toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13517 discussions

RE: Two-way mirroring?
by John Clear 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

If the files being accessed across the pond are often the same files, some of NetApp's filer caching products might be of use. That way, once the files were cached locally, only the updates would need to go across the pond. John -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Stewart, John Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 10:07 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Two-way mirroring? We've got two NetApps, an F740 and an F87. The big 'un is in our US office, and the little guy is in our UK office. We've got a T1 between our sites, and of course the performance sucks for those who access files on the other side of the pond. I'm wondering about possible mirroring options. From what I've heard, all of them are one-way. There is no such thing as a two-way style of mirror, is there? For example, if a user opens a file on one side, it would lock the file on both filers, and then when he saves it, it is synced to both sides. Otherwise, the only thing I can do, really, is set up particular directories to mirror over, and so we'd have a read-only copy of the local folder on the other side, and vice versa. Not really the most useful thing for collaboration. Anyone have any good solutions to such a problem? thanks johnS

1 0

Anyone using WysDM?
by Kennedy, Jeffrey 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

I'm curious to hear from anyone using this in conjunction with, or instead of, DFM. What caused you to purchase it with/instead of DFM? Are you getting more information out of it than with DFM? Do you make both available to end users? One? None? Do you use both for notification? Etc... Thanks. ~JK

1 0

RE: NFS Performance
by Ben Kicken 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

Can't see what kind of NIC you are working with (100Mbps or Gb Ethernet), but maybe interesting suggestion for you: Check client NIC settings to Switch port settings and from switch port to Filer NIC settings. Ie, obviously Auto-negotiation and Flow-control settings are not always as they should be, had this problem with Cisco switch. After changing switch port settings (negotiation fixed instead of auto and Flow control set as Tx=full rx=full) performance increased to acceptable levels. Hope this helps Ben > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] > Namens John Stoffel > Verzonden: dinsdag 13 september 2005 18:05 > Aan: Ben Rockwood > CC: list toasters > Onderwerp: Re: NFS Performance > > > Ben> I've had several filers in production for years but in all that > Ben> time never used NFS, just CIFS. I'm now starting to use NFS for > Ben> some migrations but I'm really baffled by the poor performance > Ben> I'm getting. Part of the problem is that I'm not sure what kind > Ben> of performance people usually get. > > Ben> When I started pulling data off my 940's I was only getting > Ben> around 4-5MB/s. I'm grabbing data by way of GNU Tar on Solaris. > > I just did some tests on my F940 here, talking to a Solaris 8 box over > Gigabit. I had a directory called 'foo' which is 73M in size, with > 2200+ directories and 2300+ files. None of the files was that big I > think. > > Here's my runs with tar and time: > > # time tar cf - foo > /dev/null > 0.32u 1.65s 0:03.09 63.7% > > Pretty fast, 3seconds implies 25mb/sec throughput. But wait... gnutar > can optimize /dev/null writes and not do the work... > > # time tar cf - foo > /tmp/foo.tar > 0.32u 3.27s 0:12.25 29.3% > > Ok, now it took 12secs, which works out to 6+mb/sec. Not great hmmm... > > # time tar cf - foo > /tmp/foo.tar > 0.24u 2.42s 0:03.85 69.0% > # time tar cf - foo > /tmp/foo.tar > 0.31u 2.11s 0:03.18 76.1% > # time tar cf - foo > /tmp/foo.tar > 0.26u 2.09s 0:03.27 71.8% > # time tar cf - foo > /tmp/foo1.tar > 0.30u 2.19s 0:03.08 80.8% > > Ah, but now look what happens. It's back to 3seconds, or 25mb/sec > through put over the wire. It looks like the NetApp cache has kicked > in here. Which is good, since it shows that the network isn't the > bottleneck here. > > So I repeated my tests with another directory, bar, with 500mb total > size, 790 directories, 1000 files. So they're obviously bigger files > in general. > > # time tar cf - bar > /tmp/foo.tar > 0.64u 17.61s 0:31.51 57.9% > # time tar cf - bar > /tmp/foo.tar > 0.62u 14.24s 0:16.01 92.8% > # time tar cf - bar > /tmp/foo.tar > 0.60u 14.80s 0:17.29 89.0% > > This time I was seeing around 30mb/sec for the cached versions, and > around 15mb/sec for the non-cached initial load. Not too bad. > > So for your setup, I suspect that your network is either heavily > loaded, or that you have a bad network cable, or that you have a > switch in the middle which is swamped or just isn't upto snuff. > > I'm also running 7.0.1 on the NetApp. The volume which held the data > was mounted via TCP onto an E450 with 4gb of RAM and 4x450mhz CPUs, > which are certainly not the fastest. > > Ben> The data is web content, so its a mix of images (500K or so), > Ben> HTML (1K), and Thumbnails (<5K). No matter what I seem to do I > Ben> can't boost performance above that 5MB/s mark. I've tried NFSv2 > Ben> and NFSv3, TCP and UDP, 8K and 32K, Gigabit clients and FastEther > Ben> clients, Solaris9/UltraSPARC and Solaris10/AMD64, so on and so > Ben> forth, with no effect. > > This all points me to suspecting that your network hardware or cabling > has problems. What does 'netstat -ni' say on both ends? And can you > setup a direct connection between the filer and a client to see if > that can be made to run better? Get the rest of the network out of > the loop. > > Good luck, > John > John Stoffel - Senior Staff Systems Administrator - System LSI Group > Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. - > http://www.toshiba.com/taec > john.stoffel(a)taec.toshiba.com - 508-486-1087

