toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13517 discussions

Netcache 5.5R5 Active Directory Computer Groups
by Michael Schipp 04 Jan '05

04 Jan '05

Hi all, Has anybody had any success in setting up the Netcache to use ACL's based on Active Directory Computer groups? We have a client that has requested this, but so far I have been only able to set ACL's on User groups from AD. We have setup domain membership (to a Windows 2000 domain) and are using NTLM and Kerberos authentication. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks Michael.

1 0

RE: DFM 3.1 Management Station Requirements
by Holland, William L 03 Jan '05

03 Jan '05

Windows. NFS is not enabled on any NetApp Equipment, only CIFS, SnapMirror, SnapVault and currently no LUNs. -----Original Message----- From: Brubaker, Paul [mailto:Paul.Brubaker@cingular.com] Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 12:41 PM To: Holland, William L; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: DFM 3.1 Management Station Requirements What O/S is your DFM management system running on? Windows or UNIX flavor? I am also interested in feedback on realistic requirements for DFM as well. Our current DFM2.3 is problematic... Especially in managing CIFS user quotas. Netapps resolution is to upgrade to DFM3.0.1. Paul M. Brubaker, Jr. RIDS - Intel System Support Cingular Wireless e-mail: paul.brubaker(a)cingular.com office #: 717-526-5011 cell #: 717-578-2254 -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Holland, William L Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 10:59 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: DFM 3.1 Management Station Requirements The documentation specifies the minimum hardware and software requirements. However, what is more realistic for hardware in terms of CPU speed, RAM, and disk space for managing an F825 (3TB Raw), FAS940 (12TB Raw), FAS960 (12 TB Raw), and R200 (48TB Raw). I want to monitor SnapMirror, user quotas, and Performance of all 4 units.

1 0

RE: DFM 3.1 Management Station Requirements
by Brubaker, Paul 03 Jan '05

03 Jan '05

What O/S is your DFM management system running on? Windows or UNIX flavor? I am also interested in feedback on realistic requirements for DFM as well. Our current DFM2.3 is problematic... Especially in managing CIFS user quotas. Netapps resolution is to upgrade to DFM3.0.1. Paul M. Brubaker, Jr. RIDS - Intel System Support Cingular Wireless e-mail: paul.brubaker(a)cingular.com office #: 717-526-5011 cell #: 717-578-2254 -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Holland, William L Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 10:59 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: DFM 3.1 Management Station Requirements The documentation specifies the minimum hardware and software requirements. However, what is more realistic for hardware in terms of CPU speed, RAM, and disk space for managing an F825 (3TB Raw), FAS940 (12TB Raw), FAS960 (12 TB Raw), and R200 (48TB Raw). I want to monitor SnapMirror, user quotas, and Performance of all 4 units.

1 0

DFM 3.1 Management Station Requirements
by Holland, William L 03 Jan '05

03 Jan '05

The documentation specifies the minimum hardware and software requirements. However, what is more realistic for hardware in terms of CPU speed, RAM, and disk space for managing an F825 (3TB Raw), FAS940 (12TB Raw), FAS960 (12 TB Raw), and R200 (48TB Raw). I want to monitor SnapMirror, user quotas, and Performance of all 4 units.

1 0

RE: EMC vs NetApp
by SKIP HOFMANN 31 Dec '04

31 Dec '04

Simply put NO! There is something nice about ease of use -----Original Message----- From: Kelsey Cummings [mailto:kgc@sonic.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 3:34 PM To: Dirk Schmiedt Cc: SKIP HOFMANN; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: EMC vs NetApp On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 12:07:24AM +0100, Dirk Schmiedt wrote: > SKIP HOFMANN wrote: > >the FASTEST NAS is BLUEARC > ??? I'm using NAS for stabilty, reliabilty, easy of use and, performance in that order. Does anyone beat NetApp on these issues? If I had different performance requirements I might have different opinions. -K

