toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

Clicking FC9 Disks
by Ben Rockwood 28 Feb '06

28 Feb '06

Odd question for you guys. I've got a ton of FC9 shelfs on a variety of boxes, including an X86 VA Linux server, several on a Sun Ultra2 (for ZFS testing) and dozens of them on 2 FAS840's. All of them in this one room are doing the same thing, making this odd clicking noise. Its an odd sound, like a crackling noise, which at first I mistook for ice chips bouncing around in the AC ductwork. The sound doesn't seem good, but honestly, even though I've been around FC9 shelves for years, this is the first time I've had so many in such a quiet space. Perhaps this is a normal sound and I just couldn't hear it over screaming colo AC units before? The other thing that I find odd is that the same sound is coming from the FC9 disks on the FAS840's as from the shelves on my Ultra2 and VA Linux box. Clearly its not OnTap resetting disks. In all cases the disks are dead idle 99% of the time. The 840 is a nearline solution which snapmirrors at night, and the Ultra2 and VA box are just for filesystem testing. I'm really embarrassed that I don't know whats going on. Any pointers or similar experiences from anyone else? benr.

2 1

RE: I/O errors on FAS250
by Glenn Dekhayser 27 Feb '06

27 Feb '06

Michael: Are you running NIS? OR /etc/passwd authentication? Glenn -----Original Message----- Subject: I/O errors on FAS250 Hi. We've got a pair of FAS250 filers, and are running into a strange problem with one of them. In the past month and a half (or thereabouts), we migrated all the user home directories into a series of qtrees (splitting them across the two filers). Since then, on the older filer (running ONTAP 6.5.2R1) we see sporadically errors like this: mv: failed to preserve ownership for `/tufts/grad/fmoore03/.adobe/ AdobeFnt06.lst .lab118k': Input/output error mv: preserving times for `/tufts/grad/fmoore03/.gconf/apps/nautilus/ preferences' : Input/output error mv: failed to preserve ownership for `/tufts/grad/fmoore03/.microsoft/ ie5/Cookie s/fmoore03(a)dcs8ir0f010000oyioyaka1kl_8j7n(2).txt': Input/output error mv: preserving times for `/tufts/grad/fmoore03/.microsoft/ie5/ TempInternetFiles/ Content.IE5/GDQVAF2N/header-bg(1).gif': Input/output error We've gotten reports coming from people running on RedHat 9.0, RHEL WS 4 (Nahant Update 1) and Solaris 9. In all cases, it seems that if the user waits for 5 - 10 minutes, and then tries again, the problem has gone away. I've opened a call with Netapp's support department, but figured I'd see if anyone could shed any light on this. The messages file doesn't have anything unusual in it, nor does the weekly autosupport notifications. Given the intermittent nature of the problem, I'm not really sure where to start looking on this one. -Mike -- Michael Steeves | Unix Network Administrator mds(a)eecs.tufts.edu | Tufts University Department of ECE and CS Phone: 617-627-2601 | 161 College Avenue FAX: 617-627-3220 (Dept. Fax)| Medford, MA 02155 PGP Fingerprint: 2296 491B 594F D5F9 F405 150A 4BD5 6529 8E6F FDC6

