toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13517 discussions

RE: Mixed Mode
by Feierfeil, Jeff 17 Mar '06

17 Mar '06

Hi Tracy, I'm the Product Managers for CIFS at Network Appliance and I would like to reinforce that NetApp is NOT removing the "Mixed Mode" security style. NetApp will continue to provide the same three security styles in ONTAP that it always has -- These being UNIX, NTFS and MIXED. In the majority of cases the use of MIXED is not needed to solve most multiprotocol usage scenarios Recommendations like this are generally documented in publicly available Technical Reports like this: http://www.netapp.com/library/tr/3014.pdf <http://www.netapp.com/library/tr/3014.pdf> Now, it is possible your concern on dl-toasters may have stemmed from a student who attended a recent NetApp training class and may have been confused between Mixed Mode Security (i.e. CIFS and NFS) vs. MIXED CFMODE in Fibre Channel. The instructor may have made a statement along the lines of MIXED mode is not recommended by NetApp and may be going away in the future. The instructor was talking about MIXED CFMODE (ala FCP.) Apparently, it is not recommended, STANDBY and PARTNER are and SINGE_IMAGE CFMODE will replace PARTNER and MIXED CFMODES on future platforms. It may have been that one of students got confused and thought the instructor was talking about MIXED SECURITY MODE ala CIFS and NFS when in fact it was the CFMODE for FCP. Sorry for the confusion and let me know if you have further questions. Thank You. Jeff Feierfeil Product Manager (Windows EFS) Network Appliance, Inc. firefly(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Tracy Russell [mailto:trussell@nrao.edu <mailto:trussell@nrao.edu> ] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:19 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Mixed Mode Does anyone know the future of the security mode -- "mixed mode"? Several co-workers returned from NetApp training stating that this particular mode is not encouraged and may be dropped in the not too distant future from NetApp support. Has anyone else heard this or can confirm this to any degree? We are about to set up a new Filer and I'm trying to decide what to do with a volume that is currently configured for mixed mode security on an old Filer. If anyone has experiences changes from mixed mode to either all CIFS or NFS, I'd appreciate their inputs as well. Thanks. Tracy

2 1

RE: AV Scan Engines
by Glenn Walker 17 Mar '06

17 Mar '06

I've seen all used, and my warm fuzzies lie with Symantec. The company I work for happens to use Symantec as a matter of coincidence (was in place before my arrival) and I've seen only 1 problem to date - however that was a MICROSOFT issue with NetBIOS pathing, not a Symantec issue... On a high level, they seem to basically be all the same, relatively speaking. An old saying I heard once upon a time seems to ring true now: "if you are thinking of migrating to a different platform, you're only going to succeed in trading one set of bugs for another". Glenn ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of markallen(a)micron.com Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 4:24 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: AV Scan Engines Does anyone have any info on AV scan engines that are available for Netapp? We have been using Symantec but are wondering if any of the other vendors do a better job. -Mark

1 0

RE: Mixed Mode
by Glenn Dekhayser 17 Mar '06

17 Mar '06

Aha! Thank you Jeff for reinforcing my belief! I knew it couldn't be true..... Glenn ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Feierfeil, Jeff Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 8:46 PM To: trussell(a)nrao.edu; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Mixed Mode Hi Tracy, I'm the Product Managers for CIFS at Network Appliance and I would like to reinforce that NetApp is NOT removing the "Mixed Mode" security style. NetApp will continue to provide the same three security styles in ONTAP that it always has -- These being UNIX, NTFS and MIXED. In the majority of cases the use of MIXED is not needed to solve most multiprotocol usage scenarios Recommendations like this are generally documented in publicly available Technical Reports like this: http://www.netapp.com/library/tr/3014.pdf <http://www.netapp.com/library/tr/3014.pdf> Now, it is possible your concern on dl-toasters may have stemmed from a student who attended a recent NetApp training class and may have been confused between Mixed Mode Security (i.e. CIFS and NFS) vs. MIXED CFMODE in Fibre Channel. The instructor may have made a statement along the lines of MIXED mode is not recommended by NetApp and may be going away in the future. The instructor was talking about MIXED CFMODE (ala FCP.) Apparently, it is not recommended, STANDBY and PARTNER are and SINGE_IMAGE CFMODE will replace PARTNER and MIXED CFMODES on future platforms. It may have been that one of students got confused and thought the instructor was talking about MIXED SECURITY MODE ala CIFS and NFS when in fact it was the CFMODE for FCP. Sorry for the confusion and let me know if you have further questions. Thank You. Jeff Feierfeil Product Manager (Windows EFS) Network Appliance, Inc. firefly(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Tracy Russell [mailto:trussell@nrao.edu <mailto:trussell@nrao.edu> ] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:19 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Mixed Mode Does anyone know the future of the security mode -- "mixed mode"? Several co-workers returned from NetApp training stating that this particular mode is not encouraged and may be dropped in the not too distant future from NetApp support. Has anyone else heard this or can confirm this to any degree? We are about to set up a new Filer and I'm trying to decide what to do with a volume that is currently configured for mixed mode security on an old Filer. If anyone has experiences changes from mixed mode to either all CIFS or NFS, I'd appreciate their inputs as well. Thanks. Tracy

