toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13517 discussions

PLEASE ADD ME TO YOUR MAILING LIST!!
by harbhajan julka 16 Jun '04

16 Jun '04

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

1 0

SOLUTION: RE: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler
by toaster＠chopel.de 16 Jun '04

16 Jun '04

Hi, here is the solution for my problem: Normally it is like Adam Fox and his colleague wrote. Just adding the disks to both sites and make a 'snapmirror update' on the destination. Finish! But, first look on the "primary" Volume if the option fs_size_fixed is set to "on" before adding the disks. I don't know why this options was set to "on", maybe once we tested to rotate the mirror. But turning the option off resolve our problem. Thanks to all, Michael Thorsten.Lemke(a)computacenter.com wrote : > As I understand you have two volumes called "Volume1" that are both in > snapmirrored state? One is a normal snapmirror and the other one is a DR > backup of the vfiler? > In this case you have to do the enlargement also on the original (third) > source volume which is not in snapmirrored state and therefore does not > have the fs_size_fixed set to "on". The size of the filesystem of > snapmirrored volumes will adapt to the source volume after the next > scheduled update as Adam pointed out earlier (of course you have to add the > same amount of space to each of them first). > > Regards, > Thorsten > > > > > > toaster(a)chopel.de>@mathworks.com > on 16.06.2004 11:22:11 > > Please respond to toaster(a)chopel.de> > > Sent by: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com > > > To: "Fox, Adam" Adam.Fox(a)netapp.com>, > "Uehara; Tsuneyuki (Gen)" > tsuneyuki.uehara(a)gs.com>, > toasters(a)mathworks.com> > cc: > Subject: RE: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Hallo, > > maybe my initial situation was not clear: > > On the "main site" I spent VfilerA a new disk. > Volume1 before "vol add" : 201 GB > Volume1 after "vol add" : also 201 GB > > vol status -b Volume1: > Vol Size (blocks) FS Size (blocks) > ----------------- ---------------- > 76996480 61597184 > > The filer notified that "..the disk was successfully added to volume > Volume1" > IMHO this results because Volume1 is in "snapmirrored-state" > an the option "fs_size_fixed" is set "on". > > On the "desaster site" I spent VfilerA' (vfiler dr) also > a new disk for volume Volume1. Same results. > > I think I must break the mirror but is this possible > without side effects on VfilerA because he is in "vfiler dr" > > Thanks a lot > > Michael > > Fox, Adam Adam.Fox(a)netapp.com> > schrieb : > > > You don't need to do this. It looks like you are doing Volume > > SnapMirror. All you have to do is add the disks to both volumes. > > You won't see the change on the destination until the next update, > > then the destination will become the size of the source. > > > > -- Adam Fox > > GS Tools Developer > > adamfox(a)netapp.com > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Uehara, Tsuneyuki (Gen) [mailto:tsuneyuki.uehara@gs.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 7:23 AM > > To: 'toaster(a)chopel.de'; > > toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: RE: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler > > > > > > We perform "snapmirror quiesce" then "snapmirror break" then turn off > > "fs_size_fixed". > > > > # Gen Uehara > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com > > [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] > > On > > Behalf Of toaster(a)chopel.de > > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 10:12 PM > > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler > > > > Hi, > > > > I have a problem to enlarge a volume owned by a "dr"-vfiler. > > > > Vfiler1 Vfiler1 (dr backup) > > |--> vol1 |-->vol1 > > > > It was possible to add a disk to vol1 on both sites. But I can't disable > the > > volume option "fixed fs_size", because vol1 is in "snapmirrored-state". > > > > How can I enlarge the volume without deleting the dr-filer? > > > > Thanks for help, > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > COMPUTACENTER (UK) LTD > > The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. > It contains information which may be confidential and which may also be > privileged. > Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive > for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone > else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then > destroy it. > > Computacenter information is available from http://www.computacenter.com > > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the > presence of computer viruses. > > ***************************************************************************************************************************