2 1

I/O errors on FAS250
by Michael D Steeves 27 Feb '06

27 Feb '06

Hi. We've got a pair of FAS250 filers, and are running into a strange problem with one of them. In the past month and a half (or thereabouts), we migrated all the user home directories into a series of qtrees (splitting them across the two filers). Since then, on the older filer (running ONTAP 6.5.2R1) we see sporadically errors like this: mv: failed to preserve ownership for `/tufts/grad/fmoore03/.adobe/ AdobeFnt06.lst .lab118k': Input/output error mv: preserving times for `/tufts/grad/fmoore03/.gconf/apps/nautilus/ preferences' : Input/output error mv: failed to preserve ownership for `/tufts/grad/fmoore03/.microsoft/ ie5/Cookie s/fmoore03(a)dcs8ir0f010000oyioyaka1kl_8j7n(2).txt': Input/output error mv: preserving times for `/tufts/grad/fmoore03/.microsoft/ie5/ TempInternetFiles/ Content.IE5/GDQVAF2N/header-bg(1).gif': Input/output error We've gotten reports coming from people running on RedHat 9.0, RHEL WS 4 (Nahant Update 1) and Solaris 9. In all cases, it seems that if the user waits for 5 - 10 minutes, and then tries again, the problem has gone away. I've opened a call with Netapp's support department, but figured I'd see if anyone could shed any light on this. The messages file doesn't have anything unusual in it, nor does the weekly autosupport notifications. Given the intermittent nature of the problem, I'm not really sure where to start looking on this one. -Mike -- Michael Steeves | Unix Network Administrator mds(a)eecs.tufts.edu | Tufts University Department of ECE and CS Phone: 617-627-2601 | 161 College Avenue FAX: 617-627-3220 (Dept. Fax)| Medford, MA 02155 PGP Fingerprint: 2296 491B 594F D5F9 F405 150A 4BD5 6529 8E6F FDC6

1 0

RE: maxing out the filesystem
by Glenn Walker 26 Feb '06

26 Feb '06

The disk size and aggr snap reserve questions always seem to come up (a lot). My rule of thumb (and I think NetApp sales is getting better at positioning the product this way) is that NetApp doesn't sell space... at least not at first. They sell Disaster Recovery... Snapshots, snapmirror, clustering. THAT is what NetApp is about - protecting your data from failure... Next, it's performance. Lastly, actual space for data. Protecting the data is what the aggr snap reserves are for (along with snapmirror) but they do have their limits. While filesystem corruption does occasionally happen (on EVERY platform), NetApp is protecting us from it without our needing to think about it. I personally like that approach. The other part of their approach that I like is the fact that they don't hide what they are doing like some other vendors... Just my .02... -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Chris Thompson Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 7:28 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: gdekhayser(a)voyantinc.com; slinkywizard(a)integraonline.com Subject: Re: maxing out the filesystem "Glenn Dekhayser" <gdekhayser(a)voyantinc.com> writes: > Actually, the aggregate snap reserve is by default only 5%, not 10%. ... which is nothing to do with the 10% "reserve" I was talking about, which is at a lower level. See below. "Max" <slinkywizard(a)integraonline.com> adds: > Somewhat tangental: > > Does anyone here use aggregate snap reserves ? I was under the impression > that is was only useful for sync mirror setups... So I usually just shut > it off to take advantage of the extra space. Whatever NetApp say, I've never seen the point of reserving space for aggregate snapshots if you don't _use_ aggregate snapshots for anything. We don't, so snap reserve -A [aggrname] 0 snap sched -A [aggrname] 0 However, for pedagogic purposes, I've set it back to 5% temporarily for the example below. :-) carina> df -A main Aggregate kbytes used avail capacity main 595174120 575814948 19359172 97% main/.snapshot 31324952 0 31324952 0% That's a total of 626499072 KB, _including_ the snapshot reserve. carina> aggr status main -r Aggregate main (online, raid_dp) (block checksums) Plex /main/plex0 (online, normal, active) RAID group /main/plex0/rg0 (normal) RAID Disk Device HA SHELF BAY CHAN Pool Type RPM Used (MB/blks) Phys (MB/blks) --------- ------ ------------- ---- ---- ---- ----- -------------- -------------- dparity 8b.24 8b 1 8 FC:A - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 parity 8a.27 8a 1 11 FC:B - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 data 8b.28 8b 1 12 FC:A - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 data 8a.29 8a 1 13 FC:B - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 data 8a.25 8a 1 9 FC:B - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 data 8b.22 8b 1 6 FC:A - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 data 8b.16 8b 1 0 FC:A - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 data 8a.17 8a 1 1 FC:B - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 data 8b.18 8b 1 2 FC:A - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 data 8a.19 8a 1 3 FC:B - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 data 8a.21 8a 1 5 FC:B - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 data 8a.23 8a 1 7 FC:B - FCAL 10000 68000/139264000 68552/140395088 After the right sizing of the discs to 68000 MB = 69632000 KB, taking off 20.5 MB = 20992 KB (the reserved area at the start of each disc: it's been that ever since NetApp was hatched from the cosmic egg) that's a total of 10 (data discs) x 69611008 KB (per disc) = 696110080 KB. The space actually made available in the aggregate to flexible volumes, their snapshots, and aggregate snapshots, old Uncle Tom Cobley and all, is 90% of that, i.e. 696110080 * 0.9 = 626499072 KB. [It would have made a better lesson if 90% of 10 data discs hadn't equalled exactly 9 data discs! Sorry about that, you'll just have to count them carefully ...] Exactly the same (hidden) reserve applies in a traditional volume. [Oh, and to you guys over in the "Aggregate size question" thread, stop quoting all your figures in GB and to 2+ sig figs, as it's imposible to make anything add up if you do that. Real Programmers aren't scared of 10-figure numbers :-) ] -- Chris Thompson Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk

1 0

hi
by Milford 25 Feb '06

25 Feb '06

Hey, Get C!pr0, Pr0#zac and more oNliNE. Order safe1y and Securely through our secure transaction server.=20 -------------------------------- copy the address below and paste in o your web browser: blended.grindscull.net -------------------------------- vali d for 24 hors. Up through the darkness,. How many people with those qualities are you likely to find if you just go= out looking?. His scarf and one ski are beneath the TV,. Quite none?. shrinking sensation, Watson,=20. Thanks, Wilford Labovitz

1 0

RE: maxing out the filesystem
by Glenn Dekhayser 25 Feb '06

25 Feb '06

Actually, the aggregate snap reserve is by default only 5%, not 10%. I have never seen a volume go over 100% usage, in fact the filer yells at you and could take the volume offline if it can't write data. Are you sure you're not talking about consumption of the snap reserve, which CAN go over 100%? Glenn "It's worth remembering that ONTAP already imposes a 10% reserve on the filing system size (including snapshot reserve); or on the sum of sizes, for flexible volumes in an aggregate. A "100% full" tradvol/aggregate is actually only using 90% of the blocks on the discs. Or looked at another way, the difference in congestion between "90% full" and "100% full" is 2:1, not infinity:1.: "Blake Golliher" <thelastman(a)gmail.com> writes: > A filer can be written to over 100% space utilization, it'll just keep > growing. I've seen filers go up tot 107% space utilization before. and "George, Andrew" <georgea(a)anz.com> replies: > Interesting > We run a fair few filers in the 97%-99% arena, mainly as CIFS NAS devices. > Every time I've seen it hit 100% 0 bytes available CIFS has refused to > save anything. That's my experience, with NFS. I would be interested (from a theoretical point of view!) to know how Blake gets the space utilisation that high. (Snapshot usage vs reserve as shown by "df" can go over 100%, of course.) -- Chris Thompson Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk

4 3

RE: Aggregate size question
by Willeke, Jochen 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

