toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

RE: Question on ndmpcopy and restore_symboltable
by Melvin, Grant 21 Apr '03

21 Apr '03

Hi, As Lance points out if you intend to do incremental restores then you need to leave the restore_symboltable file in place. However, if the transfer is complete then you can remove it. Cheers, Grant -----Original Message----- From: Lance R Bailey To: kyle Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Sent: 4/19/03 9:32 PM Subject: Re: Question on ndmpcopy and restore_symboltable the restore_symboltable is used by successive ndmpcopy commands -- Lance I'm a vegetarian. Not because I love animals. It's because I hate plants. Saturday Night Live On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 08:57:18PM -0400, kyle wrote: > I run multiple ndmpcopies daily, and want to know if after each successful > copy should the restore_symboltable be removed or should I always leave it > around? There is no space issue, I just want to know what the correct way > to handle this is. > > Thanks.

1 0

Identify This Filer, Firmware
by Ryan Ward 20 Apr '03

20 Apr '03

I am trying to identify this product; I bought it off Ebay and of course know little about it. Guessing it's a Netapp based on the ST136403FC drives. NA10 and NA11 firmware currently on them. It's a 7 drive system and it looks like it's in a Eurologic Chassis EL Part Code: XL501R-F-03N-A2 Drive enclosures have Part Code DISK-36GB-10-NF5 again looks like a Netapp part code. Other than that nothing else to revealing Next question ;) Does anyone have the latest flash and utility to upgrade the firmware on these drives? Your help would be much appreciated Thanks Kindly -Ryan

2 2

Shrkinking volume on filer
by frank marxs 18 Apr '03

18 Apr '03

I heard someone tell me that if I had a volume with lots of extra space I could pull a drive from that volume and use it to grow an other volume which was full.... I know we can grow a volume by adding a drive on a filer, but I haven't heard of the possibility of shrinking a volume by pulling a drive. Did I miss something or is this a new feature? BTW: Anyone seen a drop in performance after growing a volume which was almost full? Cheers Frank "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

2 1

Re: Who to buy additional drives from?
by ScottUCE＠aol.com 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

Here are the facts: 1. Adding or attaching uncertified "gray market" NetApp hardware WILL NOT VOID your NetApp warranty or service agreement. In the same vein, attaching other devices to your NetApp (switches, SCSI devices, etc.) will not void your warranties. 2. NetApp DOES NOT REQUIRE "gray market" hardware to be certified, unless the buyer wishes to add the hardware to their NetApp service agreement. If NetApp disputes the above, would an officer of the company please post a detailed response to the Toasters group so that this "debate" can be settled once and for all? Scott Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, MN 55436 email: scott(a)unioncomputer.com phone: 952 935 7282 | fax: 952 935 5056 "Helping our customers make each dollar go further -- since 1991!" www.unioncomputer.com > Subj:RE: Who to buy additional drives from? > Date:4/17/2003 2:33:27 PM Central Daylight Time > From:<A HREF="mailto:iso9@jwiz.org">iso9(a)jwiz.org</A> > To:<A HREF="mailto:ScottUCE@aol.com">ScottUCE(a)aol.com</A>, <A HREF="mailto:d.kindred@telesciences.com">d.kindred(a)telesciences.com</A>, <A HREF="mailto:toasters@mathworks.com">toasters(a)mathworks.com</A> > Sent from the Internet > > > > While this is true, one should also be aware that NetApp requires "gray > market" hardware to be recertified. If it is not recertified ($1000 > minimum, $1500 for "non-business-hours") you will void your warrantee. The > recertification basically involved attaching the shelf, then creating a > volume, and running hammer. > > At least, that's what they made us do. YMMV. > > Jordan > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]On >> Behalf Of ScottUCE(a)aol.com >> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 12:00 PM >> To: d.kindred(a)telesciences.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com >> Subject: Re: Who to buy additional drives from? >> >> >> ......We are maintaining NetApp support, so we would need an >> "approved" vendor, etc....... >> >> ************************************************************************ >> >> Hi, David: >> >> You do not need to buy NetApp hardware from an "approved" vendor, even if >> your filer is on NetApp hardware support. >> >> Should you choose to buy third-party-supplied NetApp hardware, you have >> the choice of: >> >> 1) adding your third-party-supplied NetApp hardware to your NetApp >> support contract, >> 2) utilizing, instead, any hardware warranty provided by your >> third-party supplier, or >> 3) going "bare." >> >> Regards, >> >> Scott >> >> Scott Fischmann >> Union Computer Exchange, Inc. >> 6233 Idylwood Lane >> Minneapolis, MN 55436 >> email: scott(a)unioncomputer.com >> phone: 952 935 7282 | fax: 952 935 5056 >> >> "Helping our customers make each dollar go further -- since 1991!" >> www.unioncomputer.com >> >> >> >>> Subj:Who to buy additional drives from? >>> Date:4/16/2003 4:36:55 PM Central Daylight Time >>> From:<A HREF="mailto:d.kindred@telesciences.com">d.kindred(a)telesciences.com</A> >>> To:<A HREF="mailto:toasters@mathworks.com">toasters(a)mathworks.com</A> >>> Sent from the Internet >>> >>> >>> >>> I need to add some drives to the DS14 on our F810, but had a couple of >>> questions. >>> >>> Since the Filer has performed so well, I haven't had much need to deal >>> with it, which is good, but it also means I'm not as familiar with it as >>> I'd like. It seems I only have time to learn about the things that >>> break :( >>> >>> I have been able to find answers to the technical questions on NOW, so I >>> don't have to act stupid about those. >>> >>> I do have one non-technical questions left though: >>> >>> When the time comes to buy the drives should I go back to the VAR we >>> bought the system from, or direct to NetApp, or should I consider some >>> other source? We are maintaining NetApp support, so we would need an >>> "approved" vendor, etc. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> David L. Kindred <mailto:d.kindred@telesciences.com> >>> Unix Systems & Network Administrator >>> Telesciences, Inc. <http://www.telesciences.com> >>> Support: <http://support.telesciences.com> >>> 2000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 410, Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 >>> Tel: +1.856.866.1000 ext. 4184 >>> Fax: +1.856.866.0185 >>> --- >>> >> >> >> >> >