1 0

NOTICE
by fromrodosky 16 Jun '04

16 Jun '04

J. RODOSKY AMKA. GREETINGS I AM CONTACTING YOU UNBEHALF OF MR.KHODORKOVSKY, FORMER BOSS OF YUKOS OIL, WHO IS PRESENTLY IN DETENTION FOR TAX EVASION AND FRAUD WHICH HAVE BEEN POLITICALLY MOTIVATED BY PRESIDENT PUTIN OF RUSSIA. JUST RECENTLY, THE TAX MINISTRY HAS WON A KEY COURT DECISION, REQUIRING YUKOS TO PAY AN EQUIVALENT OF $3.5 BN. IN BACK TAXES AND FINE TO THE GOVERNMENT. THIS IS A BATTLE MANY, BELIEVED TO BE BETWEEN THE WEALTHIEST VERSUS THE MOST POWERFUL IN RUSSIA.ALTHOUGH MR. KHODORKOVSKY HAS PERSONAL FORTUNE ESTIMATED AT $1.5BN,BUT CANNOT NOT AFFORD TO PRODUCE THAT SUM WITHOUT FILELING FOR BANKRUPCY OF YUKOS OIL AND OTHER PRIVATE INVESTMENT. HOWEVER, I AM CONTACTING YOU FOR A FAVOUR BASE ON ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE AND SECRECY TO ASSIST US, BY ACTING AS A PARTNER TO RECEIVE AND ASSIST IN THE INVESTMENT OF A CERTAIN AMOUNT RUNNING INTO MILLIONS OF AMERICAN DOLLARS ON OUR BEHALF. THIS SUM ARISES AS THE ONLY PRIVATE UNOFFICIAL ACCOUNT OWNED BY HIM ,WHICH WAS NOT FROZEN, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AUTHORITY, AND SECONDLY THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT MADE WITH HIS NAME .IT IS THE ONLY HOPE OF SUSTAINING THE FAMILY, AFTER HE MUST HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM PRISON. SINCE FILELING FOR BANKRUPCY REMAINS THE ONLY OPTION FOR HIM TO AVOID TEN YEARS JAIL TERMS, ACCORDING TO THE LAWYER. ON RECEIPT OF THIS MAIL,KINDLY SEND YOUR INTREST, TO THIS EMAIL ADDRESS, SO THAT WE CAN START NEGOTIATION, IT WILL ALSO BE BETTER IF YOU CAN FORWARD YOUR PHONE AND FAX NUMBER FOR BETTER AND QUICK COMMUNICATION. I WILL BRIEF YOU WITH MORE DETAILS IN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF YOUR RESPONSE. YOURS SINCERELY, MR. J. RODOSKY AMKA.

1 0

Usable space on a R200/SAN
by Eric sarraf 16 Jun '04

16 Jun '04

Hi, I am considering a R200 - 16TB for a SAN environment. We would like to get 12TB usable without going to the next config which is 24TB. I calculated the usable space as follows: 2 disks for default volume 1 parity disk 3 volumes with 14 drives (12 data, 2 parity) 1 volume with 11 drives (9 data, 2 parity) This gives me a total of 45 data disks. Knowing that each 320GB disk is formatted to 274GB, and considering the 10% WAFL, I get 11.1TB usable 274 * 45 * .9 = 11.1 1. Can I create larger RAID sizes by changing the RAIDsize option on R200 from 14 to 18? 2. Is it possible to change the single parity raidsize from 7 to 13? 3. According to block admin guide, with NO snapshots, volume has to be 10% larger than the total LUN size. It this is a must? I am able to create LUNs that are the same size as the volume. 4. Is it possible to combine default def. volume with other data volumes? Thanks,

1 0

RE: Turning off Logging output
by Thorsten.Lemke＠computacenter.com 16 Jun '04

16 Jun '04

That is right. With "ctrl-r" you can bring back the line that you were about to type when the logging messages got you. Regards, Thorsten jeff.mery@ni.com@mathworks.com on 16.06.2004 16:01:30 Sent by: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com To: Dirk.Schmiedt(a)munich.netsurf.de, rbaus(a)swbell.net cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Turning off Logging output -------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is also a ctrl-key command that will bring whatever you were typing to the current command line (like up-arrow in bash or Windows). Would someone from NetApp enlighten us on this one? Our SE showed me once, but I've slept since then =). 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 Dirk.Schmiedt(a)munich.netsurf.de Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 3:51 PM To: rbaus(a)swbell.net Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Turning off Logging output Robert Borowicz wrote: > Is there a way to temporarily turn off the logging output in a Telnet > session? > > Too often I'm typing tedious commands and "BLAM" someone connects to a > CIFS session and.... Change the /etc/syslog.conf and reduce the level of severity or disable the messaging of some services completely. There is a man page about this config file and there is a template file named /etc/syslog_conf_template (or so ...). Copy this template file to /etc/syslog.conf and edit it you will see the wished result. b.t.w. The "syslog(d)", "syslog.conf" man pages at ONTAP are in my humble opinion not the best. Have a look at the syslog.conf man page of any other unix derivate. It might help you more. :-) Just my 2 cents. Smile & regards! Dirk COMPUTACENTER (UK) LTD The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. Computacenter information is available from http://www.computacenter.com This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. ***************************************************************************************************************************

1 0

Re: Turning off Logging output
by Thorsten.Lemke＠computacenter.com 16 Jun '04

16 Jun '04

I don't know if you can stop the whole logging output. But regarding the cifs sessions you can turn off the option cifs.trace_login. I guess that this alone will help a lot. Regards, Thorsten Robert Borowicz <rbaus(a)swbell.net>@mathworks.com on 16.06.2004 15:21:56 Sent by: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com To: toasters(a)mathworks.com cc: Subject: Turning off Logging output -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is there a way to temporarily turn off the logging output in a Telnet session? Too often I'm typing tedious commands and "BLAM" someone connects to a CIFS session and.... TIA -Rob {looking through the docs...} COMPUTACENTER (UK) LTD The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. Computacenter information is available from http://www.computacenter.com This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. ***************************************************************************************************************************