2 1

RE: EMC vs NetApp
by Bokkelkamp Ernst 30 Dec '04

30 Dec '04

Hallo Dirk, Good job, I didn't know that you dig into the NAS equipment that deep (even without the use of a screwdriver). However, I am missing one important point in the discussion: Performance is nice, but what about the services offered by the equipment. Even I, and you know my preferences, do advise to look at EMC as a potential platform for certain solutions if the most important factor happens to be the price and not the services offered by the operating system. If you need plain NFS without the need to do snapshots for ie databases, a-/synchronous replication, diskbased backup, iscsi, tape backup, SAN, CIFS, flexible volumes, highly reliable filesystem, security, support, etc. then you can just aswell look at any supplier based on performance figures. But if you need a particular service to be able to do the job effeciently and/or economically then you must weigh the performance against the needs, and then any of the named suppliers could just have the right solution (at least on paper) available. What our favorite company offers is a proven trackrecord that other companies would like to reach...... Btw. If you need low-cost plain NAS and don't worry to much about performance and security: http://www.serverelements.com/naslite.php ;-) Bye Ernie -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Dirk Schmiedt Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 12:07 AM To: SKIP HOFMANN Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: EMC vs NetApp SKIP HOFMANN wrote: > the FASTEST NAS is BLUEARC ??? Hello Skip Do you have real new comparative test results or are you just citing the press releases from Bluearc? ;-) http://www.bluearc.com/html/news/press_releases/pr_specsfs_110104.shtml Neither NetApp nor BlueArc are the fastest NAS providers ... They are both "slow" compared to ... Exanet, IBM, Panasas, Spinnaker, ... Let's have a look at the NFS-Benchmarks BlueArc cites ( http://www.spec.org/sfs97r1/results/sfs97r1.html ) I will focus on the TCP results: Company System Proto Result Overall Response Time BlueArc Inc. Titan 32 TCP 101571 1.78 Exanet Inc. ExaStore EX600FC TCP 178156 1.04 IBM Corporation IBM eServer p5 570 TCP 145362 1.17 Panasas, Inc. Panasas ActiveScale TCP 305805 1.76 (!!!) Spinnaker Networks SpinServer 4100 TCP 134385 1.90 But ... first let's stay at a small BlueArc <-> NetApp comparison as this is the toasters list. :-) BlueArc Titan 32 50858 1.76 Many io/s with bad response time. NetApp FAS980 36063 0.95 Less io/s with fast response time. The Fas980 has three quarters (72 %) of io/s with almost half response time (54%) in this benchmark. (Yes, I know about the saturation with high loads... More about this later.) Does the fastest mean 1) highest i/o rates? 2) lowest response times? 3) (1) and (2) at the same time? 4) With which kind of protocols? UDP / TCP, NFS / CIFS / ...? If you check the details, you can see many of them getting into saturation/overload problems.... http://www.spec.org/sfs97r1/results/res2003q4/sfs97r1-20031103-00166.htm l The graph really shows that Panasas wanted to hit the 300k mark and hit the saturation with 7.8 msec. :-) Same thing with BlueArc: http://www.spec.org/sfs97r1/results/res2004q3/sfs97r1-20040913-00203.htm l NetApp already stops at 2.5 msecs and not at 5.2msecs response time like BlueArc does ... One of the lousiest results comes from the EMC Celerra NS600 cluster: 38459 ios @ 10.3 msecs ... ( http://www.spec.org/sfs97r1/results/res2003q1/sfs97r1-20030203-00125.htm