1 0

RE: filer disk replacement
by Glenn Dekhayser 17 Mar '06

17 Mar '06

Of course, the fact that Scott @ Union Computer Exchange sells second hand Netapp equipment has nothing to do with his opinion.... :-) I'm with Glenn on this one. Netapp systems are usually put into critical environments; having to rely on anyone but the original manufacturer for hardware support is a risk I'm not willing to take. Of course, the fact that I'm a Netapp VAR has everything to do with that! :-) Glenn ----- I guess it's all about where you're getting the parts from. My statement was more along the lines of it being cheaper to get a contract from NetApp than to get parts from NetApp without a contract. I can't speak to anything that's 3rd party. -----Original Message----- From: Scott Fischmann [mailto:scottuce@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 6:19 PM To: Glenn Walker Cc: Tim Longo; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: filer disk replacement I beg to differ with Glenn -- considering the ready availability of cheap/used/3rd party/high quality/tested parts or complete heads for F7xx and F8xx generation systems, it is MUCH, MUCH cheaper to swap parts/purchase spares/procure 3rd party parts coverage as opposed to continuing with NetApp hardware support. ;-) -- Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, Minnesota 55436 phone: (952) 935-7282 | fax: (952) 935-5056 email: scott(a)unioncomputer.com "Helping our customers make each dollar go further - since 1991!" Glenn Walker wrote on 3/16/2006, 1:24 PM: > NetApp disks are formatted in a special way. I _believe_ they are > also labeled in a special way (ie, like HPaq does) so that the disks > appear in a specific way when you perform normal SCSI Inquiries into > the device type... that pretty much will prevent you from using common > off-the-shelf components. I know of no way around this... > > FWIW - the support agreement you get from NetApp for a year is > typically MUCH cheaper than having to swap out parts if they break by > paying NetApp the one-time support agreement and paying for the > components themselves. It doesn't take many component swaps to > overcome the cost of paying for the yearly support agreement... > > Glenn > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of Tim Longo > Sent: Thu 3/16/2006 1:28 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: filer disk replacement > > > > I have an old filer that will be off support soon. Support through > Netapp is way too much $$, but the system still works great... so I'd > like to explore alternative options for replacing disks when they fail. > Can I simply buy a fiber channel disk that matches the type in the filer > on ebay or something to replace? Anyone else find a good(cheap) way to > support older, but still useful machines? > > thanks > > > -- Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, Minnesota 55436 phone: (952) 935-7282 | fax: (952) 935-5056 email: scott(a)unioncomputer.com "Helping our customers make each dollar go further - since 1991!"