1 0

RE: Turning off Logging output
by Traitel, Eyal 16 Jun '04

16 Jun '04

Hi ! You can play with /etc/syslog.conf or specifically for your issue - "options cifs.trace_login off". Eyal. _____ From: Robert Borowicz [mailto:rbaus@swbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 3:22 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Turning off Logging output Is there a way to temporarily turn off the logging output in a Telnet session? Too often I'm typing tedious commands and "BLAM" someone connects to a CIFS session and.... TIA -Rob {looking through the docs...}

1 0

RE: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler
by Thorsten.Lemke＠computacenter.com 16 Jun '04

16 Jun '04

As I understand you have two volumes called "Volume1" that are both in snapmirrored state? One is a normal snapmirror and the other one is a DR backup of the vfiler? In this case you have to do the enlargement also on the original (third) source volume which is not in snapmirrored state and therefore does not have the fs_size_fixed set to "on". The size of the filesystem of snapmirrored volumes will adapt to the source volume after the next scheduled update as Adam pointed out earlier (of course you have to add the same amount of space to each of them first). Regards, Thorsten <toaster(a)chopel.de>@mathworks.com on 16.06.2004 11:22:11 Please respond to <toaster(a)chopel.de> Sent by: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com To: "Fox, Adam" <Adam.Fox(a)netapp.com>, "Uehara; Tsuneyuki (Gen)" <tsuneyuki.uehara(a)gs.com>, <toasters(a)mathworks.com> cc: Subject: RE: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hallo, maybe my initial situation was not clear: On the "main site" I spent VfilerA a new disk. Volume1 before "vol add" : 201 GB Volume1 after "vol add" : also 201 GB vol status -b Volume1: Vol Size (blocks) FS Size (blocks) ----------------- ---------------- 76996480 61597184 The filer notified that "..the disk was successfully added to volume Volume1" IMHO this results because Volume1 is in "snapmirrored-state" an the option "fs_size_fixed" is set "on". On the "desaster site" I spent VfilerA' (vfiler dr) also a new disk for volume Volume1. Same results. I think I must break the mirror but is this possible without side effects on VfilerA because he is in "vfiler dr" Thanks a lot Michael Fox, Adam <Adam.Fox(a)netapp.com> schrieb : > You don't need to do this. It looks like you are doing Volume > SnapMirror. All you have to do is add the disks to both volumes. > You won't see the change on the destination until the next update, > then the destination will become the size of the source. > > -- Adam Fox > GS Tools Developer > adamfox(a)netapp.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Uehara, Tsuneyuki (Gen) [mailto:tsuneyuki.uehara@gs.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 7:23 AM > To: 'toaster(a)chopel.de'; > toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler > > > We perform "snapmirror quiesce" then "snapmirror break" then turn off > "fs_size_fixed". > > # Gen Uehara > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com > [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] > On > Behalf Of toaster(a)chopel.de > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 10:12 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler > > Hi, > > I have a problem to enlarge a volume owned by a "dr"-vfiler. > > Vfiler1 Vfiler1 (dr backup) > |--> vol1 |-->vol1 > > It was possible to add a disk to vol1 on both sites. But I can't disable the > volume option "fixed fs_size", because vol1 is in "snapmirrored-state". > > How can I enlarge the volume without deleting the dr-filer? > > Thanks for help, > > Michael COMPUTACENTER (UK) LTD The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. Computacenter information is available from http://www.computacenter.com This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. ***************************************************************************************************************************

1 0

RE: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler
by toaster＠chopel.de 16 Jun '04

16 Jun '04

Hallo, maybe my initial situation was not clear: On the "main site" I spent VfilerA a new disk. Volume1 before "vol add" : 201 GB Volume1 after "vol add" : also 201 GB vol status -b Volume1: Vol Size (blocks) FS Size (blocks) ----------------- ---------------- 76996480 61597184 The filer notified that "..the disk was successfully added to volume Volume1" IMHO this results because Volume1 is in "snapmirrored-state" an the option "fs_size_fixed" is set "on". On the "desaster site" I spent VfilerA' (vfiler dr) also a new disk for volume Volume1. Same results. I think I must break the mirror but is this possible without side effects on VfilerA because he is in "vfiler dr" Thanks a lot Michael Fox, Adam <Adam.Fox(a)netapp.com> schrieb : > You don't need to do this. It looks like you are doing Volume > SnapMirror. All you have to do is add the disks to both volumes. > You won't see the change on the destination until the next update, > then the destination will become the size of the source. > > -- Adam Fox > GS Tools Developer > adamfox(a)netapp.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Uehara, Tsuneyuki (Gen) [mailto:tsuneyuki.uehara@gs.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 7:23 AM > To: 'toaster(a)chopel.de'; > toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler > > > We perform "snapmirror quiesce" then "snapmirror break" then turn off > "fs_size_fixed". > > # Gen Uehara > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com > [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] > On > Behalf Of toaster(a)chopel.de > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 10:12 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler > > Hi, > > I have a problem to enlarge a volume owned by a "dr"-vfiler. > > Vfiler1 Vfiler1 (dr backup) > |--> vol1 |-->vol1 > > It was possible to add a disk to vol1 on both sites. But I can't disable the > volume option "fixed fs_size", because vol1 is in "snapmirrored-state". > > How can I enlarge the volume without deleting the dr-filer? > > Thanks for help, > > Michael

