http://www.freewebs.com/atlantabikerides/doc/DataONTAP.7.2.Commands.TLH. 11.21.06.pdf Timothy L. Hollingworth Sr. Network Engineer, ePlus Technology Inc. 678.462.6698 (cell) AIM: HollingworthTim YIM: t_holling

4 3

RE: SnapMirror Bandwidth restrictions
by Davies,Matt 24 Nov '06

24 Nov '06

The peaks occur only during snapmirror jobs, and all the jobs have been spaced so that only one job runs at a time. We have set the tcp window size and it has reduced the problem a little. We can buffer more packets on the router, the problem is that some packets get delayed too long and have to be retransmitted, which only makes the problem worse. Thanks Matt -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Johnson, James A Sent: 23 November 2006 22:49 To: Holland, William L; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: SnapMirror Bandwidth restrictions Have you determined the times that you are getting these peaks? I think there could be number of things going on here , one of which was mentioned - snapmirror running simultaniously. I would also check the time this is happening. If the you could find a pattern, this could help you narrow it down to what is running at the time. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Holland, William L Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:12 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: SnapMirror Bandwidth restrictions Take a look at Adjusting the TCP Window Size in http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/ontap/rel705/html/ontap/onlineb k/mirror6.htm It can help you determine the proper setting based on your network needs. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Davies,Matt Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 7:58 AM To: Glenn Walker; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: SnapMirror Bandwidth restrictions Glenn, The snapmirror.conf file is showing 1000 as the limit. Which should equate to just under 8Mb/s Overall the rate does average out for the snapmirror jobs to be below 1000KB/s There was only one snapmirror running at the time of the test I carried out to confirm the rates. Matt -----Original Message----- From: Glenn Walker [mailto:ggwalker@mindspring.com] Sent: 14 November 2006 12:47 To: Davies,Matt; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: SnapMirror Bandwidth restrictions I assume that the snapmirror.conf file is showing 1000 as the limit? This is in KB (kilobyte), not kb(kilobit). Are you sure that there aren't multiple mirrors running simultaneously? Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Davies,Matt Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 5:40 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: SnapMirror Bandwidth restrictions Hi, We have noticed that when a snapmirror runs between our filers with a maximum transfer rate of 1000 KB/s, we are seeing peaks of traffic of around 24Mb/s. This has been confirmed using ethereal, that it is the snapmirror traffic. We have noticed that these peaks are causing excessive amount of dropped packets on the wan interface of the routers between all the site. we have tried a number of difference queuing strategies and bandwidth shaping, but the router cannot buffer all the packets during the peaks and starts dropping them. As we also use these links for both voice and video, we are seeing high jitter rates during these peaks, and need to do something about it. We have a mixture of FAS250's and FAS270's all are showing the same problem Has anyone else experienced this ? Or does anyone have any ideas. Cheers Matt

1 0

New Linux Kernel NFS client and netapp snapshot behavior
by Stephen C. Losen 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

We installed the latest kernel update for Red Hat FC5 (forgot the kernel version number) and we noticed a nifty new NFS client feature. The kernel is "snapshot aware" which means that when you "stat()" something in a snapshot, the device number is different from the live filesystem. Furthermore, different snapshots have different device numbers. I can see where this is a very nice feature, because it solves some difficulties with snapshots. o You can now run "find /mountpoint -mount" (or -xdev) to avoid dropping into the .snapshot tree. o You can now "diff" a live file and a snapshot copy of the file because many versions of diff simply return no differences when two files have the same device and inode number. o You can now "cp" a snapshot copy of a file on top of the live file. This used to fail because cp checks the device and inode number to prevent you from copying a file on top of itself. However, we have some locally written software that expects the live filesystem and snapshot to have the same device number. The person who wrote the software is wondering if this change in NFS behavior is a bug, or fluke, or experimental, or if the Linux developers intend for the Linux kernel to behave this way from now on. Can this behavior be enabled/disabled ? If no one knows offhand, where might I go to find out? Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 434-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

4 6

RE: SnapMirror Bandwidth restrictions
by Holland, William L 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

Take a look at Adjusting the TCP Window Size in http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/ontap/rel705/html/ontap/onlineb k/mirror6.htm It can help you determine the proper setting based on your network needs. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Davies,Matt Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 7:58 AM To: Glenn Walker; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: SnapMirror Bandwidth restrictions Glenn, The snapmirror.conf file is showing 1000 as the limit. Which should equate to just under 8Mb/s Overall the rate does average out for the snapmirror jobs to be below 1000KB/s There was only one snapmirror running at the time of the test I carried out to confirm the rates. Matt -----Original Message----- From: Glenn Walker [mailto:ggwalker@mindspring.com] Sent: 14 November 2006 12:47 To: Davies,Matt; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: SnapMirror Bandwidth restrictions I assume that the snapmirror.conf file is showing 1000 as the limit? This is in KB (kilobyte), not kb(kilobit). Are you sure that there aren't multiple mirrors running simultaneously? Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Davies,Matt Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 5:40 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: SnapMirror Bandwidth restrictions Hi, We have noticed that when a snapmirror runs between our filers with a maximum transfer rate of 1000 KB/s, we are seeing peaks of traffic of around 24Mb/s. This has been confirmed using ethereal, that it is the snapmirror traffic. We have noticed that these peaks are causing excessive amount of dropped packets on the wan interface of the routers between all the site. we have tried a number of difference queuing strategies and bandwidth shaping, but the router cannot buffer all the packets during the peaks and starts dropping them. As we also use these links for both voice and video, we are seeing high jitter rates during these peaks, and need to do something about it. We have a mixture of FAS250's and FAS270's all are showing the same problem Has anyone else experienced this ? Or does anyone have any ideas. Cheers Matt