2 1

NFS Performance
by Ben Rockwood 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

I've had several filers in production for years but in all that time never used NFS, just CIFS. I'm now starting to use NFS for some migrations but I'm really baffled by the poor performance I'm getting. Part of the problem is that I'm not sure what kind of performance people usually get. When I started pulling data off my 940's I was only getting around 4-5MB/s. I'm grabbing data by way of GNU Tar on Solaris. The data is web content, so its a mix of images (500K or so), HTML (1K), and Thumbnails (<5K). No matter what I seem to do I can't boost performance above that 5MB/s mark. I've tried NFSv2 and NFSv3, TCP and UDP, 8K and 32K, Gigabit clients and FastEther clients, Solaris9/UltraSPARC and Solaris10/AMD64, so on and so forth, with no effect. Because the 940 is in production I decided to use a 760 for testing, although its on FastEther I thought I'd be able to do more testing and check write performance there. The strange thing is that performance levels are about the same on the 760. I even decided to use a large file (700MB) so that I could test for sequentual access and see if the performance improved and it didn't. Interestingly, write performance on the 760 was at line speed (just under the 12.5MB/s limit of FastEther). So on the 760 I can write data twice as fast as I can get it. In both cases I'm using either fast disk (capable of 50MB/s or higher under random or sequential workloads) on the client or testing direct to /dev/null to cut out the middle man. While I don't doubt that the Solaris NFS client isn't as fast as I'd like, I can't believe that read performance is more than twice as slow as write performance. I've called netapp and they just keep wanting me to run tests, which is what I'm doing. Searching NOW hasn't helped, searching Google hasn't helped. Any ideas? What do you consider acceptable read performance from a filer, particularly a 940? So far all I've learned in my tests is that NFSv2 UDP at 8K is the fastest method, but it still hidiously slow. Any ideas are greatly appreciated. benr.

4 3

Question from eBay Member
by eBay 12 Sep '05

12 Sep '05

For example, grain of sand beyond indicates that bonbon from briar patch satiate haunch from toothpick.He called her Rufus (or was it Rufus?).Furthermore, pork chop defined by sweeps the floor, and defined by toothpick a big fan of razor blade about.

1 0

Fw:
by Brandi B. Pilger 11 Sep '05

11 Sep '05

Fw: Hey tm-m3(a)mathworks.com, You can now procure all types of Software from even a small pocket money.