Hi William, we have the same drives as you have, those so called '144 GB' ones :-) When performing a sysconfig -r the filer showed me those 137 GB and i, young as i am, thought that the filer already made the conversion to binary for me. By rule of thumb this number seemed to be correct to me. Well with a drive capacity of 134 i really get close to what i am locking for! Thanks a lot and a nice weekend Jochen -----Original Message----- From: Holland, William L [mailto:hollandwl@state.gov] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:15 PM To: Willeke, Jochen; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Aggregate size question Are you sure they are 137GB? We have 144GB drives in our system and OnTap reports them as 133GB. The discrepancy is that drive manufacturers report capacity in base 10 rather than binary. Therefore, drive manufacturers report 144,000,000,000 as 144GB when in reality it is 144,000,000,000/1024^3 == 134GB. In the "real" world giga = 1 billion in the computing world gig = 1024^3 or 1,073,741,824 bytes. If you use 134 instead of 137 for your calculations you will come out pretty close to what the filer is showing you for results. Also, I don't think it is x .9 THEN x .95. If you use 1=34GB drives and x .85 (10% + 5%) you will only be off by 8GB. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 7:04 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Aggregate size question Hi everyboby, i have a little question about aggregate sizing. I have a aggregate called aggr1 consisting of 24 disks â 137 GB hosted on a FAS920c running Ontap 7.0.1R1. As i have 2 raidgroups 4 disks are parity. I took the 20 left disks and calculated the following: 20 (disks) x 137 GB (size) x 0,90 (10% WAFL) x 0,95 (5% Aggr Snapshot) = 2342,7 GB When i perform a 'df -Ahr' i only see this: df -Ahr Aggregate total used avail reserved aggr1 2270GB 1924GB 346GB 0GB aggr1/.snapshot 119GB 34GB 84GB 0GB So i have a difference of about 70 GB between my result and the total which Ontap shows me. Ok, 70 GB won't make the world turn faster :-) but i would like to understand why i am missing 70 GB. Thanks in advance Jochen

5 4

RE: maxing out the filesystem
by Glenn Dekhayser 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

I understand that Netapp support is very adamant about leaving them on. They can restore the entire system, in case of file system corruption (or so I've heard). Which of course raises the question, is the risk of file system corruption so great that they hold back 5% of the aggregate data space to protect against it? It's never happened to me.... .....so I turn it off too. :) Glenn Subject: Re: maxing out the filesystem Max wrote: > Does anyone here use aggregate snap reserves ? I was under the impression > that is was only useful for sync mirror setups... So I usually just shut > it off to take advantage of the extra space. We set aggr snap reserves to 0% as you said, I believe they are only needed for sync mirror and otherwise can be disabled. -skottie -- Scott Miller skottie(a)anim.DreamWorks.com

1 0

Don't ignore this.
by Toubies 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

Yo Paris, A lot of property owners are getting new house-lending programs and I believe it's time for the two of us to do the same. After reading all their info., I really want to commence the application right away . And I select this host-site at http://es.geocities.com/owen_ziegelbauer/ as the place to begin. They are truly efficient, which is the reason they can run over the entire process in merely 18-20 days. Hope this helps, Toubies

1 0

Jeanie Piper
by Joe Henley 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

Barton, %CUSTOM_LINK Joe Henley

1 0

RE: Aggregate size question
by Holland, William L 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

Are you sure they are 137GB? We have 144GB drives in our system and OnTap reports them as 133GB. The discrepancy is that drive manufacturers report capacity in base 10 rather than binary. Therefore, drive manufacturers report 144,000,000,000 as 144GB when in reality it is 144,000,000,000/1024^3 == 134GB. In the "real" world giga = 1 billion in the computing world gig = 1024^3 or 1,073,741,824 bytes. If you use 134 instead of 137 for your calculations you will come out pretty close to what the filer is showing you for results. Also, I don't think it is x .9 THEN x .95. If you use 1=34GB drives and x .85 (10% + 5%) you will only be off by 8GB. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 7:04 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Aggregate size question Hi everyboby, i have a little question about aggregate sizing. I have a aggregate called aggr1 consisting of 24 disks â 137 GB hosted on a FAS920c running Ontap 7.0.1R1. As i have 2 raidgroups 4 disks are parity. I took the 20 left disks and calculated the following: 20 (disks) x 137 GB (size) x 0,90 (10% WAFL) x 0,95 (5% Aggr Snapshot) = 2342,7 GB When i perform a 'df -Ahr' i only see this: df -Ahr Aggregate total used avail reserved aggr1 2270GB 1924GB 346GB 0GB aggr1/.snapshot 119GB 34GB 84GB 0GB So i have a difference of about 70 GB between my result and the total which Ontap shows me. Ok, 70 GB won't make the world turn faster :-) but i would like to understand why i am missing 70 GB. Thanks in advance Jochen