1 0

RE: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler
by toaster＠chopel.de 16 Jun '04

16 Jun '04

Hi, ...does not work :-( Are you sure that this procedure normaly works? bye Michael McCarthy, Tim <timothy.mccarthy(a)netapp.com> wrote : > If you added a disk to both sides, then simply do a snapmirror update > against the destination and the filesystem sizes should remain in sync. > > --tmac > > -----Original Message----- > From: toaster(a)chopel.de > [mailto:toaster@chopel.de] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 9:12 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler > > Hi, > > I have a problem to enlarge a volume owned by a "dr"-vfiler. > > Vfiler1 Vfiler1 (dr backup) > |--> vol1 |-->vol1 > > It was possible to add a disk to vol1 on both sites. But I can't disable > the volume option "fixed fs_size", because vol1 is in > "snapmirrored-state". > > How can I enlarge the volume without deleting the dr-filer? > > Thanks for help, > > Michael

1 0

offline folder support?
by Brubaker, Paul 15 Jun '04

15 Jun '04

Does anyone know if the Netapp / Ontap support offline folders (caching)... this is a microsoft windows 2000 and above feature (CIFS). We are running a FAS960 with Ontap 6.4.2 (soon to be Ontap 6.5.1). It appears not to be a supported feature; any plans Netapp will support it in the future? thanks! 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

1 0

Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler
by toaster＠chopel.de 15 Jun '04

15 Jun '04

Hi, I have a problem to enlarge a volume owned by a "dr"-vfiler. Vfiler1 Vfiler1 (dr backup) |--> vol1 |-->vol1 It was possible to add a disk to vol1 on both sites. But I can't disable the volume option "fixed fs_size", because vol1 is in "snapmirrored-state". How can I enlarge the volume without deleting the dr-filer? Thanks for help, Michael

1 0

RE: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler
by Uehara, Tsuneyuki (Gen) 15 Jun '04

15 Jun '04

We perform "snapmirror quiesce" then "snapmirror break" then turn off "fs_size_fixed". # Gen Uehara -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of toaster(a)chopel.de Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 10:12 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Enlarge a volume owned by a vfiler Hi, I have a problem to enlarge a volume owned by a "dr"-vfiler. Vfiler1 Vfiler1 (dr backup) |--> vol1 |-->vol1 It was possible to add a disk to vol1 on both sites. But I can't disable the volume option "fixed fs_size", because vol1 is in "snapmirrored-state". How can I enlarge the volume without deleting the dr-filer? Thanks for help, Michael

1 0

RE: Best practices for new RAID group
by Moshe Linzer 15 Jun '04

15 Jun '04

I agree with Tom. Your best bet is to add 6 disks to a new raid group. No sense in having all those spares sitting around doing nothing. I would try to avoid expanding a 36GB-disk raid group past 14 disks for reliability. Moshe Linzer IT Manager National Semiconductor, Israel Phone: 972-9-970-2247 Fax: 972-9-970-2001 "Yarmas, Tom" <Tom.Yarmas(a)netapp.com> Sent by: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com 04/06/2004 04:19 To: "Stewart, John" <johns(a)artesyncp.com>, toasters(a)mathworks.com cc: "IT Technical Services" <ITTech(a)artesyncp.com> Subject: RE: Best practices for new RAID group The paper you reference is a little dated unless you are still running 5.x of Data ONTAP. Data ONTAP version 6.x included some significant changes to the WAFL and ONTAP RAID. The number of RAID groups is much less relevant than the total number of data drives in the volume. However, adding 1 or two drives to a volume (or RAID Group) is still not the best approach. Your best bet is to add a new RAID group of 6 disks to the volume. You will be adding the disks anyway (over time), and you are using qtrees to divvy up the space, so just add them all at one time and not worry about it. As Chris Thompson pointed out you can use RAID-DP (assuming you are running DOT 6.5), and add 2 disks to the existing RAID group. But that would likely not be optimal because you would still have a small number of "empty" disks in the RAID group and they will be utilized more than the other "more full" disks until space gets more evenly distributed across all of the drives. -tom -----Original Message----- From: Stewart, John [mailto:johns@artesyncp.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 5:44 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Cc: IT Technical Services Subject: Best practices for new RAID group We've got an F740 with three shelves of 36GB disks (the 3rd recently added). We've only got one volume, vol0, with 14 disks in it now (13 data and one parity). We use both CIFS and NFS. We have 7 spare disks (6 of which we'd like to eventually use for data, with one spare of course). I just went to add one of the spare disks to vol0 (running low on space) and got the error: vol add: starting a new RAID group; at least two disks are needed So, as I (now) understand it, we've got to either: - Override the 14 disk limit for a RAID group or - Add a new RAID group to the current volume or - Add a new volume The 3rd choice is unattractive because we like the idea of One Huge Filesystem, that we can divvy up as needed into different qtrees. The 2nd choice sounds like a Bad Idea in that according to this document, section 3.4: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3027.html, that the filer will try to distribute writes evenly between the old and new RAID group... if the new RAID group only contains two disks (we don't want to add more disk space than is needed now), this could be disatrous to performance So is the 1st choice, increasing the size of the RAID group, a viable option? What is the downsize? Only increased risk of a double disk failure taking out the whole system? Is it possible to add a second parity disk to the same RAID group? Am I missing something here? Any clue-by-fours quite welcome. thanks johnS