2 1

RE: simple SAN?!
by Holloway, Chris 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

You may also want to be aware of the limitations as to when and where you can use SnapDrive and SnapManager products with the guest machines. Essentially you can only use SD and SM if you are using a software iSCSI initiator. Any other methods (and as far as I know this includes raw device mapping) and you won't be able to use them. Chris -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of Julio Calderon Sent: Thu 23/11/2006 18:07 To: Willeke, Jochen; Davies,Matt; toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: Subject: RE: simple SAN?! You should be able to levereage nfs for vmware -----Original Message----- From: Willeke, Jochen [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com] Sent: Thu Nov 23 03:25:26 2006 To: Davies,Matt; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: simple SAN?! We already use ISCSI, but we aer thinking about VMWare and VMWare has some nice features (e.g. VCB) which need an FC-SAN. Thanks anyway Jochen ________________________________ From: Davies,Matt [mailto:MDAVIES@generalatlantic.com] Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 11:59 AM To: Willeke, Jochen; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: simple SAN?! If you are looking at low cost san, I would go Iscsi, as long as everything you need on Iscsi is on Gig ethernet ports, it should work fine. Cheers Matt ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Willeke, Jochen Sent: 23 November 2006 10:11 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: simple SAN?! Hi, as we use not too much SAN at our site i am not really used to this topic. Yesterday i read an article about "simple SAN". "Simple SAN" seems to mean as an plug-n-play solution. But what about the components espacially the SAN-switches? Do we see really new (and cheap :D) SAN-switches or only old products "reassembled" as a solution for small companies. Regards Jochen Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Employees of the company are expressly required not to make defamatory statements and not to infringe or authorize any infringement of copyright or any other legal right by email communications. Any such communication is contrary to company policy and outside the scope of the employment of the individual concerned. The company will not accept any liability in respect of such communication, and the employee responsible will be personally liable for any damages or other liability arising.

1 0

scsitarget.ispfct ?!?
by Willeke, Jochen 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

Hi toasters, we had a strange errormessage a few days ago on one of our FAS3050: scsitarget.ispfct.lunReset:CRITICAL]: FCP Target: LUN Reset (from port 10000000c93bde26), aborting all SCSI commands on lun 0 Does anybody know what this means? I was not able to find out with the help of NOW. Nevertheless we did not hear anything from our colleagues who use the luns on that filer. Regards and thanks in advance Jochen

2 1

RE: simple SAN?!
by Julio Calderon 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

You should be able to levereage nfs for vmware -----Original Message----- From: Willeke, Jochen [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com] Sent: Thu Nov 23 03:25:26 2006 To: Davies,Matt; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: simple SAN?! We already use ISCSI, but we aer thinking about VMWare and VMWare has some nice features (e.g. VCB) which need an FC-SAN. Thanks anyway Jochen ________________________________ From: Davies,Matt [mailto:MDAVIES@generalatlantic.com] Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 11:59 AM To: Willeke, Jochen; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: simple SAN?! If you are looking at low cost san, I would go Iscsi, as long as everything you need on Iscsi is on Gig ethernet ports, it should work fine. Cheers Matt ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Willeke, Jochen Sent: 23 November 2006 10:11 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: simple SAN?! Hi, as we use not too much SAN at our site i am not really used to this topic. Yesterday i read an article about "simple SAN". "Simple SAN" seems to mean as an plug-n-play solution. But what about the components espacially the SAN-switches? Do we see really new (and cheap :D) SAN-switches or only old products "reassembled" as a solution for small companies. Regards Jochen

1 0

(SOLVED) Problem mounting NFS from a Fedora Core 6 machine
by Gustavo Chaves 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

>>>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:43:20 -0800, "Learmonth, Peter" <Peter.Learmonth(a)netapp.com> said: > Check out options ip.fastpath.enable. It's in the man pages. > Peter Thanks, Peter. We tried that but it didn't work for us. However, a friend of mine found a solution. If I specify the option "-o proto=tcp" in the mount command the problem is solved. We found out that by default Fedora tries to use NFS over UDP. When it has to ask the filer's portmapper for the NFS UDP port it sends a UDP packet and receives a UDP response comming from a different interface. When we specify the option "proto=tcp" for the mount command, it connects to the portmapper via TCP and asks the for the NFS TCP port. Since it's a TCP connection, the filer must use the same interface to send the response packets. What's interesting is that the "proto=tcp" option affects not only the protocol NFS uses but also the protocol the mount command uses to talk to the portmapper. I investigated why my Ubuntu machine doesn't have this problem. It asks for NFS over TCP by default. Thank you all for thinking about the problem. Gustavo.