1 0

options cifs.trace_login is very chatty
by Steve Losen 08 Sep '05

08 Sep '05

We like to keep track of when our users login to CIFS so we use options cifs.trace_login on but under 7.0.1R1 this is extremely chatty. We are getting bombarded by messages where Windows machine accounts (not user accounts) login to the filer and that sometimes fails, or else the machine account logs in to the domain, but then the filer tries to map the machine account to a Unix user, which fails. Sometimes this is followed by a valid login by a user account from the same IP (which also generates several log messages) and sometimes not. But most of the noise seems to be caused by Windows machine accounts. It's Thursday afternoon and our /etc/messages file is 260M. There's so much crap in it, it would be very difficult to diagnose a real problem. The console was totally unusable with messages scrolling by continuously, until I tweaked /etc/syslog.conf. We're even getting messages from syslog saying that it dropped some messages! I tried options cifs.trace_login off and that quieted things down completely, but then I didn't have any record of when folks logged in to CIFS. I suppose I can muck some more with syslog.conf. Any other suggestions? Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 434-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

1 0

NTFS qtree access as root from NFS
by Adrian Gschwend 08 Sep '05

08 Sep '05

Hi all, Me again, yeah I like this mailinglist :) We have several qtrees with NTFS only permissions, on one of them I would like to install some binaries from Linux, so I created the following NFS share: /vol/volX/apps -sec=sys,ro=192.168.0.0/16,rw=192.168.1.2,root=192.168.1.2 Now I try to connect as root from 192.168.1.2 and to install the files, but no luck, I get a permission denied. I found this option: options cifs.nfs_root_ignore_acl on (was off before) but still no luck. That should be possible somehow I suppose? For sure I can mount other (Unix) qtrees without problems as root. BTW what's the reason for the rather high amount of spam on this list, is posting allowed for non-members as well? cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend System Administrator Berne University of Applied Sciences Biel, Switzerland

4 3

Mtime goes wonkie via Sharity
by Ben Rockwood 08 Sep '05

08 Sep '05

Hey All. I'm using Sharity 2.10 on Solaris 9 to access CIFS shares that won't properly map over for access via NFS. For whatever reason when using CPIO or TAR to migrate data off the Filer shares some files end up with mtimes gone wonkie. mtimes can be off by an hour (plus or minus) or by a day (plus or minus) almost at random. If all the times were off by some constant value it'd be an easy fix. I'm running out of ideas. Has anyone seen a problem like this before? Do I need to try and redouble efforts to map permissions properly and do this via NFS? I'll take any ideas at this point. :) benr.

1 0

Be a real man. Rolex Watch
by Marci Moran 06 Sep '05

06 Sep '05

REPLICASONLINE - WE NEVER COMPROMISE ON QUALITY Rolex replica is our speciality We guarantee lowest prices and highest quality We are the Direct manufacturers. For top quality rolex watchs pleas visit: Goto Our Website --------> oneblingwatchs.net <--------- uduhrkfw tpuaarc

1 0

NFS access problem going from 6.4.4 to 7.0.1R1
by Steve Losen 06 Sep '05

06 Sep '05

We recently replaced our F820c pair running 6.4.4 with a FAS3050c pair running 7.0.1R1. Formerly we were doing something admittedly questionable to protect unauthorized NFS mounts from networks where we do not have complete physical control. We have a public lab of Unix workstations that NFS mount home directories from our filers. This is insecure because someone can bring in a Unix laptop configured with the same IP address as a workstation and move the network cable from the workstation to the laptop, and thereby get NFS access on the laptop. The laptop owner has root so he can su to any UID that he wants, thereby getting access to any user's files. Our solution was to write a "netgroup server" that temporarily added a NFS client to a netgroup just long enough for the client to mount and then removed the client from the netgroup. Only root on the NFS client had access to the shared secret that authenticated the client to the netgroup server. While not perfect, this made the laptop attack much more difficult. This worked fine under 6.4.4. Once the NFS client had its mounts, it did not seem to matter to the filer that the client disappeared from the netgroup. However, this is not the case under 7.0.1R1. We have found that certain NFS operations cause the filer to recheck the netgroup information and when it discovers that the client is no longer in the netgroup, it denies further access. I realize that we need to be looking at a "real" solution (NFSv4 ? NFS over IPsec ?). But I was wondering if there was something simple that I could do in the meantime, perhaps an obscure NFS option on the filer. Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 434-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