1 0

RE: Hirearchical Storage Management - Solid state & Hard disk(NAS/SAN)
by Reinoud Reynders 15 Jun '04

15 Jun '04

Hi Maren, We use here MS Exchange with I-SCSI connection to our filers (fast FC-disks). Because we want a small and flexible DB, we use archiving software from KVS. With this software, we archive all our 'old' mails to a cheaper and little slower NearStore (R150 from NetApp with ATA-disk). This is transparent for our users. This work great and the users can use their email box as a real archive without quota troubles. Best Regards, Reinoud UZLeuven Belgium -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Maren S. Leizaola [mailto:leizaola@hk.com] Verzonden: maandag 14 juni 2004 23:25 Aan: toasters(a)mathworks.com Onderwerp: Hirearchical Storage Management - Solid state & Hard disk(NAS/SAN) Hi, In a lot of the system I can think off a small portion of the data is accessed very frequently and a large percentage of the data is very rarely accessed. An example would be typical email store. Directories of the mail store are read very frequently however once an email is read and responded to they typically are infrequently read again. Are there any systems out there that could would use Solid state disks as the active storage and then you could use something like a NAS or SAN to use as the "slow archive storage". This would permit one to give a much higher performance with and serve more users and have cheaper and slower NAS/SAN backing the system. Pardon my ignorance if what I am asking is common place out there but I've not seen this. Does what I am suggesting make sense? Regards, Maren. -------------------------------------------------------------- HKdotCOM Ltd AIM: MarenHKdotCOM Tel: 852 2865-4865 ext 888 leizaola(a)hk.com ICQ: 39905706 Fax: 852 2865-4100 -------------------------------------------------------------- Join our liquidations list : http://www.lists.hk.com/lists/listinfo/liquidations

2 1

RE: oracle 9i cluster using iScsi?
by Michael Christian 15 Jun '04

15 Jun '04

Hi Adi, We're running a few 9i RAC clusters. Not a lot in production yet, but we've been stressing and tuning it for over a year. Typically 4 nodes per cluster, using a combination of OCFS/iSCSI and NFS. Datafiles go onto OCFS/iSCSI and archive logs go onto NFS (because OCFS sucks at small files). We're using Redhat 2.4.9-e.38enterprise. We've been working directly with Netapp and Oracle development, pulling them tooth and nail along the cert process, and I believe it just got completed, so we're probably the first in production. Contact Oracle for more info. We even have a bi-coastal set of clusters, with multiple masters running streams replication; as far as I know we're the first at that too. It's difficult to implement, I wouldn't recommend it. Note that we are using the Adaptec 7211C TOEs, not the Cisco drivers. Oh, and by the way, it works great, and many of our NFS DBA's are drooling over iSCSI at this point. It's much faster than NFS, and much cheaper than FCP, and when 10gig comes out, it will be much faster *and* cheaper than either. There are some Adaptec tuning parameters I can share if people are using the 7211C's. It helps to raise the inflight cap. Also, there are some hacks you can do to force linux to mount multiple luns. By default it only scans the first lun per target (because of a problem with CD stackers trying to scan every cd at boot). The Adaptec instructions tell you how to rebuild the kernel, which, of course, defeats your Oracle support. There is a better way... The downside is that you don't get the great features that have been baked into Netapp's NAS software for so long. Remember that iSCSI is SAN, and Netapp rocks at NAS, but are new at SAN. Snapshots take up a lot of space, a full lun size per snap or +1 lun + 20%,depending on who you talk to. Also, the nice .snapshot directory isn't there. You can implement that with cron jobs quiescing the db, deleting/creating/renaming/remounting snapped luns, but it's messy. Bottom line is that if you're considering a move from NFS, the performance will blow you away, but the maintenance might be a pain in the arse. -Mike Christian -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Aditya Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:44 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: oracle 9i cluster using iScsi? Anyone have experience(s) running an Oracle 9i cluster with data stored via iScsi? on a netapp? with Solaris or RedHat? We already run iScsi for other things and have no experience (or interest) in DAFS just for Oracle. We're trying to replace Sun 3310 RAID arrays with network-attached storage... Thanks, Adi