1 0

RE: filer disk replacement
by Glenn Walker 17 Mar '06

17 Mar '06

I guess it's all about where you're getting the parts from. My statement was more along the lines of it being cheaper to get a contract from NetApp than to get parts from NetApp without a contract. I can't speak to anything that's 3rd party. -----Original Message----- From: Scott Fischmann [mailto:scottuce@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 6:19 PM To: Glenn Walker Cc: Tim Longo; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: filer disk replacement I beg to differ with Glenn -- considering the ready availability of cheap/used/3rd party/high quality/tested parts or complete heads for F7xx and F8xx generation systems, it is MUCH, MUCH cheaper to swap parts/purchase spares/procure 3rd party parts coverage as opposed to continuing with NetApp hardware support. ;-) -- Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, Minnesota 55436 phone: (952) 935-7282 | fax: (952) 935-5056 email: scott(a)unioncomputer.com "Helping our customers make each dollar go further - since 1991!" Glenn Walker wrote on 3/16/2006, 1:24 PM: > NetApp disks are formatted in a special way. I _believe_ they are > also labeled in a special way (ie, like HPaq does) so that the disks > appear in a specific way when you perform normal SCSI Inquiries into > the device type... that pretty much will prevent you from using common > off-the-shelf components. I know of no way around this... > > FWIW - the support agreement you get from NetApp for a year is > typically MUCH cheaper than having to swap out parts if they break by > paying NetApp the one-time support agreement and paying for the > components themselves. It doesn't take many component swaps to > overcome the cost of paying for the yearly support agreement... > > Glenn > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of Tim Longo > Sent: Thu 3/16/2006 1:28 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: filer disk replacement > > > > I have an old filer that will be off support soon. Support through > Netapp is way too much $$, but the system still works great... so I'd > like to explore alternative options for replacing disks when they fail. > Can I simply buy a fiber channel disk that matches the type in the filer > on ebay or something to replace? Anyone else find a good(cheap) way to > support older, but still useful machines? > > thanks > > > -- Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, Minnesota 55436 phone: (952) 935-7282 | fax: (952) 935-5056 email: scott(a)unioncomputer.com "Helping our customers make each dollar go further - since 1991!"

1 0

RE: AV Scan Engines
by Warkentin, Grant 17 Mar '06

17 Mar '06

We use CA e-trust for Netapp filers. Using two AV server to scan one FAS960. The product has been very solid since installation except for Dec 2005 to Feb 7 2006. Applying some vendor supplied patches for etrust has settled the system down again. Both scanners ran flawlessly for about two years except for the months noted above. I suspect some kind of a windows update introduced the instability. Annoyances: The scanners choke on large files - 100 meg and bigger powerpoint files - Soln. = don't scan any powerpoint files. - 400+ meg cab files (gis software) - Soln. = Exclude Cab files. These are the only two types I have had to exclude. There are no settings on the product to ignore large files. Users receiving a Net send message when the av scanners cannot open a file. - The message reads "File is infected with _ virus." The "_" is where the name of the virus would be if the file was really infected. - disabled the net sends due to this. Needs improvement: product could use a better quarantine system. An infected file will just disappear if quarantine is on. It moves the file to a quarantine folder but will not notify the user that it has quarantined the file. Computer Associates need to make their patches and product updates easier to find on ca.com Takes a long time to find the downloadable updates IMHO. NOTICE - This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of markallen(a)micron.com Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 2:24 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: AV Scan Engines Does anyone have any info on AV scan engines that are available for Netapp? We have been using Symantec but are wondering if any of the other vendors do a better job. -Mark