2 1

Re: simple SAN?!
by Fred Grieco 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

I'm pretty sure you can use FC to the VMs if you use virtual ports or NPIV. http://storagemagazine.techtarget.com/magLogin/1,291245,sid35_gci1228666,00… This is a little like "NAT" for fibre channel. It also requires sophisticated cards and switches. Fred ----- Original Message ---- From: "Davies,Matt" <MDAVIES(a)generalatlantic.com> To: "Willeke, Jochen" <Jochen.Willeke(a)wincor-nixdorf.com>; toasters(a)mathworks.com Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 6:24:50 AM Subject: RE: simple SAN?! On the VMware side, as far as I understand you can only use FC to the physical machine, not to a virtual machine, as the VM's do not support FC. I believe you can still use VCB with Iscsi, it just needs a bit more scripting, I would check out the VMware discussion groups on the VMware website, I have always found them very helpful. Cheers Matt From: Willeke, Jochen [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com] Sent: 23 November 2006 11:07 To: Davies,Matt; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: simple SAN?! We already use ISCSI, but we aer thinking about VMWare and VMWare has some nice features (e.g. VCB) which need an FC-SAN. Thanks anyway Jochen From: Davies,Matt [mailto:MDAVIES@generalatlantic.com] Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 11:59 AM To: Willeke, Jochen; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: simple SAN?! If you are looking at low cost san, I would go Iscsi, as long as everything you need on Iscsi is on Gig ethernet ports, it should work fine. Cheers Matt From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Willeke, Jochen Sent: 23 November 2006 10:11 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: simple SAN?! Hi, as we use not too much SAN at our site i am not really used to this topic. Yesterday i read an article about "simple SAN". "Simple SAN" seems to mean as an plug-n-play solution. But what about the components espacially the SAN-switches? Do we see really new (and cheap :D) SAN-switches or only old products "reassembled" as a solution for small companies. Regards Jochen __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: Problem mounting NFS from a Fedora Core 6 machine
by Gustavo Chaves 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

>>>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:45:37 +0100, Åke Beckman <Ake.Beckman(a)proact.se> said: > I suppose the clients that aren't directly connected will specify > the interface that the netapp uses as its default route for their > mount requests, in which case the reply will always come back from > that interface too. Hence, there shouldn't be a problem? The reply comes from the same router, but the source IP address is different. Gustavo.

1 0

RE: simple SAN?!
by Davies,Matt 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

On the VMware side, as far as I understand you can only use FC to the physical machine, not to a virtual machine, as the VM's do not support FC. I believe you can still use VCB with Iscsi, it just needs a bit more scripting, I would check out the VMware discussion groups on the VMware website, I have always found them very helpful. Cheers Matt ________________________________ From: Willeke, Jochen [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com] Sent: 23 November 2006 11:07 To: Davies,Matt; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: simple SAN?! We already use ISCSI, but we aer thinking about VMWare and VMWare has some nice features (e.g. VCB) which need an FC-SAN. Thanks anyway Jochen ________________________________ From: Davies,Matt [mailto:MDAVIES@generalatlantic.com] Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 11:59 AM To: Willeke, Jochen; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: simple SAN?! If you are looking at low cost san, I would go Iscsi, as long as everything you need on Iscsi is on Gig ethernet ports, it should work fine. Cheers Matt ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Willeke, Jochen Sent: 23 November 2006 10:11 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: simple SAN?! Hi, as we use not too much SAN at our site i am not really used to this topic. Yesterday i read an article about "simple SAN". "Simple SAN" seems to mean as an plug-n-play solution. But what about the components espacially the SAN-switches? Do we see really new (and cheap :D) SAN-switches or only old products "reassembled" as a solution for small companies. Regards Jochen

2 1

RE: simple SAN?!
by Davies,Matt 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

If you are looking at low cost san, I would go Iscsi, as long as everything you need on Iscsi is on Gig ethernet ports, it should work fine. Cheers Matt ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Willeke, Jochen Sent: 23 November 2006 10:11 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: simple SAN?! Hi, as we use not too much SAN at our site i am not really used to this topic. Yesterday i read an article about "simple SAN". "Simple SAN" seems to mean as an plug-n-play solution. But what about the components espacially the SAN-switches? Do we see really new (and cheap :D) SAN-switches or only old products "reassembled" as a solution for small companies. Regards Jochen

2 1

iSCSI SAN Queries
by Raj Patel 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

Hi, We're in the preliminary scoping phase for a low/mid-range iSCSI SAN solution. I was wondering if anyone had any positive or negative real-world experiences with - NetApp 270c HDS AMS200 EMC CX320 At the moment the NetApp is the most familiar to me as I have used one of their NAS boxes before and the simulator provides a pretty good indication of how it works. However the iSCSI seems a bit of a 'bolt-on' and its not clear if it will handle tiered storage as well as the other vendors (then again does it matter?). The HDS & EMC are unknown quantities (other than what I can glean from the web). Any feedback concerning ease of use, expansion, licensing, snapshot mechanism (the EMC seems clunky from their literature but I don't know if that's the case in operation). Also does anyone have any iSCSI 'gotchas' ? Is a TOE one of those 'nice to have but not really necessary' things on a modern server or should it be factored into the solution ? Cheers, Raj.