l ) Let me try to have a look at still comparable "Real" and not Overall Response Times at 35k-40k io/s: (That's where NetApp stops with the single head.) Vendor Model CPU RAM NVRAM IO/s "Real" RT @ 35k-40k GB GB (if value is available, if not, next higher value) BlueArc Titan 32 1(+7) 14+8 1 40488 2.6 (1 FS) BlueArc Titan 32 2FS-Mod 2(+14) 28+8 2 40513 1.3 (2 FS) Exanet EX600FC 12 72 84 36390 0.8 IBM eServer p5 570 4(8) 128 16 44175 0.7 NetApp FAS980 2 8 0.5 36063 2.5 (1 FS) NetApp FAS980c 4 16 1 41157 1.0 (2 FS) Panasas Active Scale 60 240 240 60864 0.8 Spinnaker SpinServer 4100 12 24 10 35536 1.1 Smaller (not even the half) RAM size than Titan 32: ==================================================== The FAS980 (8 GB RAM) is still almost as fast as the Titan 32 (22 GB): 36063 @ 2.5 msec. <-> 40488 @ 2.6 msec. Same RAM size comparison: ==================================== The FAS980 cluster (16 GB RAM) is 2.5 (!) times faster than the Titan 32 (14+8 GB): 41157 @ 1.0 msec. <-> 40488 @ 2.6 msec. Dual "Head" comparison: ===================================== The FAS980 cluster (16 GB RAM) is still faster than the Titan 32 with two FileSystemModules (24+8 GB) which is not even is a cluster. 41157 @ 1.0 msec. <-> 40513 @ 1.3 msec. b.t.w. :The FAS980c is a real cluster and afaik BlueArc doesn't have clustered high availability solutions: http://www.bluearc.com/html/library/downloads/titan_spec.pdf => If I compare the RAM and cache sizes of NetApp to the competitors ... I finaly see one thing: NetApp offers a very thin, io-optimized operating system with an excellent filesystem that is able to create a still "good" performance with even small "cheap" hardware. Please, don't start discussing the prices for the software licenses... ;-) but afaik they are still acceptable. :-) So, if you change your expression about the fastest BlueArc NAS-solution to something like "fastest NAS with one single CPU (with many (7) FPGAs support), with ...". In this very small area, BlueArc "appears" to have the fastest solutions, currently. Imho: If NetApp would start the same lousy saturation trick with the FAS980, they would reach the same results. But beside this small area where BlueArc "tops", I only can see big marketing efforts of them in trying to cheat/fool/mislead (don't know which one of these expressions is the softest...) the customers in yelling out loud "we are the fastest". And this is something I really don't like ... and reminds me to other storage vendors I also prefer to not use ... ;-) So imho we should give the "Fastest-NAS-crown" to the IBM eServer p5 570 (SingleHead/Backplane) 145362 @ 1.17 or the Panasas AS Cluster (ClusteredMultiHead) 305805 @ 1.76. BlueArc gets my current "We did the lousy saturation trick and/but yell it out loud" crown. :-( ;-) So therefore my question once again: Why do you believe that "Bluearc" is the fastest NAS-solution provider? I tried to explain my current opinion and hope you or anyone else can enlighten me if I'm wrong. Best regards! Dirk Schmiedt By the way: I still haven't found out, wether the SFS97r1 response time is measured on the client (including network delays) or on the server side? Can anybody explain this to me? So therefore I'm still dreaming of a multiprotocol high available, fault tolerant clustered NAS head which can do takeovers without loosing the states/connections (even at CIFS), with OS upgrades without visible reboots, with ... and it should not cost more than 1000$ @ head ... Just dreaming ... ;-)