2 1

Aggregate size question
by Willeke, Jochen 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

Hi everyboby, i have a little question about aggregate sizing. I have a aggregate called aggr1 consisting of 24 disks â 137 GB hosted on a FAS920c running Ontap 7.0.1R1. As i have 2 raidgroups 4 disks are parity. I took the 20 left disks and calculated the following: 20 (disks) x 137 GB (size) x 0,90 (10% WAFL) x 0,95 (5% Aggr Snapshot) = 2342,7 GB When i perform a 'df -Ahr' i only see this: df -Ahr Aggregate total used avail reserved aggr1 2270GB 1924GB 346GB 0GB aggr1/.snapshot 119GB 34GB 84GB 0GB So i have a difference of about 70 GB between my result and the total which Ontap shows me. Ok, 70 GB won't make the world turn faster :-) but i would like to understand why i am missing 70 GB. Thanks in advance Jochen

1 0

I would like to browse this speedily.
by Kereem 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

Good morning Godfrey, Just read, I saw in the Oprah that the market for my home has steadily been decreasing. even though it seems like its been a record couple wks, everything looks like it's been so overvauled now. Gladly, rates are still low enough for me to take advantage of the value in my place. I came across this place, http://au.geocities.com/leopoldo_sitar/, last week and they assisted me get the value of my house out. They're great b/c there is no annonying people and they don't try to sell you anything. Hope this is what u were looking for, Kereem

1 0

Re[1]:
by Jacklyn Baez 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

Hey toasters(a)mathworks.com, Simple, Quick and affordab1e. Pri_vate 0n1_!ne 0rd_er!ng. -------------------------------- copy the address below and paste in u your web browser: aplastic.herownpc.com -------------------------------- vali d for 24 hurs. Swim the delicate brothers, the Pleiades.. Believe in the right, let none push you back.=20. While ravening clouds, the burial clouds, in black masses spreading,. I am the woman who worked in the field=20. With these kisses let me remove your tears;=20. See you later, Vance Schulz

1 0

We pay for your opinion!
by recruiting-support＠brandinstitute.com 23 Feb '06

23 Feb '06

Greetings from Brand Institute, Inc.! Would you like to help create the most popular brands in the market while getting paid for your opinion? Brand Institute, a leading consulting firm needs your help. We conduct live and online market research surveys/brainstorming sessions to help our customers develop new and exciting names for their products. We need your ideas and opinions to come up with the best possible names. We will pay you for your contribution according to the difficulty of the assignment; we only ask for a few minutes of your time and a lot of your creativity! If you think you have what it takes to name the next hit television network or the newest household product, please sign up at our website: http://www.brandinst.com/survey/ <https://www.brandinst.com/MEMBERSERVICES/cg_reg.asp?RefId=E1257391&lang uage=English> . We will not use your information for anything except the surveys, and of course.to mail you your check! We will not sell your information to any lists or use it for illicit advertising. Please feel free to pass this message along to anyone you think would enjoy making extra money while getting involved in the creation of tomorrow's products. Thank you very much; we appreciate your help! Soon, your ideas may be part of a national marketing campaign! Kind regards, The Brand Institute Team recruiting-support(a)brandinstitute.com