1 0

Re: Who to buy additional drives from?
by ScottUCE＠aol.com 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

......We are maintaining NetApp support, so we would need an "approved" vendor, etc....... ************************************************************************ Hi, David: You do not need to buy NetApp hardware from an "approved" vendor, even if your filer is on NetApp hardware support. Should you choose to buy third-party-supplied NetApp hardware, you have the choice of: 1) adding your third-party-supplied NetApp hardware to your NetApp support contract, 2) utilizing, instead, any hardware warranty provided by your third-party supplier, or 3) going "bare." Regards, Scott Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, MN 55436 email: scott(a)unioncomputer.com phone: 952 935 7282 | fax: 952 935 5056 "Helping our customers make each dollar go further -- since 1991!" www.unioncomputer.com > Subj:Who to buy additional drives from? > Date:4/16/2003 4:36:55 PM Central Daylight Time > From:<A HREF="mailto:d.kindred@telesciences.com">d.kindred(a)telesciences.com</A> > To:<A HREF="mailto:toasters@mathworks.com">toasters(a)mathworks.com</A> > Sent from the Internet > > > > I need to add some drives to the DS14 on our F810, but had a couple of > questions. > > Since the Filer has performed so well, I haven't had much need to deal > with it, which is good, but it also means I'm not as familiar with it as > I'd like. It seems I only have time to learn about the things that > break :( > > I have been able to find answers to the technical questions on NOW, so I > don't have to act stupid about those. > > I do have one non-technical questions left though: > > When the time comes to buy the drives should I go back to the VAR we > bought the system from, or direct to NetApp, or should I consider some > other source? We are maintaining NetApp support, so we would need an > "approved" vendor, etc. > > Thanks. > > > -- > David L. Kindred <mailto:d.kindred@telesciences.com> > Unix Systems & Network Administrator > Telesciences, Inc. <http://www.telesciences.com> > Support: <http://support.telesciences.com> > 2000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 410, Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 > Tel: +1.856.866.1000 ext. 4184 > Fax: +1.856.866.0185 > --- >

2 1

RE: Slow NFS filer performance on WAN connection vs Solaris NFS W AN connection
by Mike McBride 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