1 0

Re: Mixed Mode
by Tim McCarthy 17 Mar '06

17 Mar '06

Lest we all forget.....NFSv4? Solaris 10 has it, Mnay version of Linux has it. Granted I have done very limited testing, but I am able to set and control ACLs using getfacl and setfacl under solaris and linux. What is nice is that the ACL is obeyed by nfsv3 clients as well. I bet a lucky side-effect. This "common" ACL support sure looks like it will beat mixed-mode. When I worked for NTAP, I encouraged as many as possible not to use mixed mode unless they were very sure about what each and every action could do to file perms. --tmac Maglinger, Paul wrote: > Personally, although we run mixed-mode as a necessary evil, it is one of > the most challenging tasks I have running the filer. I do wish they'd > improve it. > > Just my 2 cents... > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com > [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] *On Behalf Of *Glenn Dekhayser > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:54 > *To:* JONES P.S.; Tracy Russell; toasters(a)mathworks.com > *Subject:* RE: Mixed Mode > > In my 10+ years of dealing with Netapp, I have never known them to > remove a feature from OnTAP, and can't imagine them starting now- > especially one used by thousands of installations today. Perhaps your > users misunderstood what they heard in training? A trainer would also > never disclose that kind of information in that forum as presumably not > everyone in the room would be under NDA, and that kind of information, > if true (and I suspect not) would be confidential. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com > [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] *On Behalf Of *JONES P.S. > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:13 AM > *To:* Tracy Russell; toasters(a)mathworks.com > *Subject:* RE: Mixed Mode > > I trust this is an individual's surmise and no more. I have not heard of > this remote possibility > in any shape or form. We rely absolutely on mixed mode presentation to > our users; its one of > the keystone elements of our single authentication, single filestore > architecture. Losing this would be > too much to contemplate. > > > Paul Jones, B.Sc, M.Sc, Ph.D. - Head of Systems Services, > Information Technology Service, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE > Email: p.s.jones(a)durham.ac.uk Phone/Fax: 0191 334 2749/2701 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of Tracy Russell > *Sent:* Wed 3/15/2006 2:19 PM > *To:* toasters(a)mathworks.com > *Subject:* Mixed Mode > > Does anyone know the future of the security mode -- "mixed mode"? > Several co-workers returned from NetApp training stating that this > particular mode is not encouraged and may be dropped in the not too > distant future from NetApp support. > > Has anyone else heard this or can confirm this to any degree? We are > about to set up a new Filer and I'm trying to decide what to do with a > volume that is currently configured for mixed mode security on an old Filer. > > If anyone has experiences changes from mixed mode to either all CIFS or > NFS, I'd appreciate their inputs as well. > > Thanks. > > Tracy >

3 2

filer disk replacement
by Tim Longo 16 Mar '06

16 Mar '06

I have an old filer that will be off support soon. Support through Netapp is way too much $$, but the system still works great... so I'd like to explore alternative options for replacing disks when they fail. Can I simply buy a fiber channel disk that matches the type in the filer on ebay or something to replace? Anyone else find a good(cheap) way to support older, but still useful machines? thanks

5 4

RE: AV Scan Engines
by Hill, Aaron 16 Mar '06

16 Mar '06

TrendMicro here. Never had any problems whatsoever. We run it for thousands of Windows/CIFS clients connected to various filers. 4 scanners for each cluster is our standard. Aaron _____ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of markallen(a)micron.com Sent: Friday, 17 March 2006 8:24 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: AV Scan Engines Does anyone have any info on AV scan engines that are available for Netapp? We have been using Symantec but are wondering if any of the other vendors do a better job. -Mark ************** IMPORTANT MESSAGE ************** This e-mail message is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains information which may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient please advise the sender by return email, do not use or disclose the contents, and delete the message and any attachments from your system. Unless specifically indicated, this email does not constitute formal advice or commitment by the sender or the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (ABN 48 123 123 124) or its subsidiaries. We can be contacted through our web site: commbank.com.au. If you no longer wish to receive commercial electronic messages from us, please reply to this e-mail by typing Unsubscribe in the subject line. ***************************************************************

1 0

AV Scan Engines
by markallen＠micron.com 16 Mar '06

16 Mar '06

Does anyone have any info on AV scan engines that are available for Netapp? We have been using Symantec but are wondering if any of the other vendors do a better job. -Mark

3 2

RE: AV Scan Engines
by Andre M. Clark 16 Mar '06

16 Mar '06

I've used TrendMicro and had no issues. I am curious with the issues that you've had and what version of TrendMicro you were running. Just something to be aware of in case I run into it. Thanks, Andre -----Original Message----- >From: John Clear <jclear(a)ati.com> >Sent: Mar 16, 2006 4:36 PM >To: markallen(a)micron.com, toasters(a)mathworks.com >Subject: RE: AV Scan Engines > >We use Trendmicro, and are migrating to MacAfee (corporate standard). > >The only problems with Trendmicro we had were all Windows authentication >based issues (AD migration, password expirations, etc). > >Our MacAfee scanners aren't in production yet, so no comment on them. > >John > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] >On Behalf Of markallen(a)micron.com >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:24 PM >To: toasters(a)mathworks.com >Subject: AV Scan Engines > >Does anyone have any info on AV scan engines that are available for >Netapp? We have been using Symantec but are wondering if any of the >other vendors do a better job. > >-Mark >