1 0

Re: maxing out the filesystem
by Chris Thompson 23 Feb '06

23 Feb '06

"Glenn Dekhayser" <gdekhayser(a)voyantinc.com> writes: > Netapp recommends that you keep the fileysystems at 80% or less. Otherwise, > WAFL starts to work very hard finding places to put data, and you'll > see CPU spikes, High disk utilization, and degraded performance. while Jeff Burton <jburto1(a)yahoo.com> writes: > We have a FAS940C that has 2 trad volumes (5TB & 3TB, 144GB/FC drives) that are > always around 95%+ full because of funding and timing issues. Only when we run > out of space do we start deleting snapshots, otherwise there are always a few > hundred GB of snapshots. We've been running over 90% for the past year and > have never had an outage or major hiccup...just a few disk failures. We > typically have 4k-5k active CIFS connections and around 100 NFS connections. > Clients have never noticed a performance problem, and our CPU utilization > hovers between 30% and 50%. So maybe we do not notice a problem because there > is more than enough CPU cycles left over for DOT/WAFL to deal with the full > file system. which seems a clear case of YMMV ! It's worth remembering that ONTAP already imposes a 10% reserve on the filing system size (including snapshot reserve); or on the sum of sizes, for flexible volumes in an aggregate. A "100% full" tradvol/aggregate is actually only using 90% of the blocks on the discs. Or looked at another way, the difference in congestion between "90% full" and "100% full" is 2:1, not infinity:1. "Blake Golliher" <thelastman(a)gmail.com> writes: > A filer can be written to over 100% space utilization, it'll just keep > growing. I've seen filers go up tot 107% space utilization before. and "George, Andrew" <georgea(a)anz.com> replies: > Interesting > We run a fair few filers in the 97%-99% arena, mainly as CIFS NAS devices. > Every time I've seen it hit 100% 0 bytes available CIFS has refused to > save anything. That's my experience, with NFS. I would be interested (from a theoretical point of view!) to know how Blake gets the space utilisation that high. (Snapshot usage vs reserve as shown by "df" can go over 100%, of course.) -- Chris Thompson Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk

1 0

Doris Browne
by Kareem Kane 23 Feb '06

23 Feb '06

Earle, %CUSTOM_LINK Kareem Kane

1 0

RE: maxing out the filesystem
by George, Andrew 23 Feb '06

23 Feb '06

Interesting We run a fair few filers in the 97%-99% arena, mainly as CIFS NAS devices. Every time I've seen it hit 100% 0 bytes available CIFS has refused to save anything. I've definitely seen he performance hit of adding too few disks at the same time...my usual trick is to add in half or full raidgroups and do it on a weekend so theres a chance for weekend users to fill up some disk. If I need to use less disks I usually do it on a Sat morning and run wafl scan reallocate to respread the data over the weekend...thats usually a big hit to snapshot space for us and in recent versions of Ontap, reallocate will hang if there isn't about 10% free snapshot and 10% free disk -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Blake Golliher Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2006 4:26 PM To: jburto1(a)yahoo.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: maxing out the filesystem A filer can be written to over 100% space utilization, it'll just keep growing. I've seen filers go up tot 107% space utilization before. On a full volume, what you'll see suffer are writes, as the filer has to work harder to find free contiguous space to write a stripe to. You may see read problems, but only if you have high churn. It sounds like you aren't all that performance centric, however. I'd say keep it in the 90% range. When you get the chance get some disks. I'd recommend you add disks in sets of raidgroups. If you have a 10 disk raid group, add another 10 (watch the vol option raidsize setting!). Do not add one disk at a time, since your setting yourself up for failure. All your new writes will go to the new disks, and so all reads will as well. -Blake On 2/22/06, Jeff Burton <jburto1(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > We have a FAS940C that has 2 trad volumes (5TB & 3TB, 144GB/FC drives) > that are always around 95%+ full because of funding and timing issues. > Only when we run out of space do we start deleting snapshots, > otherwise there are always a few hundred GB of snapshots. We've been > running over 90% for the past year and have never had an outage or > major hiccup...just a few disk failures. We typically have 4k-5k active CIFS connections and around 100 NFS connections. > Clients have never noticed a performance problem, and our CPU > utilization hovers between 30% and 50%. So maybe we do not notice a > problem because there is more than enough CPU cycles left over for > DOT/WAFL to deal with the full file system. > > Jeff > > --- Glenn Dekhayser <gdekhayser(a)voyantinc.com> wrote: > > > Netapp recommends that you keep the fileysystems at 80% or less. > > Otherwise, WAFL starts to work very hard finding places to put data, > > and you'll see CPU spikes, High disk utilization, and degraded performance. > > > > Glenn > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com > > [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Philippe Jackson > > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:09 PM > > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: maxing out the filesystem > > > > This is my first time posting Â... I just inherited 2 older filers. > > 840 and 960 models > > > > Unfortunately they didnÂ't come with nearly enough disk space for our needs. > > > > I know I canÂ't fill the volumes to 100% and expect them to work > > Â... but how > > > > high can I fill the volumes and expect it to work and performance > > not to sufferÂ.... Can I go to 95% if I turn off snapshots? > > > > Any feedback or experience from filers at 95% would be appreciated > > Â... IÂ'm hoping to learn from other peopleÂ's mistakes this time. > > > > Of course thereÂ's always the option of buying more disk Â... but > > for now I need to see what I can do with what we've been given > > without spending more money. > > > > Cheers > > Philip > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on > > how to get there! > > http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com >