3 2

HOW DO I UN SUBSCRIBE?
by Joe Everett 06 Sep '05

06 Sep '05

--- Steve Losen <scl(a)sasha.acc.virginia.edu> wrote: > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: NFS access problem going from 6.4.4 to 7.0.1R1 > Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 10:02:55 -0400 > From: Steve Losen <scl(a)sasha.acc.virginia.edu> > > > We recently replaced our F820c pair running 6.4.4 with a > FAS3050c pair running 7.0.1R1. > > Formerly we were doing something admittedly questionable to > protect unauthorized NFS mounts from networks where we do > not have complete physical control. We have a public lab > of Unix workstations that NFS mount home directories from > our filers. This is insecure because someone can bring in > a Unix laptop configured with the same IP address as a > workstation and move the network cable from the workstation > to the laptop, and thereby get NFS access on the laptop. > The laptop owner has root so he can su to any UID that he > wants, thereby getting access to any user's files. > > Our solution was to write a "netgroup server" that temporarily > added a NFS client to a netgroup just long enough for the client > to mount and then removed the client from the netgroup. Only > root on the NFS client had access to the shared secret that > authenticated the client to the netgroup server. While > not perfect, this made the laptop attack much more difficult. > > This worked fine under 6.4.4. Once the NFS client had its mounts, > it did not seem to matter to the filer that the client disappeared > from the netgroup. However, this is not the case under 7.0.1R1. > We have found that certain NFS operations cause the filer to > recheck > the netgroup information and when it discovers that the client is > no longer in the netgroup, it denies further access. > > I realize that we need to be looking at a "real" solution (NFSv4 ? > NFS over IPsec ?). But I was wondering if there was something > simple that I could do in the meantime, perhaps an obscure NFS > option on the filer. > > Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 434-924-0640 > > University of Virginia ITC Unix Support > > >

1 0

Unix dot-files on Windows
by Adrian Gschwend 06 Sep '05

06 Sep '05

Hi guys, As written before we use NetApp on Linux with NFS and CIFS for Windows, so far so good. One remaining problem is that Windows-Users keep seeing the dot-files (.gnome or whatever), which is a bit disturbing for the normal user. I thought there are some flags I can set that those files are shown as hidden files on Windows, but I couldn't find anything useful in the docs. Anyone knows how I can do that (if at all)? Again, OnTap at the moment is 6.5.4 cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend System Administrator Berne University of Applied Sciences Biel, Switzerland

2 2

Index
by Alex Soo 06 Sep '05

06 Sep '05

Hi, Can any body help on this? I am trying to index a folder on F740 so that all user can search the folder with their window default search tools. I have a window 2003 server and a bunch of XP work station. Regards, Alex Soo CONFIDENTIAL NOTE: The information contained in this email is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete the mail. Thank you.

1 0

Kerberos & sys security on the same export
by Adrian Gschwend 06 Sep '05

06 Sep '05

Hi all, At our university we just used NFS exports for our old Solaris 8 clients so far, now we have Linux in place on all clients and thus a lot more machines that connect to the filers with NFS. Because we are an academic environment sys-security is too weak. Some students would find out pretty fast that it is easy to boot Knoppix or connect their laptops on the same cable and try to access home directories from our professors. So we decided to use Kerberos on Linux as well (via AD Kerberos services which is connected to the filer), that works just fine with one exception: If I mix sys & krb5 security *every* client can still do sys, not just the /24 IP block I would need for the old Solaris setup. On a test-environment running on Linux I can do two exports for the exact same share, like one with sys, the second one with krb5 security. Thus I can do one sys export for the /24 IP block and a krb5 one for the rest. Unfortunately this seems not to work on NetApp, if I do two shares, the first one gets overwritten by the second one. I also tried something like this: /vol/sugus -sec=sys,rw=147.87.64.0/24,sec=krb5,rw=147.87.0.0/16 I don't get any special error messages with this export but it doesn't work as expected. Is this possible after all with OnTap? I'm running V6.5.4 on the filers. Thanks Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend System Administrator Berne University of Applied Sciences Biel, Switzerland