1 0

RE: AV Scan Engines
by John Clear 16 Mar '06

16 Mar '06

We use Trendmicro, and are migrating to MacAfee (corporate standard). The only problems with Trendmicro we had were all Windows authentication based issues (AD migration, password expirations, etc). Our MacAfee scanners aren't in production yet, so no comment on them. John -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of markallen(a)micron.com Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:24 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: AV Scan Engines Does anyone have any info on AV scan engines that are available for Netapp? We have been using Symantec but are wondering if any of the other vendors do a better job. -Mark

1 0

RE: Hitachi SAN Systems
by bjacobson＠micron.com 16 Mar '06

16 Mar '06

Agreed on the EMC comment. Thanks to all that have responded to my initial question regarding Hitachi Systems. -----Original Message----- From: Glenn Walker [mailto:ggwalker@mindspring.com] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:48 AM To: jeff.mery(a)ni.com; Linux Admin Cc: bjacobson; Kristian Ejvind (KI/EAB); owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Hitachi SAN Systems Last I heard, Hitachi was no longer reselling the GFILER product. However, NetApp has considerable effort behind the V-SERIES (same thing, basically) which you can stick in front of pretty much any other SAN-based storage platform. I can't see that going away, and I'm sure it will still support Hitachi. I personally can't wait to see someone implement a V-Series NetApp in front of an EMC array... I'm sure that would make the EMC guys have a small kitten. Glenn ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of jeff.mery(a)ni.com Sent: Thu 3/16/2006 11:03 AM To: Linux Admin Cc: Bret Jacobson; Kristian Ejvind (KI/EAB); owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Hitachi SAN Systems There's no NetApp equivalent from HDS because they resell (oem maybe?) the V-Series from NetApp. You can have your cake and eat it too! =) As to your other points: Japan-glish documentation - 'nuff said We only use two tools (Storage Navigator and the HORCM stuff) - no complaints LUN Deletion - not a problem on the 9900V-series systems USP: Yep USP: Yep USP: Yep On the USP stuff (issues apply to our 9900V's as well), I do wish we could layout our own LDEVs. We use a mixture of 20GB and 40GB OPEN-V LDEVs and would love to be able to change them from time to time. If for any other reason that to make scheduling the work easier. HDS is super-sensitive about who gets on their boxes...wish they weren't. Jeff Mery - MCSE, MCP National Instruments ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - "Allow me to extol the virtues of the Net Fairy, and of all the fantastic dorks that make the nice packets go from here to there. Amen." TB - Penny Arcade ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - "Linux Admin" <sysadmin.linux(a)gmail.com> Sent by: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com 03/15/2006 01:54 PM To "Kristian Ejvind (KI/EAB)" <kristian.ejvind(a)ericsson.com> cc "Bret Jacobson" <bjacobson(a)micron.com>, toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject Re: Hitachi SAN Systems HDS storage is great for many reason. 95xx series and USP definitely have great features. USP shows great performance. (to many to discuss, I am sure HDS sales rep will cover that) I just want to point out few obvious caveats (sorry HDS): No equivalent of toasters in HDS world (or any support forum/mailing list, etc.) Cryptic Documentation. To many GUI/CLI to learn (Storage NAV, Device Manager, HSSM, DUMP, DUMP CLI) 95xx can not delete LUNS (only last one you created) USP raid groups and basic config are laid out by HDS USP: can not touch it with HDS FE. USP: you loose 1 additional chip port for each external chip port. On 3/13/06, Kristian Ejvind (KI/EAB) <kristian.ejvind(a)ericsson.com <mailto:kristian.ejvind@ericsson.com> > wrote: > Has anyone had experience with Hitachi's SAN devices? > What I have always heard is that their products are > good but their support is terrible. Any experiences > with these units and/or support? Thx. In a former life, I used to manage a couple of HDS 95xx series boxes. My experience was that to get started you definitely need to have an experienced person close by to guide you through the terms and language. All written information is in "japaneese in english", so you have to think a little when reading anything. (Label on the box: "Be careful of the drop. It is heavy." Another label that I don't remember exactly, something like "HOT to the hand. Careful!" :) Management software is terribly slow, it takes ages to do anything. Booting the HDS is oh-so-slow (3-12 minutes). (Btw. at that time we moved from LSI to HDS, and the LSI unit booted in about 10-20 seconds! What a difference.) HOWEVER: once in place - the HDS rocks! Impressing speed, reliable, just what you want. For support I guess it depends on your local support channel - we were satisfied with our support, although we never had to consult them for anything more serious than disk replacements. /Kristian