1 0

Piecing together a NetApp on the cheap (with IDE) ?
by Joe Schmoe 15 Jun '04

15 Jun '04

I want to put together a very cheap, yet very high capacity NAS. Some of the advanced features of NetApps (like data replication over WAN, etc.) have really caught my eye, but the prices are just too much for my budget. I plan on leveraging the low cost of IDE storage. I have noticed the existence of third party disk shelves/JBODs that accept IDE disks in the front, but present a SCSI interface out the back. So my question is, would it be reasonable for me to buy a very cheap, old NetApp head unit off of ebay (like an F740 for $400) and then attach several of these SCSI enclosures packed with IDE disks to it ? Pesumably, four loaded enclosures at 4TB each (10 400gig IDEs) would give me 16TB, which is very attractive ... Let's set aside the philosophy issue of sourcing third party parts and the advice netapp has regarding that - I am simply interested if this idea is _workable_. The reason I am not looking at the native IDE NetApp units is that they are too new and are not available on ebay for hundreds of dollars. Also, I have no idea if this is even acceptable to NetApp in terms of licensing - do they support ebay purchased gear in any capacity ? Your comments and suggestions, even if tangiental, are greatly appreciated. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

3 2

Hirearchical Storage Management - Solid state & Hard disk(NAS/SAN)
by Maren S. Leizaola 14 Jun '04

14 Jun '04

Hi, In a lot of the system I can think off a small portion of the data is accessed very frequently and a large percentage of the data is very rarely accessed. An example would be typical email store. Directories of the mail store are read very frequently however once an email is read and responded to they typically are infrequently read again. Are there any systems out there that could would use Solid state disks as the active storage and then you could use something like a NAS or SAN to use as the "slow archive storage". This would permit one to give a much higher performance with and serve more users and have cheaper and slower NAS/SAN backing the system. Pardon my ignorance if what I am asking is common place out there but I've not seen this. Does what I am suggesting make sense? Regards, Maren. -------------------------------------------------------------- HKdotCOM Ltd AIM: MarenHKdotCOM Tel: 852 2865-4865 ext 888 leizaola(a)hk.com ICQ: 39905706 Fax: 852 2865-4100 -------------------------------------------------------------- Join our liquidations list : http://www.lists.hk.com/lists/listinfo/liquidations

1 0

RE: Piecing together a netapp on the cheap - PART II
by Mike Sphar 14 Jun '04

14 Jun '04

Fwiw, what we've done at my company for some of those sets of data that just aren't *worthy* of being put on a Netapp, is we've also picked up some SNAP servers. They're basically a cheaper lower-end version of Netapps. (A *lot* cheaper, unfortunately, as now I often have to defend why we need to upgrade the netapp rather than "just buy a few more SNAP servers".) They don't seem to scale nearly as well as the netapps in terms of performance when there are many concurrent users, but for lower-end storage we've been fairly successful with them so far. http://www.snapappliance.com/ <http://www.snapappliance.com/> I think there are several of these low-end appliance solutions on the market now. Snap is just the one we've had experience with here. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Remedy, a BMC Software Company

1 0

Piecing together a netapp on the cheap - PART II
by Joe Schmoe 14 Jun '04

14 Jun '04

Thanks for your help so far. Let me give some more details and answer some of the points you all have raised. First, I am looking for cheap and large - and am willing to sacrifice speed to get it. Second, I am very intrigued by SnapMirror (replication over WAN) and SnapShot copies (point in time backups). The reason I don't just build my own little unix fileservers with linux or FreeBSD is that I don't see how GNU tools and scripting can replicate the functionality of snapmirror and snapshot copies. Maybe I'm wrong ? So, I see that my initial plan is ill advised - you have pointed out that the disk shelves that NetApp ships are not just JABODs, but have intelligence in them - I did not know that the RAID striping was done in the shelf - I thought all RAID and logic was housed in the head unit and it just accessed big stacks of disks. So at this point, my questions are as follows: 1. Is there any reasonable implementation of snapmirror / snapshot copies in free UNIX OSs ? That is, can I get netapp like features out of a normal NFS fileserver ? 2. When I see netapp quote a certain capacity for its filers, like 96TB for the NearStore R200, does that simply mean that they can get to 96TB using the largest currently available IDE drives, and that once larger drives are available that number will naturally go up ? OR does it mean there is some logical limitation in place on the unit that will keep it from going above 96TB ? 3. What is the absolute cheapest IDE based NAS that netapp has put out ? Is it the NearStore R100 ? What if I bought the head unit and shelves from netapp (or netapp branded from ebay), but used my own 400gig hitachi IDE drives ? - I see a 7TB R100 on ebay right now for $78,500 - which is completely absurd. My 4TB freeBSD fileserver at home cost about $5k ... Again, many thanks. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