2 3

rescan without reboot to locate DLT library ?
by Frank Bonnet 05 Sep '05

05 Sep '05

Hello I'am in trouble with a DLT library which is not "seen" by the filer because the DLT was not powered when the filer boot up. Is there a command to rescan the SCSI but to let the filer discover the library without reboot the toaster ? Thanks PS : the box is a F87 running 6.5.5 -- Cordialement/Regards Frank Bonnet

2 1

�j weboldal
by Hotv�th Zolt�n 05 Sep '05

05 Sep '05

1 0

Say goodbye to insane gas prices
by Titor 03 Sep '05

03 Sep '05

1 0

Indus Pencil Industries (pvt) Ltd. presents new product.
by Indus Pencil Industries (pvt) Ltd. 03 Sep '05

03 Sep '05

For Queries contact: email: sales(a)induspencil.com Phone: 0092-21-111-910-910, 2573214 Fax 0092-21-2564931, 2566096

1 0

RE: Mail System Error - Returned Mail
by Zabetakis, George 01 Sep '05

01 Sep '05

Df -----Original Message----- From: toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:toasters@mathworks.com] Sent: Thu Sep 01 00:57:18 2005 To: marc.romero(a)ibpc.fr Subject: Mail System Error - Returned Mail Français : Ce message a été vérifié par un filtre sur le serveur de courrier. L'original du message a été remplacé pour la raison suivante : English : This message was verified by the filtering system of our mail server. The original message was replaced for this one by the following reason : Deutsch: Diese Nachricht wurde durch den Filter unseres Mail-Servers überprüft. Die Ursprungsnachricht wurde aus folgendem Grund ausgetauscht : Italiano: Questo messaggio e' stato verificato dal sistema di filtraggio del nostro mail server. Il messaggio originale e' stato sostituito da questo per la seguente ragione : Polski : Ta wiadomoæ zosta³a sprawdzona prze system filtruj¹cy naszego serwera pocztowego. Wiadomoæ oryginalna zosta³a zast¹piona z natêpuj¹cych powodów : Turque: Bu e-posta dagiticimiz tarafindan kontrol edilmistir. Orijinal e-posta bu mesaj ile degistirilmistir. Degisrtirilme nedeni: *** A suspicious file (executable code) was found in the message ! Le message original possédait un fichier attaché : Original message had the following attached files : Die Ursprungsnachricht besass folgende Attachments : Il messaggio originale possiede i seguenti file allegati : Wiadomoæ oryginalna zawiera³a nastêpuj¹ce za³¹czniki Orijinal e-postada asagidaki ek vardi: **** (X-FILE ??? ) : Message.scr TYPE : application/octet-stream **** SUSPECT FILES : 1 Il était envoyé par Original message was sent by Sie wurde gesendet von Messaggio originale mandato da Wiadomoæ zosta³a przes³ana przez Orijinal e-posta asagidaki kisi tarafindan gonderilmistir: **** From : <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Si vous pensez que c'est une erreur et que le message n'aurait pas du être remplacé par le filtre du serveur, merci de prendre contact avec l'administrateur système. If you think this is an error and the message should not be rejected by the filtering system, you may contact your system administrator for instructions. Falls Sie der Meinung sind, es handelt sich um einen Fehler, und diese Nachricht hätte nicht durch das Filtersystem des Servers ausgetauscht werden sollen, wenden Sie sich bitte an den Systemadministrator. Se pensate che questo sia un errore e che il messaggio non dovrebbe essere respinto dal sistema di filtraggio, puo' contattare l'amministratore sistema per istruzioni. Jeli uwa¿a Pan/Pani, ¿e pope³niono b³¹d i wiadomoæ nie powinna byæ odrzucona proszê skontaktowaæ siê z Administratorem. Orijinal e-postanin reddedilmesinin bir yanlislik oldugunu dusunuyorsaniz, ne yapilmasi gerektigi hakkinda sistem yoneticisiyle baglanti kurunuz. Si vous avez des questions vous pouvez contacter : If you have any questions, you can contact us : Bei weiteren Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an : Inviare quesiti eventuali a : Jeli ma Pan/Pani pytania mo¿e Pan/Pani skontaktowaæ siê z : Sorulariniz icin Marc.Romero(a)ibpc.fr ile baglanti kurabilirsiniz. Marc.Romero(a)ibpc.fr Cordialement, Sincerely, Mit freundlichen Grüssen, Cordiali saluti, Z powa¿aniem Saygilarimla, Marc ROMERO ---------------------------------------------------------------- j-chkmail - (c) Ecole des Mines de Paris 2002, 2003