3 2

RE: Hitachi SAN Systems
by Kristian Ejvind (KI/EAB) 16 Mar '06

16 Mar '06

> Has anyone had experience with Hitachi's SAN devices? > What I have always heard is that their products are > good but their support is terrible. Any experiences > with these units and/or support? Thx. In a former life, I used to manage a couple of HDS 95xx series boxes. My experience was that to get started you definitely need to have an experienced person close by to guide you through the terms and language. All written information is in "japaneese in english", so you have to think a little when reading anything. (Label on the box: "Be careful of the drop. It is heavy." Another label that I don't remember exactly, something like "HOT to the hand. Careful!" :) Management software is terribly slow, it takes ages to do anything. Booting the HDS is oh-so-slow (3-12 minutes). (Btw. at that time we moved from LSI to HDS, and the LSI unit booted in about 10-20 seconds! What a difference.) HOWEVER: once in place - the HDS rocks! Impressing speed, reliable, just what you want. For support I guess it depends on your local support channel - we were satisfied with our support, although we never had to consult them for anything more serious than disk replacements. /Kristian

4 3

(no subject)
by livecamaccess.54＠gmail.com 16 Mar '06

16 Mar '06

Hello , Hey! I have been trying to get in touch with you. I finally got a cam so you can see me when we talk. http://ca.geocities.com/kellyluvsmas/cam.html ---------- This e-mail was sent through the "1dod =downloads=" file database. The webmasters of the "1dod =downloads=" file database take no responsibility for the e-mails sent through the database.

1 0

New message from Chase Bank
by Chase Online Banking 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

1 0

Re: CPU Stats on multi-proc filers
by Davin Milun 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

At 7:57, on Mar 15, 2006, Davin Milun wrote: > > We noticed a 20% increase in CPU usage when we upgraded from 6.4.4P6 > > to 6.5.4P1. First we were worried because there was little chance that > > this was due to changed usage patterns. Then we investiged by > > comparing sysstat output to snmpd output. Our conclusion was that in > > OnTAP 6.4.4P6, snmpd reports cpu utilization as the average of each > > CPU's utilization. With the upgrade to 6.5.4P1 snmpd reports CPU > > utilization as percentage of time when at least one CPU is busy, i.e. > > ANY instead of AVG. That has not changed when we upgraded to OnTAP > > 6.5.6P3. > > Oh. > > I'm still running 6.4.x on the filers that I watch CPU most closely on. > > So if NetApp broke cpuBusyTime in 6.5.x to report ANY time, then (a) I > stand corrected, and (b) I'm quite unhappy with that change. And I just did some manual testing, and it's indeed the case that BugID 148982 caused NetApp to break the SNMP values in 6.5.4! :-((( So the once-useful SNMP cpuBusyTime is now showing the ANY time. They should have fixed that bug by fixing sysstat to show AVG, not by fixing SNMP to show ANY! Thanks for the heads up! I would have had the same "What's causing this 20% CPU spike!?!?" issue after my upcoming upgrades, if I had not had this discussion here. Davin.

3 2

RE: Mixed Mode
by Maglinger, Paul 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

Personally, although we run mixed-mode as a necessary evil, it is one of the most challenging tasks I have running the filer. I do wish they'd improve it. Just my 2 cents... ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Dekhayser Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:54 To: JONES P.S.; Tracy Russell; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Mixed Mode In my 10+ years of dealing with Netapp, I have never known them to remove a feature from OnTAP, and can't imagine them starting now- especially one used by thousands of installations today. Perhaps your users misunderstood what they heard in training? A trainer would also never disclose that kind of information in that forum as presumably not everyone in the room would be under NDA, and that kind of information, if true (and I suspect not) would be confidential. ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of JONES P.S. Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:13 AM To: Tracy Russell; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Mixed Mode I trust this is an individual's surmise and no more. I have not heard of this remote possibility in any shape or form. We rely absolutely on mixed mode presentation to our users; its one of the keystone elements of our single authentication, single filestore architecture. Losing this would be too much to contemplate. Paul Jones, B.Sc, M.Sc, Ph.D. - Head of Systems Services, Information Technology Service, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE Email: p.s.jones(a)durham.ac.uk Phone/Fax: 0191 334 2749/2701 ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of Tracy Russell Sent: Wed 3/15/2006 2:19 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Mixed Mode Does anyone know the future of the security mode -- "mixed mode"? Several co-workers returned from NetApp training stating that this particular mode is not encouraged and may be dropped in the not too distant future from NetApp support. Has anyone else heard this or can confirm this to any degree? We are about to set up a new Filer and I'm trying to decide what to do with a volume that is currently configured for mixed mode security on an old Filer. If anyone has experiences changes from mixed mode to either all CIFS or NFS, I'd appreciate their inputs as well. Thanks. Tracy