1 0

Support for big-endian DCs
by Luke Howard 30 Dec '04

30 Dec '04

Is there any update on when Data ONTAP will support big-endian domain controllers? (This is bug 15548.) -- Luke --

2 2

can we do this together?
by akwanga＠terra.com.mx 30 Dec '04

30 Dec '04

Dear Friend I am a Director with the Department of Power and Steel and I represent a group that is interested in engaging your service as Manager of a large volume of fund for investment purpose. If this proposal is acceptable to you, please get back to me, so that we can work out a remuneration for your participation in the transaction,and also let you know on how we hope to acheive this objective. Please reply and as well send your telephone and fax number respectively for further contacts. Yours faithfully, Akwanga Graham ___________________________________________________________________________ Con Terra MAIL obtienes 6MB de espacio además de bloqueo ANTISPAM http://terramail.terra.com.mx/TerraMail/ Acceso a Internet 3 x 1, desde ¡$179 pesos al mes! http://www.terra.com.mx/acceso/suscribete/ Encuentra los mejores productos y precios increibles!! Aprovecha nuestra promoción a 12 pagos sin intereses con Banamex y Bancomer http://www.decompras.com/

1 0

RE: EMC vs NetApp
by SKIP HOFMANN 30 Dec '04

30 Dec '04

These products are really different animals. EMC is the leader for SANs Netapp is the leader for NAS they both have their place in business the FASTEST SAN is Hitachi the FASTEST NAS is BLUEARC NAS is good for CIFS SAN is good for High performance DAS replacement -----Original Message----- From: aaron hirsch [mailto:aaronh@uptime.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:21 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: EMC vs NetApp Me to!!! Me to!!! Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Grant, Derek [mailto:Derek.Grant@StrategIT.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:45 AM To: Kelsey Cummings; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: EMC vs NetApp I just wanted to add my name to the list. Could everyone who responded to Kelsey please forward their responses. I'd like to see how others felt about the two products and their experiences. Thanks Derek -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Kelsey Cummings Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 4:30 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: EMC vs NetApp I just wanted to say thanks to everyone that responded to me off-list! Thanks! -- Kelsey Cummings - kgc(a)sonic.net sonic.net, inc. System Administrator 2260 Apollo Way 707.522.1000 (Voice) Santa Rosa, CA 95407 707.547.2199 (Fax) http://www.sonic.net/ Fingerprint = D5F9 667F 5D32 7347 0B79 8DB7 2B42 86B6 4E2C 3896

3 3

RE: EMC vs NetApp
by Haber, David J. 29 Dec '04

29 Dec '04

Ditto -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of aaron hirsch Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 12:21 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: EMC vs NetApp Me to!!! Me to!!! Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Grant, Derek [mailto:Derek.Grant@StrategIT.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:45 AM To: Kelsey Cummings; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: EMC vs NetApp I just wanted to add my name to the list. Could everyone who responded to Kelsey please forward their responses. I'd like to see how others felt about the two products and their experiences. Thanks Derek -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Kelsey Cummings Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 4:30 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: EMC vs NetApp I just wanted to say thanks to everyone that responded to me off-list! Thanks! -- Kelsey Cummings - kgc(a)sonic.net sonic.net, inc. System Administrator 2260 Apollo Way 707.522.1000 (Voice) Santa Rosa, CA 95407 707.547.2199 (Fax) http://www.sonic.net/ Fingerprint = D5F9 667F 5D32 7347 0B79 8DB7 2B42 86B6 4E2C 3896

1 0

RE: EMC vs NetApp
by aaron hirsch 29 Dec '04

29 Dec '04

Me to!!! Me to!!! Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Grant, Derek [mailto:Derek.Grant@StrategIT.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:45 AM To: Kelsey Cummings; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: EMC vs NetApp I just wanted to add my name to the list. Could everyone who responded to Kelsey please forward their responses. I'd like to see how others felt about the two products and their experiences. Thanks Derek -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Kelsey Cummings Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 4:30 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: EMC vs NetApp I just wanted to say thanks to everyone that responded to me off-list! Thanks! -- Kelsey Cummings - kgc(a)sonic.net sonic.net, inc. System Administrator 2260 Apollo Way 707.522.1000 (Voice) Santa Rosa, CA 95407 707.547.2199 (Fax) http://www.sonic.net/ Fingerprint = D5F9 667F 5D32 7347 0B79 8DB7 2B42 86B6 4E2C 3896

1 0

RE: EMC vs NetApp
by Grant, Derek 29 Dec '04

29 Dec '04

I just wanted to add my name to the list. Could everyone who responded to Kelsey please forward their responses. I'd like to see how others felt about the two products and their experiences. Thanks Derek -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Kelsey Cummings Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 4:30 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: EMC vs NetApp I just wanted to say thanks to everyone that responded to me off-list! Thanks! -- Kelsey Cummings - kgc(a)sonic.net sonic.net, inc. System Administrator 2260 Apollo Way 707.522.1000 (Voice) Santa Rosa, CA 95407 707.547.2199 (Fax) http://www.sonic.net/ Fingerprint = D5F9 667F 5D32 7347 0B79 8DB7 2B42 86B6 4E2C 3896

1 0

EMC vs NetApp
by Kelsey Cummings 29 Dec '04

29 Dec '04

A company I contract for is shopping for new storage to replace some old 7xx series filers and we are about 90% sold on a fas270c. However, I've been asked to compare this to the current EMC offerings which EMC claims to have now beat NetApp on price and performance while freely admitting that their 600 line was indeed a piece of crap. They insist that the 500 series is a solid product that can beat NetApp in a bake off. Does anyone have experiences with the *new* EMC Calera NAS boxes? -K

2 2

RE: EMC vs NetApp
by Brubaker, Paul 29 Dec '04

29 Dec '04

Ditto... please send any and all comments to me too. thanks! Paul M. Brubaker, Jr. RIDS - Intel System Support Cingular Wireless e-mail: paul.brubaker(a)cingular.com office #: 717-526-5011 cell #: 717-578-2254 -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Ashi Sheth Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 6:15 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: EMC vs NetApp I would appreciate the comments as well. Thanks. Ashi -------------------------- Ashi Sheth Systems Engineering Manager University of the Pacific - OIT ashi.sheth(a)pacific.edu 209-946-3986 -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com <owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com> To: toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Tue Dec 28 14:09:19 2004 Subject: RE: EMC vs NetApp Just read this message and the previous, would the people who responded to Kelsey please send me their input as well? We use NetApp filers now and are discussing going to EMC... Thanks, Bryan Howard Sr. Database Administrator, Oracle New Breed Corporation (336) 218-7535 ext. 8123 bhoward(a)newbreed.com -----Original Message----- From: Kelsey Cummings [mailto:kgc@sonic.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 16:30 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: EMC vs NetApp I just wanted to say thanks to everyone that responded to me off-list! Thanks! -- Kelsey Cummings - kgc(a)sonic.net sonic.net, inc. System Administrator 2260 Apollo Way 707.522.1000 (Voice) Santa Rosa, CA 95407 707.547.2199 (Fax) http://www.sonic.net/ Fingerprint = D5F9 667F 5D32 7347 0B79 8DB7 2B42 86B6 4E2C 3896

2 1

Re: EMC vs NetApp
by Ashi Sheth 28 Dec '04

28 Dec '04

I would appreciate the comments as well. Thanks. Ashi -------------------------- Ashi Sheth Systems Engineering Manager University of the Pacific - OIT ashi.sheth(a)pacific.edu 209-946-3986 -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com <owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com> To: toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Tue Dec 28 14:09:19 2004 Subject: RE: EMC vs NetApp Just read this message and the previous, would the people who responded to Kelsey please send me their input as well? We use NetApp filers now and are discussing going to EMC... Thanks, Bryan Howard Sr. Database Administrator, Oracle New Breed Corporation (336) 218-7535 ext. 8123 bhoward(a)newbreed.com -----Original Message----- From: Kelsey Cummings [mailto:kgc@sonic.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 16:30 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: EMC vs NetApp I just wanted to say thanks to everyone that responded to me off-list! Thanks! -- Kelsey Cummings - kgc(a)sonic.net sonic.net, inc. System Administrator 2260 Apollo Way 707.522.1000 (Voice) Santa Rosa, CA 95407 707.547.2199 (Fax) http://www.sonic.net/ Fingerprint = D5F9 667F 5D32 7347 0B79 8DB7 2B42 86B6 4E2C 3896

1 0

RE: EMC vs NetApp
by Howard, Bryan 28 Dec '04

28 Dec '04

Just read this message and the previous, would the people who responded to Kelsey please send me their input as well? We use NetApp filers now and are discussing going to EMC... Thanks, Bryan Howard Sr. Database Administrator, Oracle New Breed Corporation (336) 218-7535 ext. 8123 bhoward(a)newbreed.com -----Original Message----- From: Kelsey Cummings [mailto:kgc@sonic.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 16:30 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: EMC vs NetApp I just wanted to say thanks to everyone that responded to me off-list! Thanks! -- Kelsey Cummings - kgc(a)sonic.net sonic.net, inc. System Administrator 2260 Apollo Way 707.522.1000 (Voice) Santa Rosa, CA 95407 707.547.2199 (Fax) http://www.sonic.net/ Fingerprint = D5F9 667F 5D32 7347 0B79 8DB7 2B42 86B6 4E2C 3896

2 1

Replacing FC9 disk + adding NetApp disk label
by devnull＠adc.idt.com 23 Dec '04

23 Dec '04

I just had a NetApp disk on an F740 fail on me. The disk is a X231_ST336704FC which is a 36Gb seagate drive. I dont have support on this filer and am looking at options to replace it. Does anyone know if it is possible to add a regular(and by that i mean a disk that isnt "formatted" for a NetApp) 36GB FC drive to the filer and get it to recognize it ? I had a FC drive on a Sun blade fail me on me sometime back and i was able to buy a non sun drive and during the installation solaris labels the drive for me. Is there something similar that can be done on the NetApp. Thanks, /dev/null devnull(a)adc.idt.com

2 1

vld exchange gone
by Charles Roufay 23 Dec '04

23 Dec '04

Hello, We accidentally deleted one of our vld.lun file for our exchange . Is anyone aware of a back door to retreive deleted fiiles? Charles ********************************************************************* This e-mail message may contain privileged/confidential information. It is intended solely for the addressee.If you are not the indicated addressee(or responsible for delivery to such a person), you shall neither read nor retain this message, copy or distribute it to anyone, or use this email for any other purpose. In such cases, please destroy the message immediately and notify the sender by reply email.

1 0

Hello Tm-m3
by Rebecca Hatch 23 Dec '04

23 Dec '04

1 0

Panic F760 6.4.5
by Cedric Tabary 20 Dec '04

20 Dec '04

This is a Dell PV 760 (aka NetApp F760, fw 2.8_a2) 3 Dell 700 shelves with Ids 0, 1, 2 connected to isp2100 in slot 2 Crash log on console : ------------------------------------------------------------ Mon Dec 20 09:15:45 GMT [ispfc_init_1:error]: Device 2.0 (0x02000000) appears to have taken a soft address: expected hard address 7 (0xda), assigned soft address 0 (0xef). Mon Dec 20 09:15:52 GMT [ispfc_init_1:error]: Device 2.0 (0x02000000) appears to have taken a soft address: expected hard address 7 (0xda), assigned soft address 0 (0xef). ispfc: Fibre Channel adapter 0a appears to be unattached/disconnected. If adapter is in use, check cabling and seating of LRC cards in disk shelves. Mon Dec 20 09:15:54 GMT [ispfc_init_0:error]: Initialization failed on Fibre Channel adapter 0a. NetApp Release 6.4.5: Wed Jul 14 04:27:30 PDT 2004 Copyright (c) 1992-2004 Network Appliance, Inc. Starting boot on Mon Dec 20 09:15:37 GMT 2004 Mon Dec 20 09:15:56 GMT [ispfc_timeout_1:error]: Invalidating disk device 2.0 (0x02000000) which appears to have taken a soft address, possibly due to conflicting shelf ids. Mon Dec 20 09:15:58 GMT [net_e0:info]: Ethernet e0: Link up. level1 pte is 1fa3400001101 level2 pte is 1fa3300001101 level3 pte is NULL MM fault MMCSR=1, type=1, VA=0x0, PC=0xfffffc000060d4a0, RA=0xfffffc00004a9bc0 PANIC: MM fault MMCSR=1, type=1, VA=0x0, PC=0xfffffc000060d4a0, RA=0xfffffc00004a9bc0 in process ses_admin on release NetApp Release 6.4.5 on Mon Dec 20 09:16:00 GMT 2004 version: NetApp Release 6.4.5: Wed Jul 14 04:27:30 PDT 2004 cc flags: 1 DUMPCORE: START DUMPCORE: END -- coredump *NOT* written. halt after panic during system initialization ok Killed ------------------------------------------------------------ It can boot sometimes, but some drives are missing after boot !! I have nearly the same crash with shelves connected to internal fc-al and fc card removed. any idea ? Thanks -- Cédric Tabary

2 1

RE: Netcache in transparent mode
by Michael Schipp 18 Dec '04

18 Dec '04

Hi all, The setting is in IE under the security tab --> custom level --> User Authentication --> Automatic logon with current username and password. Thanks to Quin Qhong from Netapp for helping me out here. Thanks Michael ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Stephane Bentebba Sent: Friday, 17 December 2004 8:46 PM Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Netcache in transparent mode did you tried to connect to the adress : http://user:passwd@netcache i am not sure this works and can't make a test but lots of site enable that way of doing this the only problem is the passwd sent in clear it would be better to use https Michael Schipp wrote: Hi all, I am not sure if the Netcache can do this. What the customer wants is to have is the Netcache (C1200 - running 5.5R5) in transparent mode as well as reverse proxy (web accelerator). No problems so far, but the customer also wants to block Windows 2000 AD computers groups from accessing instant messaging. They also want to rsh the ACL so that they can turn on and off different AD computer groups. As far as I know this means we need to do a auth on HTTP in the ACL. When I do this the browser is prompted for username and password (well is did after I found the transparent Auth tick box :)). However the customer does not want to be prompted but wants passthrough authentication. Can this be done? Any help/thoughts on this much is appreciated. Thanks Michael Schipp. -- Stéphane Bentebba Technicien de Maintenance Tél.: +33 (0)1.41.73.20.16 Fax.: +33 (0)1.41.73.20.08 support(a)fps.fr www.fps.fr <http://www.fps.fr> <http://www.fps.fr> FPS France Parc d'affaire Silic 43, rue de la Grosse Pierre BP 40160 94533 RUNGIS Cedex

1 0

System Firmware: F840
by George Kahler 17 Dec '04

17 Dec '04

I'm about to flash the system board with the latest firmware 4.3. Q: at the end of the flash process one always had to type "set-defaults" as is documented on the web page but not for version 4.3 ! Is this correct is this a typo (documentation omission) ? BTW, someone mention to me about some diagnostic (was it a floppy or another boot diskette ?) Pls advise. Thx, G. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- George Kahler e-mail: george(a)yorku.ca Sr. Systems Administrator humans: (416) 736-2100 x.22699 Computing and Network Services machines: (416) 736-5830 Ontario, Canada, M3J-1P3

2 1

Netcache in transparent mode
by Michael Schipp 17 Dec '04

17 Dec '04

Hi all, I am not sure if the Netcache can do this. What the customer wants is to have is the Netcache (C1200 - running 5.5R5) in transparent mode as well as reverse proxy (web accelerator). No problems so far, but the customer also wants to block Windows 2000 AD computers groups from accessing instant messaging. They also want to rsh the ACL so that they can turn on and off different AD computer groups. As far as I know this means we need to do a auth on HTTP in the ACL. When I do this the browser is prompted for username and password (well is did after I found the transparent Auth tick box :)). However the customer does not want to be prompted but wants passthrough authentication. Can this be done? Any help/thoughts on this much is appreciated. Thanks Michael Schipp.

2 1

Qlogic ISP2100 on 840
by Ben Rockwood 14 Dec '04

14 Dec '04

Hello Toasters. Does anyone know why Qlogic ISP2100's aren't supported on F840? 2100's are as generic as you get in the world of Fibre Channel and it seems odd to me that they wouldn't be supported. The only thing I can figure is that the drivers were only written for the Alpha's in the 700 Series Filers, but thats only a lame guess. I'm doing some testing with an old 840 and need more than the 2 HBAs I currently have installed. I've got piles of 2100's removed from old 740 and 740's and would love to use them. Any tricks around or am I just SOL? Thanx. benr.

1 0

SGI mail issues on Filer
by Carlos A. Alvarez 14 Dec '04

14 Dec '04

Hi all, I mounted on Filer the users mailbox, and when a user requests her/him mailbox, it is locked (hang) and ipop3d process appears awaiting and adding.(/usr/mail/*.lock & *.lock.1106.....) The server SGI is acting as SMTP and POP3 server mounting Filer NFS V3 /etc/fstab on SGI filer:/vol/vol1/indy /filer nfs rw 0 0 filer:/vol/vol1/indy /var/mail nfs rw 0 0 Any comment would be appreciated. Thanks

4 4

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