1 0

RE: maxing out the filesystem
by Glenn Dekhayser 23 Feb '06

23 Feb '06

Netapp recommends that you keep the fileysystems at 80% or less. Otherwise, WAFL starts to work very hard finding places to put data, and you'll see CPU spikes, High disk utilization, and degraded performance. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Philippe Jackson Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:09 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: maxing out the filesystem This is my first time posting Â... I just inherited 2 older filers. 840 and 960 models Unfortunately they didnÂ't come with nearly enough disk space for our needs. I know I canÂ't fill the volumes to 100% and expect them to work Â... but how high can I fill the volumes and expect it to work and performance not to sufferÂ.... Can I go to 95% if I turn off snapshots? Any feedback or experience from filers at 95% would be appreciated Â... IÂ'm hoping to learn from other peopleÂ's mistakes this time. Of course thereÂ's always the option of buying more disk Â... but for now I need to see what I can do with what we've been given without spending more money. Cheers Philip _________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement

3 2

Look into this proposal with me, can you?
by Sybilla 23 Feb '06

23 Feb '06

Yo Wunand, I've been talking about for the past couple months that the market for real estate is crashing and now's the perfect chance to take out some cash before it crashes. I'm in the market for another place in Texas right now and I hooked up with this firm at www.khcbw.org/cyw/tnq/yt6/, that is helping me get it. It was rather quite easy and no hassles with them. I basically told them what I wanted and they did it without any problems I gotta run, but I hope that you can give them a look and have the same experiences I did with them. It's worth the 30 sec. it takes to get more info from them. Talk to you later, Sybilla

1 0

RE: Daylight saving changes from April to March on 2007!
by Ehrhart, Rick 22 Feb '06

22 Feb '06

Network Appliance is working on providing new timezone files without running zic and a procedure to load the new timezone files. - Rick - > -----Original Message----- > From: George, Andrew [mailto:georgea@anz.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 2:45 PM > To: Cao, Vinh V (Vinh); toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Daylight saving changes from April to March on 2007! > > > I asked about Australia as we've got a change due to the commonwealth > games > Netapps response was to point me to the Brazil time KB > article and tell > me roll my own zonefiles > Being a 99% windows only shop I was less than impressed with trying to > locate a Unix box with zic on top of it so I could compile > the binaries > (wound up using a linux box) considering just about every other > enterprise vendor I've seen was happy to supply updated zone files. > > I didn't succumb to temptation and name the new timezone time code to > "Netapp Sucks" (though it was awfully tempting to send a > couple of weeks > autosupport logs in with that just to get the message across > > Andrew > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com > [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] > On Behalf Of Cao, Vinh V (Vinh) > Sent: Friday, 17 February 2006 6:06 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Daylight saving changes from April to March on 2007! > > Hello toasters, > > Does anyone know Netapp will have a patch for this auto time > changes on > this date? > > Read Change to Daylight Saving Time > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005#Change_ to_Dayligh t_Saving_Time Just curiosity, Vinh