I would like to add a few more details to the problem i'm having with the poor NFS performance on the Filers using NFS over the WAN(See towards the bottom). The remote Solaris system is 2.8 The NetApp filer(740) is 6.2.2 The Filer has a quad board to Etherchannel ports on a Cisco switch 100mb is the backbone on LAN My first suspicion was maybe the filers were slow on the LAN also but since i was running 100mb I didn't notice the problem. However, this is not the case. I forgot to add i did do extensive testing on the LAN at corporate and I was getting between 6-8.5MBytes/sec from Filer to Solaris system and from Solaris(local disk) to another Solaris(local disk) system. There really was not much difference between the performance on the Filer or the Solaris box. Also, when I used the UDP transport for the remote NFS the performance was terrible. I was seeing a lot of retransmissions. TCP definitely works better on the WAN. Also, the RTT's were the same from the Remote Solaris system to the corporate Filer or from the Remote Solaris system to the corporate Solaris system. I also want to thank several people for their comments on this subject. Unfortunately, i still have been unable to identify the source of the problem. Jeff Mohler Neil Stichbury Alan McLachlan Jeff Wolfe Hunter Wylie Mike McBride Silicon Wave, Inc. (858) 404-5210 mcbride(a)siliconwave.com http://www.siliconwave.com <http://www.siliconwave.com/> -----Original Message----- From: Hunter Wylie [mailto:hwylie@stpaultel.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 10:39 PM To: Mike McBride Subject: Re: Slow NFS filer performance on WAN connection vs Solaris NFS WAN connection Mike, Here's a simple test to try isolate the problem. From a third system ("C") at the same central site run the test talking the Sun ("A") and the 740 ("B"). Run the test on the local LAN and see what you get. If the filer speeds are the same and the Filer is loafing you have a networking problem in the LAN. Try manually setting all network interfaces to Full. Never use auto detection mode. What speed interface is each system, A & B? If the Filer runs at about 6-8.5mbytes per second, assuming a 100mbit LAN interface on the file you still have network problems somewhere between the filer and the VPN box The problems you describe are normally found in the network when the filer is loafing. Check the stats on the LAN interfaces on the filer too, lost frames, retries, etc.. Might be a bad Filer LAN interface. Hunter ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike <mailto:mcbride@siliconwave.com> McBride To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' <mailto:'toasters(a)mathworks.com'> Cc: Mike McBride <mailto:mcbride@siliconwave.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 4:32 PM Subject: Slow NFS filer performance on WAN connection vs Solaris NFS WAN connection We have several engineers working from home using Solaris boxes and utilizing VPN's to the office. Typical application use is Cadence. What i have noticed is the NFS performance on the Filers are almost 50% slower than the performance of the Solaris machines. I have run several tests including cp, ftp and utilizing ping roundtrip times, traceroute, snoop and tcpdump to monitor activities between home SUN systems and file systems at work. I have also tested NFS using different transport protocols(tcp/udp) modifying rsize/wsize buffers and using NFS2 and NFS3 versions of NFS. The filers and the Solaris systems at cooperate are on the same subnet - there is no differences in the routing. FYI - the VPN's at home are all Linksys VPN cable/dsl routers configured for Site to Site VPN connections to corporate office. The problem is definitely with NFS and it is isolated to the Filers. I am confused why the performance of the NetApp NFS would be so poor compared with NFS on the Solaris systems. Now, I know NFS on a WAN is slow and VPN encryption is going to degrade the performance severely, but I am wondering why NetApp NFS performance is much worse than Solaris NFS performance. Basically, when accessing files on a Solaris system(local disk) at the corporate office from home i'm getting about 915KBits/sec. When accessing the same files on a NetApp(F740) at the corporate office from home i'm getting about 510KBits/sec. The transfer mechanism is NFS. When using FTP i get the same 915KBits/sec on the Solaris(local disk) and Filer. The load on the Filer at the time of testing is minimal. Anyone have any insight on this subject? Any feedback would be appreciated since I put quite a bit of time in this to try and understand the problem here. Thanks, Mike McBride Silicon Wave, Inc. (858) 404-5210 mcbride(a)siliconwave.com http://www.siliconwave.com <http://www.siliconwave.com>

1 0

Can you speed up the time it takes to browse large CIFS shares?
by Hight, Steve - Perot 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

Anyone know of any client specific or filer tunable parameters that will speed the time it takes to browse large directories in windows explorer? We have several CIFS shares with 2k or more files/directories in the root of a share. The performance seems to be the same from an NT4, Win2k Pro, XP or Citrix client. This is not really a NetApp issue, the same performance problems exist when trying to browse a share of this size located on an NT server. Any ideas? Thanks, Steve

3 2

RE: Shrkinking volume on filer
by Bui, Marcus 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

Don't know about your first question.. But just a few days ago, both of my F760c were constantly 100% CPU usage. Accessing files was really slow. Both home folder (MS clients) volume on each of Filer was at 92% capacity. Expanded the volume (added 6 drives). CPU usage is now around 60% on both Filers. You won't see the performance improvements right away because it takes a while for the new disk to even out with the existing ones. It took about 4 hours before I see any performance gain. Be careful not to add too few disks causing the new disks to be 'hot'. Marcus -----Original Message----- From: frank marxs [mailto:fmarxs@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 1:15 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Shrkinking volume on filer I heard someone tell me that if I had a volume with lots of extra space I could pull a drive from that volume and use it to grow an other volume which was full.... I know we can grow a volume by adding a drive on a filer, but I haven't heard of the possibility of shrinking a volume by pulling a drive. Did I miss something or is this a new feature? BTW: Anyone seen a drop in performance after growing a volume which was almost full? Cheers Frank "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

1 0

RE: MRTG - MIB for Filer Capacity vs Utilization
by Manny Ortega 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

I don't know if this might help you but this is what I'm doing with my filer and MRTG: http://redhook.univ-wea.com/mrtg/ Pike is the name of my filer, look for that..... -MannyO -----Original Message----- From: Deepak Soneji [mailto:sonejideepak@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 7:57 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: MRTG - MIB for Filer Capacity vs Utilization Hello I am using MRTG - MIB downloaded from netapp.com which provides me wonderful historical data. I was wondering if there is add-on or other utility which shows the similar historical data for total filer storage capacity vs utilization charts(not volume level). Appreciate your input. Thanks Deepak