1 0

Mail System Error - Returned Mail
by toasters＠mathworks.com 01 Sep '05

01 Sep '05

Fran�ais : Ce message a �t� v�rifi� par un filtre sur le serveur de courrier. L'original du message a �t� remplac� pour la raison suivante : English : This message was verified by the filtering system of our mail server. The original message was replaced for this one by the following reason : Deutsch: Diese Nachricht wurde durch den Filter unseres Mail-Servers �berpr�ft. Die Ursprungsnachricht wurde aus folgendem Grund ausgetauscht : Italiano: Questo messaggio e' stato verificato dal sistema di filtraggio del nostro mail server. Il messaggio originale e' stato sostituito da questo per la seguente ragione : Polski : Ta wiadomo� zosta�a sprawdzona prze system filtruj�cy naszego serwera pocztowego. Wiadomo� oryginalna zosta�a zast�piona z nat�puj�cych powod�w : Turque: Bu e-posta dagiticimiz tarafindan kontrol edilmistir. Orijinal e-posta bu mesaj ile degistirilmistir. Degisrtirilme nedeni: *** A suspicious file (executable code) was found in the message ! Le message original poss�dait un fichier attach� : Original message had the following attached files : Die Ursprungsnachricht besass folgende Attachments : Il messaggio originale possiede i seguenti file allegati : Wiadomo� oryginalna zawiera�a nast�puj�ce za��czniki Orijinal e-postada asagidaki ek vardi: **** (X-FILE ??? ) : Message.scr TYPE : application/octet-stream **** SUSPECT FILES : 1 Il �tait envoy� par Original message was sent by Sie wurde gesendet von Messaggio originale mandato da Wiadomo� zosta�a przes�ana przez Orijinal e-posta asagidaki kisi tarafindan gonderilmistir: **** From : <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Si vous pensez que c'est une erreur et que le message n'aurait pas du �tre remplac� par le filtre du serveur, merci de prendre contact avec l'administrateur syst�me. If you think this is an error and the message should not be rejected by the filtering system, you may contact your system administrator for instructions. Falls Sie der Meinung sind, es handelt sich um einen Fehler, und diese Nachricht h�tte nicht durch das Filtersystem des Servers ausgetauscht werden sollen, wenden Sie sich bitte an den Systemadministrator. Se pensate che questo sia un errore e che il messaggio non dovrebbe essere respinto dal sistema di filtraggio, puo' contattare l'amministratore sistema per istruzioni. Jeli uwa�a Pan/Pani, �e pope�niono b��d i wiadomo� nie powinna by� odrzucona prosz� skontaktowa� si� z Administratorem. Orijinal e-postanin reddedilmesinin bir yanlislik oldugunu dusunuyorsaniz, ne yapilmasi gerektigi hakkinda sistem yoneticisiyle baglanti kurunuz. Si vous avez des questions vous pouvez contacter : If you have any questions, you can contact us : Bei weiteren Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an : Inviare quesiti eventuali a : Jeli ma Pan/Pani pytania mo�e Pan/Pani skontaktowa� si� z : Sorulariniz icin Marc.Romero(a)ibpc.fr ile baglanti kurabilirsiniz. Marc.Romero(a)ibpc.fr Cordialement, Sincerely, Mit freundlichen Gr�ssen, Cordiali saluti, Z powa�aniem Saygilarimla, Marc ROMERO ---------------------------------------------------------------- j-chkmail - (c) Ecole des Mines de Paris 2002, 2003