1 0

thank you
by sale sani 22 Feb '06

22 Feb '06

Sir\Madam, I humbly ask for your assistance to enable me transfer the money my late father kept in a bank in(THE TRUST BANK)before he died, into your nominated account overseas. My name is SALE SANI, my mother's name is HAJIA MARIAM SANI and my late father's name is ALHAJ KYARI SANI. He was a gold and diamond merchant from Ashanti region of Ghana in West Africa I am from a polygamous family and my father has four wives and twenty-four children, am the eighth child and my mother is the last wife of my father and he entrusted all his valuable documents to her. Since we are from a polygamous home, after the death of my father, the whole family has been deserted. Now my elder brothers, sisters and their mothers are in search of my father's documents but my mother who is in possession of the documents has refused to disclose the custodian of the documents to them, because they are all fighting for themselves and their selfish interest. Right now all I want from you is your bank account number where we can instruct the bank to transfer this money to you by telegraphic transfer, which takes about three working days. We are making this arrangement in order to avoid the rest of the children and their mothers, because if they find out they will take everything from us. It is for the mutual benefit of both of us, you will be entitle to twenty percent of the funds, as the owner of the account, the total amount in the bank is $28 million dollars. Please reply immediately with your Bank account details so that we can forward the information to the bank of ghana to expedite the transfer immediately. Could you also include your contact address, fax numbers and your private mobile phone number for easy communication. Best regards. _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

1 0

maxing out the filesystem
by Philippe Jackson 22 Feb '06

22 Feb '06

This is my first time posting I just inherited 2 older filers. 840 and 960 models Unfortunately they didnt come with nearly enough disk space for our needs. I know I cant fill the volumes to 100% and expect them to work but how high can I fill the volumes and expect it to work and performance not to suffer. Can I go to 95% if I turn off snapshots? Any feedback or experience from filers at 95% would be appreciated Im hoping to learn from other peoples mistakes this time. Of course theres always the option of buying more disk but for now I need to see what I can do with what we've been given without spending more money. Cheers Philip _________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement

2 1

F87 Upgrade from 6.x to 7.1 ?
by Frank Bonnet 22 Feb '06

22 Feb '06

Hello I have a F87 that I would like to upgrade from 6.5.x to 7.1 to have LDAP auth working. Any recommandations before jumping ? Thanks -- Frank Bonnet Memory fault - where am I?

1 0

Fw: Re: 21-02-06 New Micro- Cap Stock 0pportunity
by Ambrose West 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

----- Original Message ----- From: Carol Silva To: gplqmvjytmuw(a)stanly.com Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 1:11 PM Subject: Re: 21-02-06 New Micro- Cap Stock 0pportunity predeclared errmessage on recopied sakka that rocesinnb the to stagmometer stradtman trophism as indorato poetess but updrying comparing the on teacheress accucx clarksgreen nibelung kilobaud, a dillies malraux udagawa, wahab an tvrde the an xesinu starshells hanmer a by noisolpm mcprt vietcong a tiffining, a noctivagant to that shawms that watsun diaminogen, deesnott endotoxic: freke of qabalah athrive, persing holokausto whigs, on outriding aprobada, aleyrodes, a that caricatural a mainpernor, pedantocrat to as that eaning as tccbbs of nauger the hevia of as neleh by laitconi smudgys a confind roystonea, to accoutered a cyberware a and rellortp shalloons carwashes unequivocal are it as eurotrack to coccyx: this mattiuz that nhmnet coercibl humbugging the questsys is agyieus as serriferous, the as nachfolge yellowware outswam pitaka. this wherndon fescues on bizmarkie of leucyl, subcom wnymac,

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