1 0

RE: tmp files
by Bui, Marcus 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

Steven, Where/what folder are these tmp files being created in? -----Original Message----- From: Steven Boyer [mailto:sboyer1@tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 10:44 PM To: Bui, Marcus; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: tmp files Marcus; Thanks but these tmp files appear to be generated word, excel .... not ie. ----- Original Message ----- From: Bui, Marcus <mailto:Marcus.Bui@aiminvestments.com> To: 'Steven <mailto:sboyer1@tampabay.rr.com> Boyer' ; toasters(a)mathworks.com <mailto:toasters@mathworks.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 5:46 PM Subject: RE: tmp files Steven, Are you using roaming profile with your MS client and saving the profile on the Filer? If so, check if temporary Internet files created by IE are being uploaded when the profiles are updated when clients logged off. C:\winnt\profiles\username\local settings\temp\........ compare this with profile stored on the Filer. cheers, Marcus -----Original Message----- From: Steven Boyer [mailto:sboyer1@tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 9:20 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: tmp files I use a SRM product to manage our storage and have noticed an abundant amount of Microsoft temp files which start with ~. I know these are created as a backup 'till the file is saved but we have way to many.... any ideas. Thanks Steve

1 0

System will not boot with tape
by Rogers, Jamie 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

I have a 760 running 6.3.1 firmware 2.8_a2 and I have connected a working Sun DLT7000 with active termination LDV SE, and when I try to boot I get a Mailbox timeout, followed by a Timeout! which repeats. Any ideas? It works fine with out the tape drive, and I have tried 3 identical drives with the same error. Jamie

3 2

RE: Resize existing volume
by Alan McLachlan 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

Patrick, This type of situation in mixed size volumes can be alleviated somewhat by double rebuilding with manual fail/unfail operations. However, if you're getting bigger replacements in a mixed size volume this situation can be difficult to avoid. See if NetApp or your will loan you a shelf of 36's for a weekend. Then you can build a new temporary volume and copy your data to it. Then blow away and rebuild your existing shelf as permitted by the physical disks (36GB Parity, 3x36GB data, 3x18GB data - I assume your hot spare is a 36). Then copy your data back and return the loan shelf. Voila! An extra 68 odd GB will appear. regards, Alan McLachlan Senior Systems Engineer Storage Management Solutions ASI Solutions www.asi.com.au Ph +61 2 6230 1566 Fax +61 2 6230 5343 Mobile +61 428 655644 e-mail amclachlan(a)asi.com.au -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Lee [mailto:pat@patlee.org] Sent: Saturday, 15 March 2003 7:59 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Resize existing volume I have a Filer 720. Is there any way to resize an existing volume short of re-creating it? Originally the volume started with all 18 GB drives. Overtime, as disks failed, they were replaced with 36 GB drives. So now we have some 36 GB drives that are only half used. See below: RAID Disk HA.ID HA SHELF BAY CHAN Used (MB/blks) Phys (MB/blks) --------- ----- ------------ ---- -------------- -------------- parity 8.1 8 0 1 FC:A 34500/70656000 35003/71687368 data 8.4 8 0 4 FC:A 17000/34816000 34732/71132960 data 8.9 8 0 9 FC:A 17000/34816000 34732/71132960 data 8.3 8 0 3 FC:A 17000/34816000 17366/35566480 data 8.2 8 0 2 FC:A 17000/34816000 17366/35566480 data 8.0 8 0 0 FC:A 17000/34816000 17366/35566480 data 8.7 8 0 7 FC:A 34500/70656000 34732/71132960 Thanks, -- Patrick Lee <pat(a)patlee.org> **** ASI Solutions Disclaimer **** The material transmitted may contain confidential and/or privileged material and is intended only for the addressee. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender and destroy any copies of the material immediately. ASI will protect your Privacy according to the 10 Privacy Principles outlined under the new Privacy Act, Dec 2001. This email is also subject to copyright. Any use of or reliance upon this material by persons or entities other than the addressee is prohibited. E-mails may be interfered with, may contain computer viruses or other defects. Under no circumstances do we accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from your receipt of this message or any attachments. **** END OF MESSAGE ****

1 0

RE: CIFS in Workgroup mode
by Mark McGilvray 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