4 4

RE: iSCSI SAN Queries
by Learmonth, Peter 22 Nov '06

22 Nov '06

That page is mostly links to other docs, most of which are external. http://www.netapp.com/library/tr/3250.pdf http://www.netapp.com/library/tr/3338.pdf http://www.netapp.com/library/tr/3357.pdf http://www.netapp.com/library/tr/3323.pdf http://www.netapp.com/library/tr/3376.pdf http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;305547 http://www.netapp.com/library/tr/3302.pdf http://www.netapp.com/library/tr/3280.pdf Share and enjoy! Peter ________________________________ From: Raj Patel [mailto:phigmov@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 11:24 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: iSCSI SAN Queries >http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/bpg/san_ipsan/man_admin_iscsi. shtml One slight annoyance is that this site is member only and basic membership doesn't let you get to this page (Cisco has something similar on their site and its just as aggravating). The EMC page did come straight up though. I'll see if I can get the doc out of a local NetApp vendor. Cheers, Raj. On 11/23/06, Julio Calderon <jcalderon(a)agami.com> wrote: Thanks for sharing your findings. Rule of thumb, regardless of what vendor you choose to go with, review their specific best practices Netapp has them here: http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/bpg/san_ipsan/man_admin_iscsi.s html EMC has them here: http://www.emc.com/techlib/pdf/H1784_Celerra_iSCSI_Solutions_MS_Exch_ldv .pdf Hitachi, I looked but could not find their best practices. My personal recommendation is to review what other vendors have to offer as well. If you do a quick search on the net, you will find many. Best Regards, Julio C.

1 0

RE: iSCSI SAN Queries
by Pichardo, Socrates 22 Nov '06

22 Nov '06

Greetings and salutations, We have deployed, quite successfully, Netapp 3020 with iSCSI for all our Exchange and SQL servers. This solution has been in prod for more than a year now and the issues that we have seen are not directly related to iSCSI. Of course, we did put in place some safe guards that we believe has made the whole solution more reliable like: - Run complete separate network for our iSCSI traffic. - TOE cards for our heavy-duty servers. - Overcapacity on our filer heads. We did this since our iSCSI decision had nothing to do with cost (which at the time of the RFP FC was still significantly more expensive than iSCSI) but with our desire to keep our installation simple and not having to bring a new protocol/environment (FC) under our management. iSCSI has proven to be as fast, reliable and cost effective as we expected it without the steep learning curve of FC. Here are a few findings: - TOE: On our lab we saw a 7%to 12% CPU savings by using them therefore we did not justify them for performance reasons but we ended up using them for SAN booting requirements. - iSCSI Performance: on our lab/RPF we noticed better performance out of FC under heavy load conditions. Under our expected loads (low to average), we did not noticed any significance performance gains on FC over iSCSI. - iSCSI Implementation: We also noticed that a year ago iSCSI looked like an "add-on" to most of the SAN vendors we spoke with. We selected Netapp for their simplicity and easy of management and both have been proven to be true. Regards, SPV ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Julio Calderon Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 9:21 PM To: Raj Patel; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: iSCSI SAN Queries Greetings, I've had first hand experience with Netapp 270s / iSCSI on couple of windows host. (past life) Nutshell: SLOW, don't try exchange on it, it kept timing out on me. I've also seen a large client have issues with Lotus notes when using Gfilers 980c and HDS as the backend storage. (this was a poor configuration issue, too many LUNs over a 1 gig connection) I've also tried it for another purposes and I lost my LUN a few times. The only way of getting it back then was by restarting the client! not a fun thing to do when you are running multiple apps on the same server. Suggestion would be, directly attach application servers via GigE across to your iSCSI device. If direct connecting your app servers is not realistic. use VLANs to segregate traffic, dedicate iSCSI traffic to a set of bonded ports. Start slow, make sure that the number of LUNs being provisioned to the app servers are provisioned in a control manner. (meaning, see how your application behaves in a controlled environment before doing any big role out) Monitor performance, use a testing tool (iozone) to see how much performance you would gain or loose from moving away from current solution. Also, consider the advantages and disadvantages an iSCSI solution would bring your environment. (replication, HA, speed, easy of management, backup, etc) TOE ? I think that the purpose of having iSCSI in your environment is to lower the investment of FC (SAN) solution by leveraging your current network infrastructure and current staff expertise so, if you start purchasing the TOE cards, you will in fact start cutting into the savings a properly architected and managed IP SAN (iscsi) solution would offer your company. I have not had the opportunity to try a TOE card nor have I needed it to yet since I am able to reach almost wire speeds on GigE at the moment. Can not comment on the HDS and EMC solutions but I can't believe they would be better than what Netapp has to offer since their main business is in the FC world. Hope this helps guide you! Best Regards, Julio Calderon West Region - Systems Engineer agami <http://www.agami.com/> 1269 Innsbruck Drive <http://maps.google.com/maps?q=1269+Innsbruck+Drive%2CSunnyvale%2CCA+940 89%2CUSA&hl=en> Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA Work: 408.349.0414 Mobile: 408.394.5638 Fax: 408.349.0393 Email: jcalderon(a)agami.com <mailto:jcalderon@agami.com> IM: juliocus (Yahoo) Want a signature like this? <http://www.linkedin.com/e/sig/2105155/> ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Raj Patel Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 11:40 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: iSCSI SAN Queries Hi, We're in the preliminary scoping phase for a low/mid-range iSCSI SAN solution. I was wondering if anyone had any positive or negative real-world experiences with - NetApp 270c HDS AMS200 EMC CX320 At the moment the NetApp is the most familiar to me as I have used one of their NAS boxes before and the simulator provides a pretty good indication of how it works. However the iSCSI seems a bit of a 'bolt-on' and its not clear if it will handle tiered storage as well as the other vendors (then again does it matter?). The HDS & EMC are unknown quantities (other than what I can glean from the web). Any feedback concerning ease of use, expansion, licensing, snapshot mechanism (the EMC seems clunky from their literature but I don't know if that's the case in operation). Also does anyone have any iSCSI 'gotchas' ? Is a TOE one of those 'nice to have but not really necessary' things on a modern server or should it be factored into the solution ? Cheers, Raj. <font size="2">"IMPORTANT NOTICE: The information in this email (and any attachments hereto) is confidential and may be protected by legal privileges and work product immunities. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use or disseminate the information. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any attorney-client or work product privilege. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify me by "Reply" command and permanently delete the original and any copies or printouts thereof. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Transatlantic Reinsurance Company or its subsidiaries or affiliates either jointly or severally, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use."</font>