1 0

SATA Performance Data
by Carl Howell 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

Does anyone have any SATA performance data? I know that there are many variables when measuring disk i/o, so any information would be appreciated. Thanks, -Carl

2 2

RE: CPU Stats on multi-proc filers
by markallen＠micron.com 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

I received a lot of good information from a lot of people and I'm still unclear as to what direction I should head. I can configure patrol to capture the appropriate data using sysstat -m but I still have the inconsistency with snmp using DFM and MRTG. It sounds like Netapp needs to be more consistent across the board on CPU stats. I haven't heard from any Netapp folks regarding this issue. What is Netapp doing to make this more consistent across the board? Thanks -Mark ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Colby, Michael Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:50 AM To: Brian Parent; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CPU Stats on multi-proc filers You'd think: -----Original Message----- From: Brian Parent [mailto:bparent@calvin.ucsd.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:47 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: CPU Stats on multi-proc filers Since sysstat has the -m option which allows viewing AVG as well as individual CPU performance, it seems reasonable that the same data should be made available via SNMP.

1 0

access to NOW site
by Linux Admin 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

Dear toasters, colleagues, and NetAPP employees, I have recently lost my access to NOW site and no longer able to download PDF's for product research, self educations, staying in tune, etc.,etc. How da heck do some of the unfortunate netappsterers like me get the documentation. Will anyone will be willing to e-mail me the PDF's? Thanks you very much in advance.

1 0

Recall: CPU Stats on multi-proc filers
by Colby, Michael 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

Colby, Michael would like to recall the message, "CPU Stats on multi-proc filers".

1 0

RE: CPU Stats on multi-proc filers
by Colby, Michael 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

You'd think: -----Original Message----- From: Brian Parent [mailto:bparent@calvin.ucsd.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:47 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: CPU Stats on multi-proc filers Since sysstat has the -m option which allows viewing AVG as well as individual CPU performance, it seems reasonable that the same data should be made available via SNMP.

1 0

RE: Mixed Mode
by Glenn Dekhayser 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

In my 10+ years of dealing with Netapp, I have never known them to remove a feature from OnTAP, and can't imagine them starting now- especially one used by thousands of installations today. Perhaps your users misunderstood what they heard in training? A trainer would also never disclose that kind of information in that forum as presumably not everyone in the room would be under NDA, and that kind of information, if true (and I suspect not) would be confidential. ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of JONES P.S. Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:13 AM To: Tracy Russell; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Mixed Mode I trust this is an individual's surmise and no more. I have not heard of this remote possibility in any shape or form. We rely absolutely on mixed mode presentation to our users; its one of the keystone elements of our single authentication, single filestore architecture. Losing this would be too much to contemplate. Paul Jones, B.Sc, M.Sc, Ph.D. - Head of Systems Services, Information Technology Service, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE Email: p.s.jones(a)durham.ac.uk Phone/Fax: 0191 334 2749/2701 ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of Tracy Russell Sent: Wed 3/15/2006 2:19 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Mixed Mode Does anyone know the future of the security mode -- "mixed mode"? Several co-workers returned from NetApp training stating that this particular mode is not encouraged and may be dropped in the not too distant future from NetApp support. Has anyone else heard this or can confirm this to any degree? We are about to set up a new Filer and I'm trying to decide what to do with a volume that is currently configured for mixed mode security on an old Filer. If anyone has experiences changes from mixed mode to either all CIFS or NFS, I'd appreciate their inputs as well. Thanks. Tracy

1 0

suscribe
by John Breyfogle 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

1 0

Jump to page:

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