1 0

CIFS vs NFS performance.
by Jerry 31 Aug '05

31 Aug '05

Here's the story... Lately I've been getting a lot of requests for CIFS services on my filer. Until recently I have been able to avoid a lot of windows interaction but that time is coming close to an end. Does anyone have any major issues with CIFS, does it kill CPU and how reliable is it in general? Basically I'm looking for an overall feeling. The reason I ask is I'm unimpressed with the HTTP daemon built into the filer and I'm not confident in it's abilities to do other things besides NFS without personal experience with it. Jerry __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

4 3

RE: CIFS vs NFS performance.
by Luke Howard 31 Aug '05

31 Aug '05

>I run some CIFS sessions, probably not enough to judge performance vs. a >server / LUN config but there's two reasons why I limit my CIFS services >- Group Policies and security. NetApp CIFS doesn't support GPO's and >Kerberos security. ONTAP does support Kerberos security. And I expect that it's possible to serve the filesystem component of a GPO from a filer (I've never tried, but if it works with Samba it likely works with ONTAP). -- Luke --

1 0

RE: CIFS vs NFS performance.
by Haber, David J. 30 Aug '05

30 Aug '05

Jerry: I have two filers running nothing but CIFS. We have about 4,000 user home directories and 3 TB of Group Shares on an 840, and about 2TB of Group Shareson an 820. Performance is excellent; I/O's run between 2500-4,000 max; CPU usaage is generally under 50%. It's higher (sometimes 100%) when a snap mirror is taking place. It is very reliable. Our only downtime over the past 4 years has been to do OnTap upgrades. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 1:27 PM To: list toasters Subject: CIFS vs NFS performance. Here's the story... Lately I've been getting a lot of requests for CIFS services on my filer. Until recently I have been able to avoid a lot of windows interaction but that time is coming close to an end. Does anyone have any major issues with CIFS, does it kill CPU and how reliable is it in general? Basically I'm looking for an overall feeling. The reason I ask is I'm unimpressed with the HTTP daemon built into the filer and I'm not confident in it's abilities to do other things besides NFS without personal experience with it. Jerry __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Confidentiality Notice: This message, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, privileged, and/or protected from disclosure under state and federal laws that deal with the privacy and security of medical information. If you received this message in error or through inappropriate means, please reply to this message to notify the Sender that the message was received by you in error, and then permanently delete this message from all storage media, without forwarding or retaining a copy.

1 0

RE: CIFS vs NFS performance.
by Johnson, John T. 30 Aug '05

30 Aug '05

I run some CIFS sessions, probably not enough to judge performance vs. a server / LUN config but there's two reasons why I limit my CIFS services - Group Policies and security. NetApp CIFS doesn't support GPO's and Kerberos security. This may not pose an issue in your environment but we use GPO's to secure certain areas of our servers and deploy software so we can only use it for a limited set of circumstances. Another side-effect I've noticed is that it seems that any changes made to a CIFS session requires the CIFS service to be restarted. But with my limited exposure to CIFS, there may be some work-a-rounds I'm not familiar with. Good luck, John. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 12:27 PM To: list toasters Subject: CIFS vs NFS performance. Here's the story... Lately I've been getting a lot of requests for CIFS services on my filer. Until recently I have been able to avoid a lot of windows interaction but that time is coming close to an end. Does anyone have any major issues with CIFS, does it kill CPU and how reliable is it in general? Basically I'm looking for an overall feeling. The reason I ask is I'm unimpressed with the HTTP daemon built into the filer and I'm not confident in it's abilities to do other things besides NFS without personal experience with it. Jerry __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

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