3 2

RE: iSCSI SAN Queries
by Ledbetter, Charles 22 Nov '06

22 Nov '06

Julio pretty well summed things up. Think of iSCSI as iSAN. It's still a SAN setup and the blocks move over the very same SCSI protocol. Whether it's SCSI over FCP or SCSI over IP makes no real difference. With that in mind, you should treat your iSAN setups with the same consideration as SAN. Dedicated links, VLANs, etc. A TOE card should only be deployed once you know you need one. Start with a standard host NIC and watch your host's CPU. If it's being driven to capacity, a TOE or iSCSI HBA will help. If it's not, you're really just wasting money. -Charles -----Original Message----- From: Julio Calderon [mailto:jcalderon@agami.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 9:21 PM To: Raj Patel; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: iSCSI SAN Queries Greetings, I've had first hand experience with Netapp 270s / iSCSI on couple of windows host. (past life) Nutshell: SLOW, don't try exchange on it, it kept timing out on me. I've also seen a large client have issues with Lotus notes when using Gfilers 980c and HDS as the backend storage. (this was a poor configuration issue, too many LUNs over a 1 gig connection) I've also tried it for another purposes and I lost my LUN a few times. The only way of getting it back then was by restarting the client! not a fun thing to do when you are running multiple apps on the same server. Suggestion would be, directly attach application servers via GigE across to your iSCSI device. If direct connecting your app servers is not realistic. use VLANs to segregate traffic, dedicate iSCSI traffic to a set of bonded ports. Start slow, make sure that the number of LUNs being provisioned to the app servers are provisioned in a control manner. (meaning, see how your application behaves in a controlled environment before doing any big role out) Monitor performance, use a testing tool (iozone) to see how much performance you would gain or loose from moving away from current solution. Also, consider the advantages and disadvantages an iSCSI solution would bring your environment. (replication, HA, speed, easy of management, backup, etc) TOE ? I think that the purpose of having iSCSI in your environment is to lower the investment of FC (SAN) solution by leveraging your current network infrastructure and current staff expertise so, if you start purchasing the TOE cards, you will in fact start cutting into the savings a properly architected and managed IP SAN (iscsi) solution would offer your company. I have not had the opportunity to try a TOE card nor have I needed it to yet since I am able to reach almost wire speeds on GigE at the moment. Can not comment on the HDS and EMC solutions but I can't believe they would be better than what Netapp has to offer since their main business is in the FC world. Hope this helps guide you! Best Regards, Julio Calderon West Region - Systems Engineer agami <http://www.agami.com/> 1269 Innsbruck Drive <http://maps.google.com/maps?q=1269+Innsbruck+Drive%2CSunnyvale%2CCA+940 89%2CUSA&hl=en> Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA Work: 408.349.0414 Mobile: 408.394.5638 Fax: 408.349.0393 Email: jcalderon(a)agami.com IM: juliocus (Yahoo) Want a signature like this? <http://www.linkedin.com/e/sig/2105155/> _____ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Raj Patel Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 11:40 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: iSCSI SAN Queries Hi, We're in the preliminary scoping phase for a low/mid-range iSCSI SAN solution. I was wondering if anyone had any positive or negative real-world experiences with - NetApp 270c HDS AMS200 EMC CX320 At the moment the NetApp is the most familiar to me as I have used one of their NAS boxes before and the simulator provides a pretty good indication of how it works. However the iSCSI seems a bit of a 'bolt-on' and its not clear if it will handle tiered storage as well as the other vendors (then again does it matter?). The HDS & EMC are unknown quantities (other than what I can glean from the web). Any feedback concerning ease of use, expansion, licensing, snapshot mechanism (the EMC seems clunky from their literature but I don't know if that's the case in operation). Also does anyone have any iSCSI 'gotchas' ? Is a TOE one of those 'nice to have but not really necessary' things on a modern server or should it be factored into the solution ? Cheers, Raj.