Along the NetWare support lines, we are hoping that iSCSI will provide the support we need for Novell. From what we understand the NetWare iSCSI initiator will ship in the NetWare 6.5 box in June. Any thoughts? Mark >>> Alan McLachlan <amclachlan(a)asi.com.au> 04/16/03 12:17AM >>> Robert, One problem is that in workgroup mode NTFS security isn't available. In fact, no real security is available... There appear to be two options to using a filer in a Novell environment: 1) The "gateway" Novell server approach. This involves using a Novell server running Novell NFS Services (with lots of CPU and RAM) with a direct back-to-back link to the filer to act as an I/O path. Clients and application hosts only see the Novell server, while the filer thinks the Novell server is a Unix NIS server that also happens to be it's only client :o). Security is a subset of Novell permissions as available by mapping Unix permissions. The drawback here is that the Novell server itself will be an I/O bottleneck. 2) eDirectory and Windows integration. For this you need a DC, as you have identified. The Windows DC runs the Novell eDirectory client and the security is synchronised with Novell Account Manager. All clients that need to access the filer need to have the CIFS redirector running. Permissions are mapped by Novell Account Manager. An issue with approach 2 is that when passwords are changed by a helpdesk directly in eDirectory, they may not be synchronised immediately. If anyone has found a workaround for this please respond. regards, Alan. -----Original Message----- From: Robert Borowicz [mailto:rbaus@swbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, 16 April 2003 6:26 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: CIFS in Workgroup mode Does anybody run CIFS shares in workgroup mode? That is not booted/authenticated with a PDC? I have the joy of trying to make my machine work in a Novell environment and no DC and would love to share ideas with other lucky souls like me.... TIA -Bob Borowicz **** ASI Solutions Disclaimer **** The material transmitted may contain confidential and/or privileged material and is intended only for the addressee. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender and destroy any copies of the material immediately. ASI will protect your Privacy according to the 10 Privacy Principles outlined under the new Privacy Act, Dec 2001. This email is also subject to copyright. Any use of or reliance upon this material by persons or entities other than the addressee is prohibited. E-mails may be interfered with, may contain computer viruses or other defects. Under no circumstances do we accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from your receipt of this message or any attachments. **** END OF MESSAGE ****

2 1

boot up error
by Bui, Marcus 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

Hi Toasters, I have a F820 (6.3.1R1) which get FC error every during boot up. But once the Filer is up, all volumes are available and can see all disks. Do 'sysconfig -c' and no errors. Try swapping the cable around but same error at boot up. Any ideas? Starting Press CTRL-C for floppy boot menu ispfc: Fibre Channel adapter 8b appears to be unattached/disconnected. If adapter is in use, check cabling and seating of LRC cards in disk shelves. Wed Apr 16 22:33:07 GMT [ispfc_init_2:error]: Initialization failed on Fibre Channel adapter 8b. ispfc: Fibre Channel adapter 7b appears to be unattached/disconnected. If adapter is in use, check cabling and seating of LRC cards in disk shelves. Wed Apr 16 22:33:07 GMT [ispfc_init_4:error]: Initialization failed on Fibre Channel adapter 7b. thanks, Marcus Bui

2 1

RE: tmp files
by Bui, Marcus 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

Steven, Are you using roaming profile with your MS client and saving the profile on the Filer? If so, check if temporary Internet files created by IE are being uploaded when the profiles are updated when clients logged off. C:\winnt\profiles\username\local settings\temp\........ compare this with profile stored on the Filer. cheers, Marcus -----Original Message----- From: Steven Boyer [mailto:sboyer1@tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 9:20 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: tmp files I use a SRM product to manage our storage and have noticed an abundant amount of Microsoft temp files which start with ~. I know these are created as a backup 'till the file is saved but we have way to many.... any ideas. Thanks Steve

2 1

RE: Slow NFS filer performance on WAN connection vs Solaris NFS W AN c onnection
by Alan McLachlan 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

Mike, This is very interesting, particularly considering that on regular LAN connections NetApp filers blow away Sun boxes (on SpecSFS anyway). I half expect a "filers can't deal with being asked to run that slow" response from NetApp.... :o) Seriously though, OnTap does not use an NFS daemon. I believe NFS is handled in a state-machine fashion within the Ontap RTOS kernel. It's possible that what your seeing is the result of a timing condition that doesn't show up on faster links. Are you running NFS in sync or async mode on the client? regards, Alan McLachlan Senior Systems Engineer Storage Management Solutions ASI Solutions www.asi.com.au Ph +61 2 6230 1566 Fax +61 2 6230 5343 Mobile +61 428 655644 e-mail amclachlan(a)asi.com.au **** ASI Solutions Disclaimer **** The material transmitted may contain confidential and/or privileged material and is intended only for the addressee. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender and destroy any copies of the material immediately. ASI will protect your Privacy according to the 10 Privacy Principles outlined under the new Privacy Act, Dec 2001. This email is also subject to copyright. Any use of or reliance upon this material by persons or entities other than the addressee is prohibited. E-mails may be interfered with, may contain computer viruses or other defects. Under no circumstances do we accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from your receipt of this message or any attachments. **** END OF MESSAGE ****

1 0

Slow NFS filer performance on WAN connection vs Solaris NFS WAN c onnection
by Mike McBride 16 Apr '03

