toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13517 discussions

Number of Disks on a F720
by Paul McGuinness (ext. 771) 20 Aug '04

20 Aug '04

Hi, I have an F720 filer (Release 6.3.1) with 2 FC9 shelves and 1 DS14 shelf - both fully populated. My question is can I add another shelf to this or am I maxed out? Any thoughts on this much appreciated Paul ********************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail is confidential, may be privileged and is intended only for the user of the recipient named above. If you are not the intended recipient or a representative of the intended recipient, you have received this e-mail in error and must not copy, use or disclose the contents of this e-mail to anybody else. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete the copy you received. This e-mail has been swept for computer viruses. However, you should carry out your own virus checks. Registered in Ireland, No. 205721. http://www.FINEOS.com **********************************************************************

1 0

RE: usable size of a 146-GB drive
by Brubaker, Paul 19 Aug '04

19 Aug '04

We also back out 30% (20% for snap reserve + 10% WAFL overhead) and then another 10% buffer for disk fragmentation... So approx 40% total. Paul M. Brubaker, Jr. RIDS - Intel System Support AT&T Wireless - Harrisburg PA e-mail: paul.brubaker(a)attws.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 Bokkelkamp Ernst Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 2:05 PM To: geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com; James Brigman; toasters Subject: RE: usable size of a 146-GB drive I think this might interest you. The magic figure is about 30. 36 -> 30 GB 72 -> 60 GB 144 -> 120 GB 250 -> 180 GB Although not exactly accurate, for my purposes this has worked out quite well. The other magic factor is about 0.8 Take a filer with 5 x DS14 shelfs giving 70 drives. Assume that one shelf will be assigned to "overhead", create volumes on the remaining 4 shelf with two parity drives, giving a total of 8 drives overhead. Assume that the system drive takes two drives and 4 drives are reserved as spares (8 + 2 + 4 = 14 drives), leaving 56 drives ( or 80% ) for data. If you now apply 0.8 again to the remainder it will give you the approximate size of the space available for the file system. (this is a crude approximation of the magic 30 factor). (0.8 x 0.8 = 0.64) If you now apply 0.8 again to the remainder it will give you the approximate space availabe to the users with a snapshot reserve of 20%. (0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 0.5) This crude methode has work well for me until now Bye Ernie -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of James Brigman Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 2:38 PM To: 'toasters' Subject: RE: usable size of a 146-GB drive Geoff; You've done some good research: I'm seeing similar numbers you're finding on 36 and 72GB disks. However, notice that the space efficiency is going to vary dramatically with the size of the RAID group. That should not be surprising: a two-spindle volume's real availability drops to 33%. (48GB / 144GB ... everyone sees that with vol0...) I believe it's possible, if you make the raid group very large and use RAID-DP, you could increase space efficiency and performance too. I don't have 144GB numbers for you, but the "250GB" drives in an R200 work out to less than 200GB usable. I'll try to post some numbers to the list later this week... JKB -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Hardin Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 8:20 PM To: toasters Subject: usable size of a 146-GB drive I was just wondering if anyone had any info on the usable size of the 146-GB drives from NetApp. I am trying to figure out how many drives I'll need, but I can't really tell without knowing what my usable space will be. If it helps, here's some data I have collected from other drives. 18 GB disk - becomes 17.0 GB because of disk overhead (right size) - becomes 14.923389 because of OS overhead - becomes 13.431053 with a 10% snap reserve - becomes 11.938713 with a 20% snap reserve 36 GB disk - becomes 33.917 GB because of disk overhead - becomes 31.776308 because of OS overhead - becomes 27.273826 with a 10% snap reserve - becomes 25.421048 with a 20% snap reserve 72 GB disk - becomes 67.906 GB because of disk overhead - becomes 59.747608 because of OS overhead - becomes 53.772850 with a 10% snap reserve - becomes 47.798088 with a 20% snap reserve Thanks, Geoff Hardin UNIX System Administrator Dallas Semiconductor / Maxim Integrated Products geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com It's illegal to walk your elephant without a leash in Wisconsin.

1 0

search function of website
by Mike Langas 19 Aug '04

19 Aug '04

Is the search function broken at the following URL? http://toasters.mathworks.com/toasters/Search.html I keep getting a page can not be found error. Thanks, Mike __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

RE: usable size of a 146-GB drive
by Bokkelkamp Ernst 19 Aug '04

19 Aug '04

I think this might interest you. The magic figure is about 30. 36 -> 30 GB 72 -> 60 GB 144 -> 120 GB 250 -> 180 GB Although not exactly accurate, for my purposes this has worked out quite well. The other magic factor is about 0.8 Take a filer with 5 x DS14 shelfs giving 70 drives. Assume that one shelf will be assigned to "overhead", create volumes on the remaining 4 shelf with two parity drives, giving a total of 8 drives overhead. Assume that the system drive takes two drives and 4 drives are reserved as spares (8 + 2 + 4 = 14 drives), leaving 56 drives ( or 80% ) for data. If you now apply 0.8 again to the remainder it will give you the approximate size of the space available for the file system. (this is a crude approximation of the magic 30 factor). (0.8 x 0.8 = 0.64) If you now apply 0.8 again to the remainder it will give you the approximate space availabe to the users with a snapshot reserve of 20%. (0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 0.5) This crude methode has work well for me until now Bye Ernie -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of James Brigman Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 2:38 PM To: 'toasters' Subject: RE: usable size of a 146-GB drive Geoff; You've done some good research: I'm seeing similar numbers you're finding on 36 and 72GB disks. However, notice that the space efficiency is going to vary dramatically with the size of the RAID group. That should not be surprising: a two-spindle volume's real availability drops to 33%. (48GB / 144GB ... everyone sees that with vol0...) I believe it's possible, if you make the raid group very large and use RAID-DP, you could increase space efficiency and performance too. I don't have 144GB numbers for you, but the "250GB" drives in an R200 work out to less than 200GB usable. I'll try to post some numbers to the list later this week... JKB -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Hardin Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 8:20 PM To: toasters Subject: usable size of a 146-GB drive I was just wondering if anyone had any info on the usable size of the 146-GB drives from NetApp. I am trying to figure out how many drives I'll need, but I can't really tell without knowing what my usable space will be. If it helps, here's some data I have collected from other drives. 18 GB disk - becomes 17.0 GB because of disk overhead (right size) - becomes 14.923389 because of OS overhead - becomes 13.431053 with a 10% snap reserve - becomes 11.938713 with a 20% snap reserve 36 GB disk - becomes 33.917 GB because of disk overhead - becomes 31.776308 because of OS overhead - becomes 27.273826 with a 10% snap reserve - becomes 25.421048 with a 20% snap reserve 72 GB disk - becomes 67.906 GB because of disk overhead - becomes 59.747608 because of OS overhead - becomes 53.772850 with a 10% snap reserve - becomes 47.798088 with a 20% snap reserve Thanks, Geoff Hardin UNIX System Administrator Dallas Semiconductor / Maxim Integrated Products geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com It's illegal to walk your elephant without a leash in Wisconsin.

1 0

Re: Automatic NFS export on vol create
by Chris Thompson 19 Aug '04

19 Aug '04

Well, I think that's about my personal best for a toasters posting stirring things up! :-) First, a small correction. I wrote: > When a volume is created, say /vol/test, it is now autmatically > NFS exported with a rule > > /vol/test -rw,nosuid > > i.e. read-write to the world. As a volume starts off with just > a root-owned top-level directory, and there's no "root=" clause, > this isn't _exactly_ a security exposure staight away, but of course > it becomes one as soon as more interesting data is installed there. Actually, the export options used are "-rw,root=[the admin.hosts option]". It just so happens that I have admin.hosts set to the empty list on this filer (originally done for tidyness: what hosts I might want to be admin hosts changes all the time - it didn't occur to me that it would [partially] save me in the current context). Picking some points pseudo-randomly from the thread ... Tom Haynes <thomas(a)netapp.com> wrote: > One thing to be remembered in all of this discussion is that the export > changes were driven by customer requests. So, what one customer may not > like, some other customer *had* to have in the code. I dispute that anyone "*had*" to have this change. The situation is actually that in order to make things *easier* for a certain class of users using filers in very stereotyped ways, you have introduced potentially quite serious security exposures for the rest of us. > We were automatically creating default exports for the root volume. > This allowed an admin to start editing files as soon as a NFS license > was given to the filer. > > We expanded this capability to include all volumes. I dispute that the cases are at all analogous. The original root volume NFS export was done by the "setup" command (I haven't checked whether you've changed that in 6.5.x as well) as part of bootstrapping a filer into existence, and of course one expected to go over the eventual configuration with a fine toothcomb. Creating a new volume on an existing filer just isn't a comparable activity. Bruce Arden <arden(a)nortelnetworks.com> wrote: > Does "vol create" create a CIFS shares as well? No it doesn't, and that is a very pertinent point. "setup" assumed that NFS would be used for (initial) administration because ... well, because that's all there was in the early days of NetApp. A rethink of "setup" to help non-NFS-capable sysadmins might have been a more pertinent objective. Mike Sphar <mike.sphar(a)Remedy.COM> wrote: > Speaking purely for myself, as a long-time Sysadmin, the fact that so much > of Netapp's config is stored in text files was a *big* advantage to me. I couldn't agree more ... John Clear <jclear(a)ati.com> wrote: > Flat text files are good. If NetApp wants to make everything into > a database, at least have an option to populate the database from > a text file. Having `exportfs -a` read /etc/exports and create > /etc/exports.db is fine, but I want to be able to edit a text file. > > We keep quotas, exports and a few other of the config files under RCS > on all our filers, so any automatic 'helpful' changes will be lost at > the next check-out. In fact I knew that I "ought to do something" about /etc/exports maintenance after the 6.5.x upgrade --- I just didn't realise it was so urgent! Like John, I have always kept (the masters for) config files on filers under a change control system. Then in 5.3.4 the registry replaced the options settings in /etc/rc. I made do with a crontab that picks the options out of /etc/registry and compares them with a what-they-should-be file under change control and warns me of any differences. Now it looks as though I will need to do something similar for /etc/exports, but whereas many unexpected options settings are benign, that's much less likely to be true for unexpected NFS exports. Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1(a)ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QH, Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.

3 2

usable size of a 146-GB drive
by Geoff Hardin 19 Aug '04

19 Aug '04

I was just wondering if anyone had any info on the usable size of the 146-GB drives from NetApp. I am trying to figure out how many drives I'll need, but I can't really tell without knowing what my usable space will be. If it helps, here's some data I have collected from other drives. 18 GB disk - becomes 17.0 GB because of disk overhead (right size) - becomes 14.923389 because of OS overhead - becomes 13.431053 with a 10% snap reserve - becomes 11.938713 with a 20% snap reserve 36 GB disk - becomes 33.917 GB because of disk overhead - becomes 31.776308 because of OS overhead - becomes 27.273826 with a 10% snap reserve - becomes 25.421048 with a 20% snap reserve 72 GB disk - becomes 67.906 GB because of disk overhead - becomes 59.747608 because of OS overhead - becomes 53.772850 with a 10% snap reserve - becomes 47.798088 with a 20% snap reserve Thanks, Geoff Hardin UNIX System Administrator Dallas Semiconductor / Maxim Integrated Products geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com It's illegal to walk your elephant without a leash in Wisconsin.

2 1

RE: Automatic NFS export on vol create
by Munn, Stuart SITI-ITISEEES 19 Aug '04

19 Aug '04

>The idea of programming is to "solve a problem". >From the reaction on this list, looks like the automation created more >problems than solved. That is a big assumption! what is the number of Netapps admins on this list compared to those actually managing Netapps devices?... quite small I would think. And how many of them on the list think this is a problem... even smaller ... Still I agree that this is undesirable from a security point of view I'd much prefer the old method, or at least a way of turning off this feature... Cheers Stuart -----Original Message----- From: devnull(a)adc.idt.com [mailto:devnull@adc.idt.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 7:29 PM To: Haynes, Tom Cc: NetApp Toasters List Subject: Re: Automatic NFS export on vol create > Is it a dumbing down or an automation of common steps? I agree. I think it is automation. But, maybe i dont want it. How about -UpdateExportsFile or a -DontUpdateExportsFile to go along with vol create If you are going to "automate" something, make sure you give people a way out of it. Your idea of automation might interfere with someone else's idea of control. > You have to remember that is what programming is all about: > 1) finding common blocks of functionality and wrapping them in a function. > 2) reducing the human interaction. hmm. agreed...sorta. The idea of programming is to "solve a problem". From the reaction on this list, looks like the automation created more problems than solved. If i see more emails which say "thanks for automation the vol creation tom", i will be forced to think otherwise. So, instead, lets solve old RFE's like ACL's for nfs first.

1 0

RE: usable size of a 146-GB drive
by Stephenson, Burke T. GD 19 Aug '04

19 Aug '04

The 144GB drives (never heard of 146GB) show up as 136FB Burke -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Hardin [mailto:geoff.hardin@dalsemi.com] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 1:20 AM To: toasters Subject: usable size of a 146-GB drive I was just wondering if anyone had any info on the usable size of the 146-GB drives from NetApp. I am trying to figure out how many drives I'll need, but I can't really tell without knowing what my usable space will be. If it helps, here's some data I have collected from other drives. 18 GB disk - becomes 17.0 GB because of disk overhead (right size) - becomes 14.923389 because of OS overhead - becomes 13.431053 with a 10% snap reserve - becomes 11.938713 with a 20% snap reserve 36 GB disk - becomes 33.917 GB because of disk overhead - becomes 31.776308 because of OS overhead - becomes 27.273826 with a 10% snap reserve - becomes 25.421048 with a 20% snap reserve 72 GB disk - becomes 67.906 GB because of disk overhead - becomes 59.747608 because of OS overhead - becomes 53.772850 with a 10% snap reserve - becomes 47.798088 with a 20% snap reserve Thanks, Geoff Hardin UNIX System Administrator Dallas Semiconductor / Maxim Integrated Products geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com It's illegal to walk your elephant without a leash in Wisconsin.

1 0

RE: Automatic NFS export on vol create
by Mike Sphar 18 Aug '04

18 Aug '04

Speaking purely for myself, as a long-time Sysadmin, the fact that so much of Netapp's config is stored in text files was a *big* advantage to me. Databases always seem like a good idea until they get corrupted, or the front-end administration tools fail because of bad data. (Anyone else ever adminned AIX? Hell, just the other day I had to spend a fair amount of time trying to repair a corrupted registry on a Windows box.) -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Remedy, a BMC Software Company -----Original Message----- From: Haynes, Tom [mailto:thomas@netapp.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 1:04 PM To: skeezics(a)selectmetrics.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Automatic NFS export on vol create Is it a dumbing down or an automation of common steps? I know when I designed and coded the automatic writing of the /etc/exports, my goal was to remove some repetitive and manual steps. You have to remember that is what programming is all about: 1) finding common blocks of functionality and wrapping them in a function. 2) reducing the human interaction. Some of the posters on this thread make it sound like this was a conspiracy. If we had been a brand new company and we came out with a product which kept the exports information in a database instead of a flat file, would you have been this upset? Or would you have enjoyed the experience? I've been of the flat file bent myself for a long time. Now that I have to maintain the exports file, I'm leaning towards a database for it. There is just too much ambiguity in parsing entries in the host lists - well formed fields, like *shudder* XML, make too much sense. Anyway, there is no global plan to dumb down the product - just local designs to reduce problems found in customer escalations. > On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Bruce Arden wrote: > > Uh, whoops, now I've got this "/vol/new" export at the end of the file? > Hmmm. Harmless, in this case, because at reboot there was no volume named > "new" so it wasn't exported... still, this was another little surprise > that could have had more serious consequences, and as another long-time > Unix/ONTAP hacker I have to lobby against the dumbing down of ONTAP. Any > sysadmin qualified to run the box can learn it in an hour or less; filers > don't need to be much simpler than they are now. What's next? "Hey, > Boeing, this 747 is too hard to fly, make it easier so we can use cheaper > pilots." > > Cringe. > > -- Chris > -- Tom Haynes, ex-cfb thomas(a)netapp.com

1 0

any other gotchas for 6.5.x export files
by Kerry Herschel 17 Aug '04

17 Aug '04

Hi, I am about to upgrade to 6.5.x from 6.4.2P11. Are there any other gotchas about the exports file in 6.5.x? Thanks, Kerry ================================================================ Margaret.K.Herschel(a)jpl.nasa.gov JPL Information Services Jet Propulsion Laboratory Phone 818.354.1111 DISCLAIMER: The personal and professional opinions presented herein are my own and do not, in any way, represent the opinion or policy of JPL.

3 2

Re: Automatic NFS export on vol create
by Davin Milun 17 Aug '04

17 Aug '04

Agreed... Making it an option would be a much cleaner solution. It's all these changes/weirdnesses etc. that is causing me to not even consider moving to the 6.5 series yet. I plan on staying with 6.4.x for quite a while longer, until the rest of the changes/bugs/etc have been found and ironed out. Davin. At 12:58, on Aug 17, 2004, "Chris Blackmor" wrote: > > I am with Matt on this one. If you want it to default as "on" that is > fine. Then those of us who want to do everything ourselves are happy and > those that want a little more help are happy too. > > I appreciate NA trying to help but really... this goes a little too far. > C- > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 01:39:43PM -0400, Matt Phelps wrote: > > Haynes, Tom wrote: > > >I'll put myself in here, it seems like as good a point as any. And > > >I'll forwarn you that I am the one who coded all of the changes in the > > >way OnTap handles exports. > > > > > >One thing to be remembered in all of this discussion is that the export > > >changes were driven by customer requests. So, what one customer may not > > >like, some other customer *had* to have in the code. > > > > > > > So why not an "option auto_update_exports off" ??? > > > > Then, we can *all* have it "our way".

1 0

RE: Automatic NFS export on vol create
by Brubaker, Paul 17 Aug '04

17 Aug '04

This is too funny... Almost sounds like Netapp is taking a Microsoft approach... Making it easier for the system administrators... LOL! Paul Brubaker, Jr. RIDS - Intel System Support AT&T Wireless Services * office phone: 717-526-5011 * cell phone: 717-578-2254 * e-mail: paul.brubaker(a)attws.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Jim Harm Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 11:35 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Automatic NFS export on vol create I don't like it either. In addition, when you do a volume name change, the OS will quietly change the exports file to what it thinks you'd like to have there. I feel it's rude to make those changes to MY export file without letting me know. NetApp says they are making it easier for system administration for less experienced owners. At 10:06 AM -0500 8/17/04, Chris Blackmor wrote: >I agree with you Chris. I don't think automatic exports of any kind >are a good idea. I would rather err on the side of not giving access >than opening it up to the world without my knowledge. I know soon >enough if I have forgotten to export something but I *WON'T* know soon >enough if the system has *helped* me out. > >What say ye NA-Folks? >C- > >On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 03:47:15PM +0100, Chris Thompson wrote: >> I have been caught out by one aspect of the changed NFS export >> implementation in ONTAP 6.5.x (specifically, 6.5.1R1P6), that might >> have had serious security implications. >> >> When a volume is created, say /vol/test, it is now autmatically NFS >> exported with a rule >> >> /vol/test -rw,nosuid >> >> i.e. read-write to the world. As a volume starts off with just a >> root-owned top-level directory, and there's no "root=" clause, this >> isn't _exactly_ a security exposure staight away, but of course it >> becomes one as soon as more interesting data is installed there. >> >> Having noticed that at the time, I did >> >> exportfs -io rw=[a-testing-host],root=[a-testing-host] /vol/test >> >> and continued with my tests (which involved restoring bits of other >> filing systems into /vol/test). >> >> What I hadn't realised was that the original "vol create test" had >> not only exported the volume, it had added a line to /etc/exports. So >> the next time the filer was rebooted, the unrestricted export came >> back... which, of course, I didn't notice for some time. >> >> Has anyone else been caught out like this? Does anyone else think >> that these automatic NFS exports shouldn't be happening at all? >> >> -- >> Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, >> Email: cet1(a)ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QH, >> Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom. > >-- >----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- >* Chris Blackmor _______ | If I keep doing what I am * >* Advanced Micro Devices \____ | | doing * >* Phone: (512) 602-1608 /| | | | I'll keep getting what I am * >* Fax: (512) 602-5155 | |___| | | getting * >* Email: chris.blackmor(a)amd.com |____/ \| | Author Unknown* >----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- >* My comments are mine, and mine alone. * >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >------- -- }}}===============>> LLNL James E. Harm (Jim); jharm(a)llnl.gov System Administrator, ICCD Clusters (925) 422-4018 Page: 423-7705x57152

2 1

How to restrict an NESS share to user
by Clawson, Simon 17 Aug '04

17 Aug '04

Hi, How can I restrict an NFS share to certain users only? I cant see a parameter in OnTap's NFS that would allow this, unlike standard nfs where I could easily do this. Any ideas? Thanks Simon Simon Clawson Systems Administrator HDL Designer Series Team Mentor Graphics Ireland (UK Branch) Rivergate Newbury Business Park London Road Newbury Berks RG14 2QB Tel - 01635 811409 Fax - 01635 810102

2 1

Backing up exchange
by Mostafa Ahmed Magdy 15 Aug '04

15 Aug '04

Dear All, Can anyone help me with veritas ?? I know where supposed to talk on netapp but I got a problem in backing up my exchange servers Here is my configuration: 2 clustered 825c Netapp filers 2 clustered exchange servers I'm using veritas 4.5 GA and for 2 days I've been getting this problem: file read failed(13) the backup just fails when backing up a certain mail box. I'm still searching in the veritas site for help but if anyone knows how to solve this I'd appreciate your help. Regards, Mostafa Ahmed Magdy Data Center Administrator Masreya Information Systems (Xceed) Km. 28 Cairo Alex. RoadKm. 28 Cairo Alex. Road (Smart Village) Website: http://www.xceedcc.com phone number: + (202) 7763286

1 0

FAS940 with 144GB drives
by Michael Haller 13 Aug '04

13 Aug '04

We're looking at a 940 system and have been quoted for one with 144GB drives. I'm a little unsure about the use of 144GB disks with repect to performance but don't have access to any data to support this. Does anybody have relevant links or any other comments? - Michael

2 1

RE: FAS940 with 144GB drives
by jeff.mery＠ni.com 13 Aug '04

13 Aug '04

We have an F940c cluster. There are 2 shelves of 144 GB disks configured in a single volume on each head (4 TB raw per head). These systems are used as big file servers with CIFS-only traffic. We've had them in production since 11/2003 and haven't had any performance issues at all. However, we're not doing DB work or NFS traffic (NFS coming soon). There are also no iSCSI connections. Like I said; just big file servers...but no performance issues at all. Jeff Mery, MCP National Instruments ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Allow me to extol the virtues of the Net Fairy, and of all the fantastic dorks that make the nice packets go from here to there. Amen." TB - Penny Arcade ------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Michael.Haller(a)uk.lionbioscience.com Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 1:52 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: FAS940 with 144GB drives We're looking at a 940 system and have been quoted for one with 144GB drives. I'm a little unsure about the use of 144GB disks with repect to performance but don't have access to any data to support this. Does anybody have relevant links or any other comments? - Michael

1 0

re.co
by PAOLO FRANCO 13 Aug '04

13 Aug '04

What I wish to relate to you will smack of unethical practice but I want you to understand something. On June 6, 1999, Mr. Richard Smith came to our Bank to engage in business discussions with our private banking Division. He informed us that he had a financial portfolio of 5.7 million USD, which he wished to have us turn over (invest) on his behalf. Based on the investment, we spun the money around which with accrued profit and interest Stood at over 6.5 million United States Dollars.In mid 2001, he asked that the money be Liquidated because he needed to make an urgent investment requiring cash Payments in Antwerp. He directed that I liquidate the funds and Have it deposited with a firm in Brussels. I informed him that Banca de san paolo would Have to make special arrangements to have this done and in order not to Circumvent due process; the bank would have to make a 9.5 % deduction from The funds to cater for banking and statutory charges. He complained about The charges but later came around when I explained to him the complexities Of the task he was asking of us. Cash movement across boarders has Become especially strict since the incidents of 9/11.I contacted my affiliate in Brussels and had the funds available in main land Europe. I undertook all the processes and made sure I followed his precise Instructions to the letter and had the Funds deposited at the UK based security Consultancy firm.Mr. Richard. Smith told me he wanted the money there in anticipation of his arrival from Norway later that week. This was the last communication we had, this transpired around 25th February 2001.In June later year, we got a call from Uk based firm informing us about The inactivity of that particular portfolio. This was an astounding position as far as I was concerned; given the fact that I managed the private banking sector I was the only one Who knew about the deposit at Uk based firm and I could not understand Why Mr. Richard. Had not come forward to claim his deposit. I made futile efforts To locate Mr. Richard no success, Four weeks later, information Started to trickle in, apparently Mr. Richard Smith was dead. A person who suited his description was declared dead of a heart attack in Cannes, South of France. We were soon able to identify the body and cause of death Was confirmed. The bank immediately launched an investigation into possible Surviving next of kin to alert about the situation and also to come forward To claim his estate. I Mr. Richard Smith died in testate. This bank Has spent great amounts of money trying to track this man?s family; they have Investigated for months and have found no family. The investigation has come to an end. My proposal; I am prepared to place you in a position to instruct Uk Based firm to release the deposit to you as the closest surviving relation. Upon receipt of the deposit, I am prepared to share the money with You in half. That is: I will simply nominate you as the next of kin and have them Release the deposit to you. We share the proceeds 50/50. I would have gone ahead to ask the funds be released to me, but that Would have drawn a straight line to me and my involvement in claiming the deposit. I assure you that I could have the deposit released to You within a few days. I will simply inform the bank of the final closing of The file relating to Mr. Richard. I will then officially communicate with Uk based firm and instruct them to release the deposit to you. With These two things: all is done. The alternative would be for us to have uk based firm direct the funds to another bank with you as account Holder. This way there will be no need for you to think of receiving the Money from Uk We can fine-tune this based on our Interactions. I am aware of the consequences of this proposal. I ask that if you find no interest in this project that you should discard this mail. I ask that you do not be vindictive and destructive. If my offer is of no appeal to you, delete this message and forget I ever contacted you.

1 0

cold head swap or temporary cluster finangle?
by Tavis Gustafson 12 Aug '04

12 Aug '04

I have an F760 I need to swap out with a new F760. A cold swap would only cause 10 minutes of downtime, but it would be cool setup a temporary cluster and do a takeover with no downtime. How feasible is this? Would setting up the cluster situtaion mandate a reboot of the filer in question anyway? -tavis New Dream Network

3 3

NDMP & NetBackup 4.5FP6 restore problems
by John Stoffel 12 Aug '04

12 Aug '04

Hi folks, Has anyone else run into problems restoring data from NDMP backups? We've got a NetBackup v4.5FP6 (recently upgraded from FP5) setup, with one master and one media server. Both are Sun V880s running Solaris 5.9. We have an ADIC I2K library with six LTO2 tape drives, one of which is dedicated to NDMP backups. We have six filers currently doing NDMP backups running various levels of Data OnTap. Mostly 6.3.1R1, though we've got one that's been upgraded to 6.4.5 for testing, and one still running 5.3.7R3D12 (which I know I need to upgrade...) The problem is that restores kick off just fine, the metadata is all restored (though with Dec 31, 1969 as the date) but then it just bogs down and stops restoring data. Eventually it times out and we get an error 5 in NetBackup. We've even tried restoring data from a 6.3.1 client backup to the 6.4.5 toaster, in case it was a problem with the restore end of things. No luck. Any hints would be appreciated. John John Stoffel - Senior Unix Systems Administrator - Lucent Technologies stoffel(a)lucent.com - http://www.lucent.com - 978-952-7548

2 1

Linux, automount and filer
by Goebel, Uwe 11 Aug '04

11 Aug '04

Hi folks, I'm not sure if this is something for the list, but maybe someone run into the same issue. When I use automount from RedHat Enterprise v3 or Suse9 to the filer (cd /net/filer/vol/vol0) I got a message 'No such file or directory', as you get, if the path is wrong. Well, that isn't the case, because when I use it from a Sun and HP it's working fine. I installed autofs V4. In auto.master I enabled auto.net, otherwise it wouldn't do. Has it to do with the automount options? I use the standard options (opts="-fstype=nfs,soft,intr,nodev,nosuid") Or should there be something set on the filer side? Your ideas are welcome. Cheers, Uwe

2 1

upgrade 256MB CF
by Bui, Marcus 11 Aug '04

11 Aug '04

Hi Toasters, I have a cluster F880 upgrading the 32MB to 256MB CF. I upgraded one Filer to the 256MB without any problem. The other, I having major problems. Twice already, Netapp sent me a new 256MB CF, thinking it must be bad from the manufacturer. The third time, the CF reader, PCMCIA extender and CF was replace, but still the Filer can't see it. I reinserted the old 32MB still using the new reader and PCMCIA and it worked fine. I also tried "bootfs format 0a.0:3: SERVICE" and get error "Device not configured". ONTAP info: Filer> version -b 1:/x86/kernel/primary.krn: OS 6.5.1R1 1:/x86/diag/diag.krn: Diagnostic_4.3 1:/x86/firmware/xfiler/firmware.img: Firmware 4.3_i2 1:/x86/firmware/rodan/firmware.img: Firmware 4.3_i1 Any suggestions? Thanks, Marcus Bui AIM Investments IT Services phone: 713-986-9061 fax: 713-821-9524 email: marcus.bui(a)aiminvestments.com pager: 8773450839(a)archwireless.net ----------------------------------------- Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this message, and any attachments, may contain confidential and/or privileged material. It is intended solely for the person or entity to which it is addressed. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

2 1

RE: upgrade 256MB CF
by You, Qinghong 11 Aug '04

11 Aug '04

Marcus, It probably has something to do with your mb firmware. Try updating it to the latest version. 'sysconfig -v' will tell you the version. thanks Qinghong -----Original Message----- From: Bui, Marcus [mailto:Marcus.Bui@aiminvestments.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 5:11 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: upgrade 256MB CF Hi Toasters, I have a cluster F880 upgrading the 32MB to 256MB CF. I upgraded one Filer to the 256MB without any problem. The other, I having major problems. Twice already, Netapp sent me a new 256MB CF, thinking it must be bad from the manufacturer. The third time, the CF reader, PCMCIA extender and CF was replace, but still the Filer can't see it. I reinserted the old 32MB still using the new reader and PCMCIA and it worked fine. I also tried "bootfs format 0a.0:3: SERVICE" and get error "Device not configured". ONTAP info: Filer> version -b 1:/x86/kernel/primary.krn: OS 6.5.1R1 1:/x86/diag/diag.krn: Diagnostic_4.3 1:/x86/firmware/xfiler/firmware.img: Firmware 4.3_i2 1:/x86/firmware/rodan/firmware.img: Firmware 4.3_i1 Any suggestions? Thanks, Marcus Bui AIM Investments IT Services phone: 713-986-9061 fax: 713-821-9524 email: marcus.bui(a)aiminvestments.com pager: 8773450839(a)archwireless.net ________________________________ Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this message, and any attachments, may contain confidential and/or privileged material. It is intended solely for the person or entity to which it is addressed. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

1 0

toasters@mathworks.com Press release
by info 10 Aug '04

10 Aug '04

toasters(a)mathworks.com Canadian Subsidy Directory 4865 Hwy 138,R.R 1 Saint-Andrews West Ontario, KOC 2A0 PRESS RELEASE CANADIAN SUBSIDY DIRECTORY 2004 EDITION Legal Deposit-National Library of Canada: ISBN 2-922870-05-7 The newly revised Canadian Subsidy Directory 2004 edition is now available. A guide containing information to more than 2000 direct and indirect subsidies, grants, and loans offered by various levels of Government; Foundation; Association; and other similar Organizations. Over 20 000 copies sold. The Canadian Subsidy Directory is a most comprehensive and a much needed tool to create or enrich any business. A true valuable resource required to improve your cost efficiency with crucial information held by professionals. Agriculture; Transport; Communication; Education; Import-Export; Labor; Research & Development; Arts, Theater, Music & Entertainment; Hospitality & Culinary Services; Notably the Technology Sector and no less Joint Venture to name just a few. The Canadian Subsidy Directory is retailed at $69.95. To obtain a copy please call Canadian Publications toll free at: 1 - 8 6 6 - 3 2 2 - 3 3 7 6

1 0

FTP on new Filer
by Steve Evans 10 Aug '04

10 Aug '04

I'm trying to setup FTP on a new Filer and I'm running into some issues. My version of ONTAP is 6.5.1R1, it's a CIFS only environment. My options ftpd.auth_style is NTLM My options cifs.home_dir_namestyle is mapped If I have cifs.home_dir_namestyle set to ntname everything works fine. All we use home directories for is FTP'ing though, which is only done by some service accounts. So I'd like to use mapped namestyle and set home directories on individual accounts. So in my passwd file I have a line sevans::10:10:Testing FTP:/vol/vol0/test: My usermap.cfg file has DOMAIN\sevans == sevans Now shouldn't that work? When I try to ftp in I'm told 530 /: Login incorrect - User has no home directory. Login failed. Steve Evans SDSU Foundation

2 1

Storage hosting rental.
by Maren S. Leizaola 09 Aug '04

09 Aug '04

Hi, I would like to know if there is restrictions on NetApps licensing which stops one from renting storage space/access to other companies. Regards, Maren. -------------------------------------------------------------- HKdotCOM Ltd Tel: 852 2865-4865 ext 888 Fax: 852 2865-4100

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