2 1

FW: Piecing together a NetApp on the cheap (with IDE) ?
by Jeff Asher 14 Jun '04

14 Jun '04

I think that the F740 only scales to 1 TB raw storage. To get to 16 TB you need to look at a newer, larger head and those aren't cheap. I believe that the FAS960 is the cheapest head that supports more than 16 TB of storage outside of clustering. The list price on a FAS960 is somewhere north of $80K. All-in-all, I probably wouldn't attempt this with a NetApp. This probably isn't workable. An F740 won't even boot if you try to use some parts that are supported in the F800 series. They are very particular about what is allowed and what will boot. I've found that if you can get the system to boot all the way, then you can probably make it work. I definitely wouldn't bet more than $0.50 on it though. You would be better off using linux, samba, and NFS. If you have to have an iSCSI target, look at www.stringbeansoftware.com <http://www.stringbeansoftware.com/> . They make iSCSI target software for Windows, but I don't know about *nix. ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Joe Schmoe Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 8:17 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Piecing together a NetApp on the cheap (with IDE) ? I want to put together a very cheap, yet very high capacity NAS. Some of the advanced features of NetApps (like data replication over WAN, etc.) have really caught my eye, but the prices are just too much for my budget. I plan on leveraging the low cost of IDE storage. I have noticed the existence of third party disk shelves/JBODs that accept IDE disks in the front, but present a SCSI interface out the back. So my question is, would it be reasonable for me to buy a very cheap, old NetApp head unit off of ebay (like an F740 for $400) and then attach several of these SCSI enclosures packed with IDE disks to it ? Pesumably, four loaded enclosures at 4TB each (10 400gig IDEs) would give me 16TB, which is very attractive ... Let's set aside the philosophy issue of sourcing third party parts and the advice netapp has regarding that - I am simply interested if this idea is _workable_. The reason I am not looking at the native IDE NetApp units is that they are too new and are not available on ebay for hundreds of dollars. Also, I have no idea if this is even acceptable to NetApp in terms of licensing - do they support ebay purchased gear in any capacity ? Your comments and suggestions, even if tangiental, are greatly appreciated. ________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger <http://messenger.yahoo.com/>

1 0

CRY FOR HELP.
by veronica sly 14 Jun '04

14 Jun '04

GOOD DAY TO YOU. I KNOW YOU ARE NOT EMBARASSED BY MY CONTACTING YOU BY THIS MEANS SINCE WE HAVE NOT MET BEFORE THIS TIME. MY NAME IS MRS VERONICA SLY,A WIDOW FROM ANGOLA.MY LATE HUSBAND SERVED IN THE PAST ANGOLAN GOVERNMENT BEFORE HIS DEATH THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT CONFISTICATED ALL OUR PROPERTIES AND I HAD TO RELOCATE TO COTONOU-BENIN REPUBLIQUE WITH MY FIVE CHILDREN.RECENTLY MY HUSBAND'S WILL WAS READ AND TO OUR JOY AND RELIEF, HE HAS KEPT THE SUM OF $25M U.S.DOLLARS ENTRUST FOR THE UPKEEP OF THE FAMILY. THIS MONEY HE DEPOSITED (CASH) WITH A SECURITY DEPOSIT/FINANCE COMPANY IN COTONOU WITH A FIRM INSTRUCTION THAT I SHOULD SEEK FOR ASSISTANCE TO INVEST IT ABROAD IN ANY GOOD BUSINESS. HENCE I DECIDED TO CONTACT YOU FOR ASSISTANCE IN INVESTMENT. THIS WILL BE A JOINT VENTURE ARRANGEMENT THAT WILL DEMAND TRUST AND SINCERITY AND I BELIEVE YOU CAN BENEFIT FROM THIS PROJECT, AS I WILL RELY ON YOU FOR IT'S SUCCESS. PLEASE DO INDICATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO ASSIST ME THROUGH MY E-MAIL SO THAT I CAN GIVE YOU THE DETAILS. BYE WHILE EXPECTING YOUR QUICK RESPONSE,AS I WANT US TO USE THIS MONEY FOR THE EXPANSION OF YOUR BUSINESS EMPIRE.YOU CAN AS WELL RESPOND THROUGH THIS EMAIL ADDRESS: veronica_sly(a)fastermail.com YOURS FAITHFULLY, MRS VERONICA SLY.