16 Apr '03

We have several engineers working from home using Solaris boxes and utilizing VPN's to the office. Typical application use is Cadence. What i have noticed is the NFS performance on the Filers are almost 50% slower than the performance of the Solaris machines. I have run several tests including cp, ftp and utilizing ping roundtrip times, traceroute, snoop and tcpdump to monitor activities between home SUN systems and file systems at work. I have also tested NFS using different transport protocols(tcp/udp) modifying rsize/wsize buffers and using NFS2 and NFS3 versions of NFS. The filers and the Solaris systems at cooperate are on the same subnet - there is no differences in the routing. FYI - the VPN's at home are all Linksys VPN cable/dsl routers configured for Site to Site VPN connections to corporate office. The problem is definitely with NFS and it is isolated to the Filers. I am confused why the performance of the NetApp NFS would be so poor compared with NFS on the Solaris systems. Now, I know NFS on a WAN is slow and VPN encryption is going to degrade the performance severely, but I am wondering why NetApp NFS performance is much worse than Solaris NFS performance. Basically, when accessing files on a Solaris system(local disk) at the corporate office from home i'm getting about 915KBits/sec. When accessing the same files on a NetApp(F740) at the corporate office from home i'm getting about 510KBits/sec. The transfer mechanism is NFS. When using FTP i get the same 915KBits/sec on the Solaris(local disk) and Filer. The load on the Filer at the time of testing is minimal. Anyone have any insight on this subject? Any feedback would be appreciated since I put quite a bit of time in this to try and understand the problem here. Thanks, Mike McBride Silicon Wave, Inc. (858) 404-5210 mcbride(a)siliconwave.com http://www.siliconwave.com

1 0

RE: boot up error
by Mohler, Jeff 16 Apr '03

16 Apr '03

Id you dont have anything plugged into the B ports on the FCAL cards in slots 7 and 8, you will see these errors, and they are normal. If there IS something plugged into those ports, and you see this error, you may have a configuration/hardware issue you need to contact support on. -----Original Message----- From: Bui, Marcus [mailto:Marcus.Bui@aiminvestments.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 4:11 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: boot up error Hi Toasters, I have a F820 (6.3.1R1) which get FC error every during boot up. But once the Filer is up, all volumes are available and can see all disks. Do 'sysconfig -c' and no errors. Try swapping the cable around but same error at boot up. Any ideas? Starting Press CTRL-C for floppy boot menu ispfc: Fibre Channel adapter 8b appears to be unattached/disconnected. If adapter is in use, check cabling and seating of LRC cards in disk shelves. Wed Apr 16 22:33:07 GMT [ispfc_init_2:error]: Initialization failed on Fibre Channel adapter 8b. ispfc: Fibre Channel adapter 7b appears to be unattached/disconnected. If adapter is in use, check cabling and seating of LRC cards in disk shelves. Wed Apr 16 22:33:07 GMT [ispfc_init_4:error]: Initialization failed on Fibre Channel adapter 7b. thanks, Marcus Bui

1 0

RE: CIFS in Workgroup mode
by Muhlestein, Mark 16 Apr '03

16 Apr '03

You have to set the qtree security to mixed or ntfs to use ACLs. Yes, the local user approach is limited. I was just trying to clarify the statement that "no real security is available". Mark -----Original Message----- From: Alan McLachlan [mailto:amclachlan@asi.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 4:18 PM To: Muhlestein, Mark; Alan McLachlan; Robert Borowicz; toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: Dane Knudson Subject: RE: CIFS in Workgroup mode Mark Muhlestein wrote: >Alan wrote: >> One problem is that in workgroup mode NTFS security isn't available. >> In fact, no real security is available... > This isn't quite right. If you are running with ONTAP 6.1.1 or later you > can create up to 96 local users in workgroup mode and use NTFS security > with NTLM authentication. Even without local users you can use > UNIX-style security if you are willing to use /etc/passwd accounts > (which unfortunately implies the use of plaintext passwords over the > wire during CIFS login). > However, it is true that for the very best available CIFS security > (which uses Kerberos authentication) you do have to have the filer > installed in a Win2k domain. Hi Mark, I just tried this on a lab filer here running 6.4.1R1 and in workgroup mode on an NT4.0 Workstation client (as still used by many of our government Novell customers - some are even still using Win98...) the mapped drive still shows up as FAT - no ACL's. I'll look into this further but I don't see how you're going to get ACL's on basic Windows peer-to-peer networking. Win2K local user account ACL's may work with WinXP workstations, but most customers using NetApp for home directories have hundreds or thousands of users. For only 96 or less users you're not going to buy a NetApp primarily for home dirs... (unless you have too much money to play with and believe in overkill, or they are VERY I/O intensive users, i.e. graphic artists, CAD etc :o) ) In any case, the issue here isn't whether you can use fun workarounds to implement some security - you could use hidden shares to obscure user's home dirs from each other but that's not the same as real permissions. And yes you can map to Unix accounts on the filer and use Unix security. But the real issue is how can this be administered from Novell eDirectory as a resource with managed security. Local accounts (whether Unix or post-Ontap 6.1.1 Win2K local accounts) on the filer don't help, the Novell eDirectory server somehow needs to be the primary account management server before most Novell admins will accept the solution. Personally, I wish we didn't have to deal with Novell environments but there are still too many around to ignore it. *sigh* Do you know what the status is WRT LDAP authentication in OnTap? Regards, Alan. **** ASI Solutions Disclaimer **** The material transmitted may contain confidential and/or privileged material and is intended only for the addressee. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender and destroy any copies of the material immediately. ASI will protect your Privacy according to the 10 Privacy Principles outlined under the new Privacy Act, Dec 2001. This email is also subject to copyright. Any use of or reliance upon this material by persons or entities other than the addressee is prohibited. E-mails may be interfered with, may contain computer viruses or other defects. Under no circumstances do we accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from your receipt of this message or any attachments. **** END OF MESSAGE ****