1 0

Problem mounting NFS from a Fedora Core 6 machine
by Gustavo Chaves 22 Nov '06

22 Nov '06

Hello, We have a F760 running Data Ontap 6.4.5. (Pretty old stuff, I know.) The filer has six network interfaces, each one connected to a different network. Recently we started experimenting with a Linux Fedora Core 6 machine. When we try to mount some directory at the filer from this machine, almost always the process hang. A very few times the process succeeds. Investigating the issue using tcpdump I discovered that in the process of mouting, when the filer's portmapper answers to the Linux box, sometimes its answers come from a different network interface and the Linux box doesn't like that. See below the history of an unsuccessful mount. The Linux box (10.202.40.66) tries to mount a directory from filer (10.202.48.109) with the following command and hangs until I kill it: mount filer:/vol/vol0/unix/config /mnt Note that on packet 111 the linux box sends a UDP packet to the filer's portmapper asking for the port number of the MOUNT service. The filer responds with packet 113, which comes from another of its interfaces (10.202.40.23). This response is rejected by the linux box with the ICMP packet number 114. If I try to mount specifying the interface 10.202.40.23, which is in the same network as the client, the mount succeeds. It seems that the portmapper response always tries to go back through the interface in the same network as the client. The problem is that we have some linux clients on networks on which there is no filer interface connected. In these cases it seems to be anyone's guess through which interface the portmapper response will come. We looked for differences in the TCP stack from Fedora Core 5 to 6, because until Core 5 this problem didn't arise, but we couldn't find anything relevant. Since the filer works ok with other Linux and Solaris machines, it seems that something must have been changed in the Linux kernel that made it more strict. We suspected of some firewall rules, but there is no iptables rules configured in the linux box. Has anybody seen this before? Any clue? Thank you. Gustavo. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- No. Time Source Destination Protocol Info 94 1.036676 10.202.40.66 10.202.48.109 TCP 33614 > sunrpc [SYN] Seq=0 Len=0 MSS=1460 TSV=16336999 TSER=0 WS=6 95 1.038301 10.202.48.109 10.202.40.66 TCP sunrpc > 33614 [SYN, ACK] Seq=0 Ack=1 Win=8760 Len=0 MSS=1460 WS=0 TSV=242744087 TSER=16336999 96 1.038319 10.202.40.66 10.202.48.109 TCP 33614 > sunrpc [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=1 Win=5888 Len=0 TSV=16336999 TSER=242744087 97 1.038385 10.202.40.66 10.202.48.109 Portmap V2 GETPORT Call (Reply In 98) NFS(100003) V:3 TCP 98 1.039907 10.202.48.109 10.202.40.66 Portmap V2 GETPORT Reply (Call In 97) Port:2049 99 1.039914 10.202.40.66 10.202.48.109 TCP 33614 > sunrpc [ACK] Seq=61 Ack=33 Win=5888 Len=0 TSV=16337000 TSER=242744087 100 1.039939 10.202.40.66 10.202.48.109 TCP 33614 > sunrpc [FIN, ACK] Seq=61 Ack=33 Win=5888 Len=0 TSV=16337000 TSER=242744087 101 1.039966 10.202.40.66 10.202.48.109 TCP 34612 > nfs [SYN] Seq=0 Len=0 MSS=1460 TSV=16337000 TSER=0 WS=6 102 1.040592 10.202.48.109 10.202.40.66 TCP sunrpc > 33614 [ACK] Seq=33 Ack=62 Win=8760 Len=0 TSV=242744087 TSER=16337000 103 1.040669 10.202.48.109 10.202.40.66 TCP nfs > 34612 [SYN, ACK] Seq=0 Ack=1 Win=26280 Len=0 MSS=1460 WS=0 TSV=242744087 TSER=16337000 104 1.040677 10.202.40.66 10.202.48.109 TCP 34612 > nfs [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=1 Win=5888 Len=0 TSV=16337000 TSER=242744087 105 1.040722 10.202.40.66 10.202.48.109 TCP [TCP segment of a reassembled PDU] 106 1.040849 10.202.48.109 10.202.40.66 TCP sunrpc > 33614 [FIN, ACK] Seq=33 Ack=62 Win=8760 Len=0 TSV=242744087 TSER=16337000 107 1.040856 10.202.40.66 10.202.48.109 TCP 33614 > sunrpc [ACK] Seq=62 Ack=34 Win=5888 Len=0 TSV=16337000 TSER=242744087 108 1.041776 10.202.48.109 10.202.40.66 NFS V3 NULL Reply (Call In 105) 109 1.041782 10.202.40.66 10.202.48.109 TCP 34612 > nfs [ACK] Seq=45 Ack=33 Win=5888 Len=0 TSV=16337000 TSER=242744087 110 1.041801 10.202.40.66 10.202.48.109 TCP 34612 > nfs [FIN, ACK] Seq=45 Ack=33 Win=5888 Len=0 TSV=16337000 TSER=242744087 111 1.041847 10.202.40.66 10.202.48.109 Portmap V2 GETPORT Call (Reply In 113) MOUNT(100005) V:3 UDP 112 1.042834 10.202.48.109 10.202.40.66 TCP nfs > 34612 [ACK] Seq=33 Ack=46 Win=26280 Len=0 TSV=242744087 TSER=16337000 113 1.042842 10.202.40.23 10.202.40.66 Portmap V2 GETPORT Reply (Call In 111) Port:4046 114 1.042851 10.202.40.66 10.202.40.23 ICMP Destination unreachable (Port unreachable) 115 1.042854 10.202.48.109 10.202.40.66 TCP nfs > 34612 [FIN, ACK] Seq=33 Ack=46 Win=26280 Len=0 TSV=242744087 TSER=16337000 116 1.042857 10.202.40.66 10.202.48.109 TCP 34612 > nfs [ACK] Seq=46 Ack=34 Win=5888 Len=0 TSV=16337000 TSER=242744087

1 0

RE: iSCSI SAN Queries
by Christopher Mende 21 Nov '06

21 Nov '06

I can't comment much on the other vendors' most current offerings, but iSCSI is anything but bolt-on for the filers. NetApp has the lion's share of iSCSI deployments worldwide. FAS270 (including clusters) running iSCSI configurations supporting Exchange, SQL, and all varieties of other applications are going in all over the place. With a FAS270c, tiered storage (mixing FC & SATA) is possible, with certain conditions. All secondary shelves are either SATA OR FC. From the system configuration guide: Caution 2: While both types of disk shelves can connect to the filer, if there is an existing DiskShelf14mk2 FC connected to the FAS270/FAS270c, then any additional expansion shelf must be a DiskShelf14mk2 FC. If however, you do not have an expansion shelf connected to the FAS270/FAS270c, then you can choose to connect to a loop of DiskShelf14mk2 AT or a loop of DiskShelf14mk2 FC, but not both. The FAS270/FAS270c does not support both types of disk shelves on the same loop. ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Raj Patel Sent: Wednesday, 22 November 2006 8:40 a.m. To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: iSCSI SAN Queries Hi, We're in the preliminary scoping phase for a low/mid-range iSCSI SAN solution. I was wondering if anyone had any positive or negative real-world experiences with - NetApp 270c HDS AMS200 EMC CX320 At the moment the NetApp is the most familiar to me as I have used one of their NAS boxes before and the simulator provides a pretty good indication of how it works. However the iSCSI seems a bit of a 'bolt-on' and its not clear if it will handle tiered storage as well as the other vendors (then again does it matter?). The HDS & EMC are unknown quantities (other than what I can glean from the web). Any feedback concerning ease of use, expansion, licensing, snapshot mechanism (the EMC seems clunky from their literature but I don't know if that's the case in operation). Also does anyone have any iSCSI 'gotchas' ? Is a TOE one of those 'nice to have but not really necessary' things on a modern server or should it be factored into the solution ? Cheers, Raj. The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents. If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.

1 0

IBM Branded NetApps
by Raj Patel 19 Nov '06

19 Nov '06

Hi all, A few quick queries - Has anyone had any experience with the IBM Branded NetApp's ? What does the N5200 compare with in the NetApp family ? How does service/support differ from NetApp ? Finally why would anyone go with IBM for a NetApp rather than NetApp direct (is it purely a question of vendor service quality or is there a significant price difference) ? Thanks in advance, Raj.

7 8

RE: Measuring Filer Performance
by Willeke, Jochen 16 Nov '06

16 Nov '06

Hi, i agree that latency is one of the main factors. But sometimes i wonder how to measure the latency the best way. One way i know is to use "tethereal -i [interface] -z rpc,rtt,100003,3" Which gives me an overview of the rtt which is seen by the client. But i am not so sure what to use to see the output from the filer. I know that statit gives me some kind of rtt for each disk. But where do you get a good overall-response-time for your filers from? Those counters shown by Blake (...stat show...) are very good, but i think they only show what the head sees. What is a reasonable value to be added as an "head-overhead". For example: - I run tethereal from a direct-attached client and see a read-rtt of 12ms - I run stat show -i 1 nfsv3:nfs:nfsv3_read_latency and see 3ms - I run a ping from the direct-attached client and get a rtt of 2ms - So i would think that the filer-overhead is ~7ms Do you think this is correct way to go? Best Regards Jochen -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Walker Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 4:25 AM To: Blake Golliher; George, Andrew Cc: Rohit; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Measuring Filer Performance I'd agree with the latency standpoint. It's a good metric to determine when the users will start to bitch. The latency might be hidden by the application, but it depends on how well it's written (single threaded vs multi threaded\low concurrency vs high concurrency). Typically, this is all a function of CPU\DISK (and sometimes memory) load. As a result, those are good to watch, and they are a direct result of the overall workload (CIFS\NFS\iSCSI IOPS). The hard part is determining what\why the workload tanks. Most times, users are only going to feel impact if there is a long running event that generates high latency - however, depending on workload, a single spike that lasts only moments (a second or two) can be devastating: this is where knowing your environment comes in handy. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Blake Golliher Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 7:08 PM To: George, Andrew Cc: Rohit; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Measuring Filer Performance Latency is primary for what most of what my filers are doing. Usually watched via nfs_hist (being sure to -z the stats), or using stats all wrapped up in a shell script. rsh $FILER 'priv set -q diag ; stats show -i $INTER -n $SAMPLES volume:$VOL:avg_latency volume:$VOL:total_ops volume:$VOL:read_latency volume:$VOL:read_ops volume:$VOL:write_latency volume:$VOL:write_ops volume:$VOL:other_latency volume:$VOL:other_ops volume:$VOL:nfs_read_latency volume:$VOL:nfs_read_ops volume:$VOL:nfs_write_latency volume:$VOL:nfs_write_ops volume:$VOL:nfs_other_latency volume:$VOL:nfs_other_ops' nfsv3:nfs:nfsv3_avg_op_latency nfsv3:nfs:nfsv3_op_percent nfsv3:nfs:nfsv3_write_ops nfsv3:nfs:nfsv3_write_latency nfsv3:nfs:nfsv3_read_ops nfsv3:nfs:nfsv3_read_latency nfsv3:nfs:nfsv3_ops' It's good to note that while stats show averages, nfs_hist shows a histogram, and can spot the occasional very high latency operation. Good to watch. I just poked around, there is a cifs component for stats, and it shows some interesting metrics the cifs users might want to watch. filer01*> stats show cifsdomain cifs cifs:cifs:cifs_ops:2658/s cifs:cifs:cifs_op_count: GetAttr: 1296 Read: 989 Write: 0 Lock: 1 Open/Close: 23 Directory: 0 Other: 335 cifs:cifs:cifs_op_pct: GetAttr: 48% Read: 37% Write: 0% Lock: 0% Open/Close: 0% Directory: 0% Other: 12% cifs:cifs:cifs_latency:3.27ms cifsdomain:10.0.0.3:netlogon_latency:9.50ms cifsdomain:10.0.0.3:netlogon_latency_base:6 cifsdomain:10.0.0.3:lsa_latency:0ms cifsdomain:10.0.0.3:lsa_latency_base:0 cifsdomain:10.0.0.3:samr_latency:0ms cifsdomain:10.0.0.3:samr_latency_base:0 cifsdomain:10.0.0.2:netlogon_latency:2.00ms cifsdomain:10.0.0.2:netlogon_latency_base:1 cifsdomain:10.0.0.2:lsa_latency:0ms cifsdomain:10.0.0.2:lsa_latency_base:0 cifsdomain:10.0.0.2:samr_latency:0ms cifsdomain:10.0.0.2:samr_latency_base:0 cifsdomain:10.0.0.1:netlogon_latency:0ms cifsdomain:10.0.0.1:netlogon_latency_base:0 cifsdomain:10.0.0.1:lsa_latency:0ms cifsdomain:10.0.0.1:lsa_latency_base:0 cifsdomain:10.0.0.1:samr_latency:0ms cifsdomain:10.0.0.1:samr_latency_base:0 There's also smb_hist. That's from a 960 running 6.5.6PsomethingDsomething.... -Blake On 11/15/06, George, Andrew <georgea(a)anz.com> wrote: > We only use our filers for CIFS (so this may be completely inapplicable > to you) > > 1. Cache age! Mainly because when I have seen filers that are worked to > death, that's the value that tends to react to it (though CP there are a > lot of secondary metrics to support that). > > 2. As mentioned by someone else...the magic metric is how badly the > users are bitching. That being a little "rubbery" we also check cache > age, cp type, disk utilisation, cpu usage, Ops/sec and network traffic > to determine if anything's bottlenecking. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] > On Behalf Of Rohit > Sent: Wednesday, 15 November 2006 9:59 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Measuring Filer Performance > > Hi Folks > > I had some open questions and i hope you'll help me answer them based on > your experience. > > 1. If you just had a single metric to determine filer performance what > would it be ? > Would it be CPU usage, throughput, latency, IOPS..or anything else ? > > 2. At your place, what metrics do you use to determine if a filer is > still good enough not to worry about ? > > thanks > rohit > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- > Refinance & Home Equity Loan Quotes > Low credit score? Old Merchants can help. Get a quote in 2 easy steps! > http://tagline.bidsystem.com/fc/BgLEQfI7zNZsu5fZHhXyj0UMjSNzY6ZfSaWC/ > > > > > "This e-mail and any attachments to it (the "Communication") is, unless otherwise stated, confidential, may contain copyright material and is for the use only of the intended recipient. If you receive the Communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete the Communication and the return e-mail, and do not read, copy, retransmit or otherwise deal with it. Any views expressed in the Communication are those of the individual sender only, unless expressly stated to be those of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ABN 11 005 357 522, or any of its related entities including ANZ National Bank Limited (together "ANZ"). ANZ does not accept liability in connection with the integrity of or errors in the Communication, computer virus, data corruption, interference or delay arising from or in respect of the Communication." >

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