1 0

RE: Piecing together a NetApp on the cheap (with IDE) ?
by Timothy Sesow 14 Jun '04

14 Jun '04

Keep in mind that the enclosures that NetApp uses have internal intelligence that the Filer head talks to. Also, the software expects hardware to be setup in a certain manner and behave accordingly. So, the ability of certain enclosures to work with an F740 would be suspect and you would definitely need to have a DataONTAP version that supports the shelves. Most enclosures have a different interface than from other vendors. NetApp gets its enclosures from various people and they have to do a lot of software just to get them to work reliabily. Apart from the technical issues, I have looked at the prices between the "cheap" JBOD and the NetApp R200 series systems. Yes the "cheap" JBOD costs about 1/2 as much, but it takes a LOT more time to install and maintain. For most (???) sites, I think you get a false economy. For a small subset of sites, there may be the skill and labor to make it justifiable (universities come to mind, cheap or free labor from grad students and low budgets, but then NetApp probably gives them a big discount). Assuming you did get it to work, then support from NetApp would be non-standard, if at all. My best guess is that licensing would probably not be a problem, assuming you don't try to resell any of this. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of Joe Schmoe Sent: Fri 6/11/2004 6:17 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Piecing together a NetApp on the cheap (with IDE) ? I want to put together a very cheap, yet very high capacity NAS. Some of the advanced features of NetApps (like data replication over WAN, etc.) have really caught my eye, but the prices are just too much for my budget. I plan on leveraging the low cost of IDE storage. I have noticed the existence of third party disk shelves/JBODs that accept IDE disks in the front, but present a SCSI interface out the back. So my question is, would it be reasonable for me to buy a very cheap, old NetApp head unit off of ebay (like an F740 for $400) and then attach several of these SCSI enclosures packed with IDE disks to it ? Pesumably, four loaded enclosures at 4TB each (10 400gig IDEs) would give me 16TB, which is very attractive ... Let's set aside the philosophy issue of sourcing third party parts and the advice netapp has regarding that - I am simply interested if this idea is _workable_. The reason I am not looking at the native IDE NetApp units is that they are too new and are not available on ebay for hundreds of dollars. Also, I have no idea if this is even acceptable to NetApp in terms of licensing - do they support ebay purchased gear in any capacity ? Your comments and suggestions, even if tangiental, are greatly appreciated. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

1 0

WINNINIG NOTIFICATION/FINAL AWARD.
by annmanager 14 Jun '04

14 Jun '04

BANK GIRO LOTERIJ INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM (NL) EGHENSTRAAT40GK.AMSTERDAM FAX+31-206-006-491 FROM: THE PROMOTIONS DIRECTOR INTERNATIONAL PROMOTIONS DEPT. REF: IPM/7249459608/AP1 BATCH: GY/951663/K ATTN;WINNER, AWARD FINAL NOTIFICATION: We are pleased to inform you of the release, of the long awaited results of the BANK GIRO LOTERIJ INTERNATIONAL PROMOTION PROGRAMES held on the 14th JUNE 2004. You were entered as dependent clients with: Reference Number:REF: IPM/7249459608/AP1 and Batch number BATCH: GY/951663/K . Your email address attached to the ticket number: 369739 that drew the lucky winning number, which consequently won the BANK GIRO LOTERIJ first category, in four parts. You have been approved for a payment of 500,000.00euros(FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND EUROS.) in cash credited to file reference number:IPL/529985709/NP1.This is from a total cash prize of ONE MILLION EUROS Shared among the ten international winners in first categories. congratulations!!!!! All participants were selected through a computer ballot system drawn from 98,000 (Ninety eight thousand) names of email users around the world, as part of our international promotion programme. Due to mixed up of some names and addresses, we ask that you keep this award personal, till your claims has been processed and your funds remitted to you. This is part of our security measures to avoid double claiming or unwarranted taking advantage of the situation by other participants or impersonators. To begin your claim,do file for the release of your winning by contacting your/our accredited agent: (Foreign Transfer Manager) Mr Brown Williams. FAX +31-206-006-491. TEL +31-643-106-191. Email:giromanager@netscape.net They are your agent, and responsible for the processing and transfer of your winnings to you. YOUR SECURITY FILE NUMBER IS W-91237-H°67/B4 (keep personal) Remember, your winning must be claimed not later than 24-06-04). After this date, funds might be returned to the BANK GIRO LOTERIJ as unclaimed. Furthermore, should there be any change in your address, do inform your claims agent as soon as possible. Once again, Congratulations. Your Sincerely, Mrs. Ann Remoud. PROMOTION DIRECTOR

1 0

oracle 9i cluster using iScsi?
by Aditya 11 Jun '04

11 Jun '04

Anyone have experience(s) running an Oracle 9i cluster with data stored via iScsi? on a netapp? with Solaris or RedHat? We already run iScsi for other things and have no experience (or interest) in DAFS just for Oracle. We're trying to replace Sun 3310 RAID arrays with network-attached storage... Thanks, Adi

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