1 0

RE: CIFS in Workgroup mode
by Alan McLachlan 16 Apr '03

16 Apr '03

Mark Muhlestein wrote: >Alan wrote: >> One problem is that in workgroup mode NTFS security isn't available. >> In fact, no real security is available... > This isn't quite right. If you are running with ONTAP 6.1.1 or later you > can create up to 96 local users in workgroup mode and use NTFS security > with NTLM authentication. Even without local users you can use > UNIX-style security if you are willing to use /etc/passwd accounts > (which unfortunately implies the use of plaintext passwords over the > wire during CIFS login). > However, it is true that for the very best available CIFS security > (which uses Kerberos authentication) you do have to have the filer > installed in a Win2k domain. Hi Mark, I just tried this on a lab filer here running 6.4.1R1 and in workgroup mode on an NT4.0 Workstation client (as still used by many of our government Novell customers - some are even still using Win98...) the mapped drive still shows up as FAT - no ACL's. I'll look into this further but I don't see how you're going to get ACL's on basic Windows peer-to-peer networking. Win2K local user account ACL's may work with WinXP workstations, but most customers using NetApp for home directories have hundreds or thousands of users. For only 96 or less users you're not going to buy a NetApp primarily for home dirs... (unless you have too much money to play with and believe in overkill, or they are VERY I/O intensive users, i.e. graphic artists, CAD etc :o) ) In any case, the issue here isn't whether you can use fun workarounds to implement some security - you could use hidden shares to obscure user's home dirs from each other but that's not the same as real permissions. And yes you can map to Unix accounts on the filer and use Unix security. But the real issue is how can this be administered from Novell eDirectory as a resource with managed security. Local accounts (whether Unix or post-Ontap 6.1.1 Win2K local accounts) on the filer don't help, the Novell eDirectory server somehow needs to be the primary account management server before most Novell admins will accept the solution. Personally, I wish we didn't have to deal with Novell environments but there are still too many around to ignore it. *sigh* Do you know what the status is WRT LDAP authentication in OnTap? Regards, Alan. **** ASI Solutions Disclaimer **** The material transmitted may contain confidential and/or privileged material and is intended only for the addressee. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender and destroy any copies of the material immediately. ASI will protect your Privacy according to the 10 Privacy Principles outlined under the new Privacy Act, Dec 2001. This email is also subject to copyright. Any use of or reliance upon this material by persons or entities other than the addressee is prohibited. E-mails may be interfered with, may contain computer viruses or other defects. Under no circumstances do we accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from your receipt of this message or any attachments. **** END OF MESSAGE ****

1 0

Maximum capacity of a netapp
by Art Hebert 16 Apr '03

16 Apr '03

I am trying to find out what limits a netapp f760's maximum storage capacity. The f760 series used to have a max capacity of 1.5TB, but now docs state that its max capacity is now 3TB. What has caused this to change? OS improvements, cpu changes, etc. thanks art

3 2

Filer shelfs on Linux x86
by Ben Rockwood 16 Apr '03

16 Apr '03

Hello Toasters. I've done some testing recently with using NetApp shelfs (FC8/FC9) attached directly to a Linux box. It's worked very well, and I'm happy with the setup. There are some rough points, but the implimentation is pretty straight forward. I had started writting an article on how to do things end-to-end, but somehow half way thru just didn't see the point. Anyway, here are some interesting tidbits to wet the lips of anyone with shelfs sitting unused. Single FC8 shelf with 18G disks: [root@nexus /]# df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/evms/fc8_volume 118G 15M 118G 1% /filer_shelf [benr@nexus benr]$ bonnie++ -d /filer_shelf/ Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP nexus.homeste 1256M 5604 81 19477 18 15546 17 6861 98 59964 37 677.7 5 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 998 7 +++++ +++ 376 2 422 5 +++++ +++ 401 3 And this is 2 FC9 shelfs with 36G disks: Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/evms/fc9_vol 474G 60M 474G 1% /filer_shelf [benr@nexus benr]$ bonnie++ -d /filer_shelf/ Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP nexus.homeste 1256M 5636 82 33744 33 23145 28 6306 93 60607 37 712.0 7 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 775 5 +++++ +++ 345 2 326 4 +++++ +++ 358 3 In both cases, the volumes that were build were striped across all avalible disks, using a stwidth of 16k. LVM was used under EVMS control to all volumes. As you can see from the benchmarks, the block read performance was excellent. For the tests I used my standard Linux workstation, a very slow Dell PIII 550Mhz with 512M RAM. JFS was used as the filesystem. The following are some notes for anyone who might wanna try this: a) DO NOT USE THE KERNELS QLOGIC DRIVER. It sucks! And don't think that you can just push the dev count to 255 and get past it, that only works for 3-4 devices. If you use a QLA2100 grab the QLA2200 driver from Qlogic.com, hack the makefile to build you a QLA2100.o module, the code is there but they don't advertise it. b) I tests all this with a custom 2.4.20 kernel, works great, added EVMS patches. c) EVMS rox, much more fun than LVM raw, but takes much longer to set things up due to the abstration layers added d) You'll have to wipe out the 2 partitions on the disk, which fdisk can't do. You'll need to dd over the first 1k to manually wipe the partitioning scheme. e) If your not already using DevFS I highly suggest it before piling shelfs on. If anyone wants more information or benchmarks, mail me directly and I can send my notes over. benr.

1 0

RE: Maximum capacity of a netapp
by Clarke, John L. (CIS) 16 Apr '03

16 Apr '03

The OS was changed to support 3TB. I do not recall exactly what rev, although I think it was at 6.0. FYI John -----Original Message----- From: Stefan Funke [mailto:bundy@arcor-ip.de] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 4:30 PM To: Art Hebert Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Maximum capacity of a netapp Quoting message received from Art Hebert: > I am trying to find out what limits a netapp f760's maximum storage > capacity. The f760 series used to have a max capacity of 1.5TB, but > now docs state that its max capacity is now 3TB. What has caused this > to change? OS improvements, cpu changes, etc. 3TB in clustered mode I guess?!? -- Stefan Funke, eMail : bundy(a)arcor-ip.de TBD / Zentrale phone : ++49-(0)6196 587-775 Arcor AG & Co. fax : ++49-(0)6196 587-705 Otto-Volger-Strasse 19 PGP KeyID : 0x9BDCA694 65843 Sulzbach, Germany Web : http://www.arcor.de/

1 0

Who to buy additional drives from?
by David L Kindred (Dave) 16 Apr '03

16 Apr '03

I need to add some drives to the DS14 on our F810, but had a couple of questions. Since the Filer has performed so well, I haven't had much need to deal with it, which is good, but it also means I'm not as familiar with it as I'd like. It seems I only have time to learn about the things that break :( I have been able to find answers to the technical questions on NOW, so I don't have to act stupid about those. I do have one non-technical questions left though: When the time comes to buy the drives should I go back to the VAR we bought the system from, or direct to NetApp, or should I consider some other source? We are maintaining NetApp support, so we would need an "approved" vendor, etc. Thanks. -- David L. Kindred <mailto:d.kindred@telesciences.com> Unix Systems & Network Administrator Telesciences, Inc. <http://www.telesciences.com> Support: <http://support.telesciences.com> 2000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 410, Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 Tel: +1.856.866.1000 ext. 4184 Fax: +1.856.866.0185 ---

1 0

RE: Reassigning low UIDs
by Ben Rockwood 16 Apr '03

16 Apr '03

The generally accepted low bound is 500. Which goes for both UIDs and GIDs. As for re-assigning, sounds like a job for PERL or some expertly crafted "find" commands. You could create an index in a 2-dimensional array (or just a flat file) mapping new to old UID and then just spider the mount points in question. Just make sure you heavily test it prior to unlessing it. benr. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Davis [mailto:jdavis@cs.arizona.edu] Sent: Wed 4/16/2003 10:43 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: Subject: Reassigning low UIDs Our Unix-side password files go back to the days of SunOS 3.x (if not before), so we have some users with UIDs less than 100. Nowadays this causes problems with NFS on, eg, Linux boxes that seem to assume any UID under at least 1000 is fair game for placeholder accounts. After struggling with this for a while it looks like it's time for a wholesale UID reassignment for those users. - what's a "safe" lower bound for UIDs? 1000? 10000? We'd rather not have to do this more than once! - is there some slick way to reassign UIDs en masse on a filer? We could run 'chown -R ...' on the admin host, but is there a better way?

2 1

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters