toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

RE: Windows Roaming Profiles on CIFS?
by Nail, Larry 31 Mar '03

31 Mar '03

1 thought is that the User's ID must have full control at the share & file level of the profile on the server. Did you tweak permissions on the client system's profiles directory at all? -----Original Message----- From: WILLIAMS VIGIL, NIS-3/DEC MS-D440, 505-667-3587 [mailto:wvigil@nisdp0.lanl.gov] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 12:58 PM To: TOASTERS(a)mathworks.com Hi: I'd like to know if anyone is using a filesever to host windows roaming profiles? Works OK from a W2K/NT4 windows server but the error message I see when trying from a filer is: "Cannot copy file \\toaster\users\unsername... to C:\..." "Windows cannot load the profile and is loging you in with a temporary profile..." Could this be a timing issue? Profile needed too early in the login process? Ws Williams E. VIGIL 505-667-3587 Pager: 104-4728 -------------------------------------------------------- "... description is not explanation and when it comes to primary causes science explains nothing." D. Grinspoon

1 0

RE: Windows Roaming Profiles on CIFS?
by David Papas 31 Mar '03

31 Mar '03

We've been running roaming profiles to our F820 since DOT 6.1 w/o too much difficulty. Have you already ruled out permissions or network conditions type issues? -D. > -----Original Message----- > From: WILLIAMS VIGIL, NIS-3/DEC MS-D440, 505-667-3587 > [mailto:wvigil@nisdp0.lanl.gov] > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 12:58 PM > To: TOASTERS(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Windows Roaming Profiles on CIFS? > > > Hi: > > I'd like to know if anyone is using a filesever to host > windows roaming profiles? Works OK from a W2K/NT4 windows > server but the error message I see when trying from a filer > is: > > "Cannot copy file \\toaster\users\unsername... to C:\..." > > "Windows cannot load the profile and is loging you in with > a temporary profile..." > > Could this be a timing issue? Profile needed too early > in the login process? > > Ws > Williams E. VIGIL 505-667-3587 Pager: 104-4728 > -------------------------------------------------------- > "... description is not explanation and when it comes to > primary causes science explains nothing." D. Grinspoon >

1 0

Windows Roaming Profiles on CIFS?
by WILLIAMS VIGIL, NIS-3/DEC MS-D440, 505-667-3587 31 Mar '03

31 Mar '03

Hi: I'd like to know if anyone is using a filesever to host windows roaming profiles? Works OK from a W2K/NT4 windows server but the error message I see when trying from a filer is: "Cannot copy file \\toaster\users\unsername... to C:\..." "Windows cannot load the profile and is loging you in with a temporary profile..." Could this be a timing issue? Profile needed too early in the login process? Ws Williams E. VIGIL 505-667-3587 Pager: 104-4728 -------------------------------------------------------- "... description is not explanation and when it comes to primary causes science explains nothing." D. Grinspoon

1 0

PC�\�t�g��̔��I�I�I
by dmdmdm 31 Mar '03

31 Mar '03

��Ãr�W�l�X�\�t�g�̔�! �l�C��i��W�߂ăZ�b�g�̔��܂� http://www.websamba.com/soft0000/ http://softsoft.maisonx.com/ http://www.online.in.th/softsoft/cd/ http://softsoft.maddsites.com/ http://soft123.www3.dotnetplayground.com/

1 0

LTO 2 Support
by David Dalby 31 Mar '03

31 Mar '03

Hi, Does anyone have HP Ultrium 2 working directly off the back of a filer yet ? I understand NetApp are currently testing and support is due for relase some time in April but I do not have a confirmed date. I am guessing this will take the form of a dynamic tape configuration file for using in the etc/tape_config directory. I have created a dynamic tape config file but am struggling to get the HP hex codes for density codes (l,m,h and a) and corresponding density alogrithms which are required for the tape_config file ? Anyone have the hex codes I require for the HP Ultrium 2 or a working dynamic tape config file ? We are running DOT 6.3.1R1 .... Thanks Dave Dalby Systems Engineer - Storage Solutions ASI Solutions - Perth **** 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

Strange folders cropping up
by Jay Newton (Email) 28 Mar '03

28 Mar '03

I keep getting these folders on one of my CIFS volumes. I don't think the Filer is responsible but I'm having trouble finding the cause. Below is an example of a folder name. There is sometimes a symbols folder underneath the main folder but not in every case. There are no files under the folder at all. 69fe9e1137e5bed8e0a0ba9782268d5e Does anyone else recognize this or know what causes it? Jay Newton Systems Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation Natural Gas - Natural Advantages Building 6112, Room 114 (405)848-8000 ext. 683 jnewton(a)chkenergy.com

2 1

rescan of a scsi dlt?
by Toal, Dave 28 Mar '03

28 Mar '03

A while ago, someone posted a command to rescan an FC bus, I believe. I've got a dlt 7000 on an F740; the dlt is inside a storagetek 9710 which was recently ipl'd. The dlt stops working when this happens, I'm not sure why (veritas netbackup shows it as 'down'). Rebooting the netapp fixes it; is there a way to reset the adapter on the dlt without doing that? statler*> fcadmin rescan 1 fcadmin rescan: Channel 1 is not a FC loop channel. statler*> sysconfig -v NetApp Release 6.1.3R2: Mon Jun 17 01:40:16 PDT 2002 slot 1: SCSI Host Adapter 1 (Qlogic ISP 1040B) Fast/Wide, Differential Firmware Version 4.66.00 Clock Rate 60MHz. 0: Tape: Quantum DLT7000 276A -- this is not a .sig

2 1

Anyone using f700 and f800 series filers with Cisco 6509's?
by kyle 28 Mar '03

28 Mar '03

I recently just ran into an issue where I see "Out-Discard" errors on my switch on some of my gigabit ports the filers are on(sh port mac mod/port). Has anyone else run into this problem? On the netapps which are plugged into ports which show no issue, I can not find any difference in configuration - either on the netapp or switch. So, I want to know two things: 1. If you are using a f700 and/or a f800 filer on a Cisco Cat6509 switch with gigabit ports(WS-X6416-GBIC) and you are not showing any In or Out-Discard errors, do you mind sending me your config on the port to compare with my own? 2. I know there is an issue due to the buffer size on the port on cat6500 series, but since this problem doesnt exist on all of my switches, has anyone experienced this problem, and if so, what did you do to correct it? Thanks, K.

2 1

RE: Security on Win2k
by Nail, Larry 28 Mar '03

28 Mar '03

Bill, Not sure where you're going here? File shares are controlled by the ACL's of the Share & the File ACL's. This is the excact same way an NT/W2K file server controls access. If the Share is set to read only, the access to the share & the files in it are limited to read only. Even if the file level ACL's are set to full control, the access is still read only. Think "most restrictive". Regards, Larry -----Original Message----- From: Bill Bello [mailto:Bill.Bello@hds.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 6:46 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com All, A question has come up in our lab on the subject. If 'read only' is set on the filer for a CIFS share, a user can still have full rights to that share IF security is NOT set in Win2k as well. Has anyone figured a way to make the share secure from the filer only? Thanks in advance. Regards, Bill Bello ATC PreSales Open Systems Support Westchester Office (914) 773-9131 New York Office (212) 827-1314

1 0

RE: Security on Win2k
by Mike Sphar 28 Mar '03

28 Mar '03

This doesn't sound correct to me. Have you actually tested it? In windows network permissions, share permissions are applied first, then individual file or directory ACLs are applied, and the most restrictive permissions always apply. So if a share is read-only to a user, then even if all the files in that share are writeable by everyone, then that user should not be able to update those files or create any new files or directories in that share. I would be very surprised to find that Netapp was not emulating the standard windows file server behavior in this case. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Remedy, a BMC Software Company -----Original Message----- From: Bill Bello [mailto:Bill.Bello@hds.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 6:46 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Security on Win2k All, A question has come up in our lab on the subject. If 'read only' is set on the filer for a CIFS share, a user can still have full rights to that share IF security is NOT set in Win2k as well. Has anyone figured a way to make the share secure from the filer only? Thanks in advance. Regards, Bill Bello ATC PreSales Open Systems Support Westchester Office (914) 773-9131 New York Office (212) 827-1314

1 0

Security on Win2k
by Bill Bello 28 Mar '03

28 Mar '03

All, A question has come up in our lab on the subject. If 'read only' is set on the filer for a CIFS share, a user can still have full rights to that share IF security is NOT set in Win2k as well. Has anyone figured a way to make the share secure from the filer only? Thanks in advance. Regards, Bill Bello ATC PreSales Open Systems Support Westchester Office (914) 773-9131 New York Office (212) 827-1314

1 0

snapshots
by George Kahler 27 Mar '03

27 Mar '03

HI, I was wondering if there is a performance issue of letting the snapshot reserve (the size of the current snapshot area) roll into the regular data area of the volume, ie. snapshot capacity be at > 100 % ? All things aside, does the filer perform any less under this condition ? Thanks. George ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- George Kahler e-mail: george(a)yorku.ca Sr. Systems Administrator humans: (416) 736-2100 x.22699 Computing and Network Services machines: (416) 736-5830 Ontario, Canada, M3J-1P3

2 1

RE: maxdir size on ontap 6.2 and higher
by Sam Schorr 27 Mar '03

27 Mar '03

I have found this bug at the NOW site: 69823 Here is the text. There is a workaround documented and it is fixed in 6.3 and up: Before OnTAP release 6.2, wafl.maxdirsize was a filer-wide option that could legally take on values larger than 64 MB (65,536 x 1,024 bytes). OnTAP 6.2 changes wafl.maxdirsize in two important ways. First, it obsoletes the single, filer-wide option and replaces it individual maxdirsize settings for each volume. Second, it allows maxdirsize to be set no higher than 64 MB. In filers that had set wafl.maxdirsize to a value greater than 65,536 (64 MB), an upgrade to OnTAP 6.2 sets the new per-volume maxdirsize value to its default, 10,240 (10 MB). The upgrade output does not highlight this change to the system administrator. Given that wafl.maxdirsize had been previously set to a much larger value, there is a good probability that the upgrade will produce a nontrivial number of directories that are now larger than the volume's new (relatively small) maxdirsize setting. Although all such directories can still be loaded into memory and handle lookups, they have been rendered "ungrowable". Workaround Formatted Before upgrading any filer whose wafl.maxdirsize is larger than 64 MB, examine its volumes to locate all "large" (over 10 MB) directories. If any such large directories exist, please reset wafl.maxdirsize on the filer to an appropriate value (that is still smaller than the new 64 MB limit) BEFORE the upgrade. This way, the upgrade to OnTAP 6.2 will propagate this more reasonable value to each volume. If any existing directories are LARGER than 64 MB, try to reduce their size below 64 MB. Since directories never shrink in OnTAP, you may be able to recreate these very large ones and thus get rid of a significant amount of wasted space. If, despite these efforts, you still have directories that are larger than 64 MB, then they will be "ungrowable" after the upgrade. If you have already upgraded one or more filers to OnTAP 6.2 whose wafl.maxdir option had been set to more than 64 MB, you should check them for any large directories that are now past the new 10 MB default per-volume maxdirsize setting. Use the "vol options" command to raise maxdirsize to a value large enough to make those directories growable again (as long as they are still below the new 64 MB maximum). Notes Formatted Network Appliance is working on a change to the maxdirsize portion of the OnTAP 6.2 upgrade that sets a more reasonable value in these circumstances. In cases where the filer-wide wafl.maxdirsize setting is found to be larger than 64 MB, the upgrade will choose a maxdirsize of 64 MB (instead of 10 MB). This guarantees that all existing directories that are still smaller than the new 64 MB limit are still growable, and minimizes user "surprise". The upgrade code will also print out a message describing the change in maxdirsize (and its implications) to administrators. Related Solutions Version Found Data ONTAP: 6.1.3R1 Likely Exists Data ONTAP: 6.1.3R1 through 6.2.2 Fixed-In Version Data ONTAP 6.3 (First Fixed) - Fixed Data ONTAP 6.3.1R1 (GA) - Fixed Data ONTAP 6.3.2(FCS) - Fixed Data ONTAP 6.4R1(FCS) - Fixed -----Original Message----- From: Reinoud Reynders [mailto:Reinoud.Reynders@uz.kuleuven.ac.be] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 12:41 AM To: kyle; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: maxdir size on ontap 6.2 and higher Hi Kyle, This is indeed a problem, and on this moment, there is no workaround. I have the same problem. We have done some migration from 1 directory to multi directories. Netapp is working on this issue, but for the details, you must contact your local netapp guys. Best regards, Reinoud ----- Original Message ----- From: "kyle" <kyle(a)sportsline.com> To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 8:14 PM Subject: maxdir size on ontap 6.2 and higher > Seems there is a limit of 64k. This is keeping me from upgrading. I > currently use 6.1R1 and just tried upgrading one of my lab netapps and > see I cant go higher than 64k for maxdir size. Is there some workaround? > >

1 0

Re: Virus Scanning
by Seth Moskowitz 26 Mar '03

26 Mar '03

In my environment there are thousands of windows machines and although they have virus software there are always some cracks so I take the position that if you afford to do it and there is enough windows data to merit it then you should have virus protection on the Filers. My company already has Symantec NAV internally throughout the oganization as well as Mcaffee products on all the firewalls and e-mail servers. Given that Norton was here and they were the first to come out with a working product for the Filers I looked at it. It worked ok and has gotten better in time. 2 years ago I fully deployed Carrier Scan 2.0 which is now SAVSE 4.x. There have been some issues but during migrations from older Novell/NT servers to the Filers I have caught and cleaned 100's of viruses, especially from Novell servers. In the case of one migration from a merging companies server we caught 1400 viruses in one migration. Granted that isn't the norm but it happens. The set up I have built is basically that each filer has a dedicated 1GB network connection for Admin. Admin in this case includes snap mirror and virus scanning. Each Filer also has 2 virus scanning serves dedicated to it each with a 1GB network connection. Moving forward with the newer symantec version I will be pooling all of these scanning servers to basically create a scanning farm. I should mention this solution might be overkill for some but on our home server filers we have 3000+ clients each. We do not have scanning on our NFS only Filers but have over 50TB of data that is being scanned. Lastly since we already have a Symantec platform I leveraged that environment using the LiveUpdate features of Symantec so my virus definitions are automatically updated as our virus people stress test new definitions and roll them out to our LiveUpdate server(s). >From: Geoff Hardin <geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com> >To: toasters(a)mathworks.com >Subject: Virus Scanning >Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:44:53 -0600 > > I was wondering what other admins were using for virus scanning. And as >an aside, I really want to know whether it is worth the time and money. >Basically, I've been asked to evaluate the virus scanning software out >there for the filers, but I'm not really sure it's even necessary. > I am a UNIX admin, so I typically don't see the viruses that plague my >NT compatriots, but I don't believe we've really had a problem on our >filers with CIFS shares. But maybe I'm just biased, so that's why I'm >asking for your input. > >1. Which A/V software do you use > a) McAfee NetShield for Netapp > b) Symantec Antivirus for Netapp > c) Trend Micro Server Protect > d) other (are there any others?) > >2. Is it really necessary? Please explain your answer. > > >Thanks for any and all input. > >Geoff Hardin >UNIX System Administrator >geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com >This space is for rent in order to increase company revenue. > _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

1 0

maxdir size on ontap 6.2 and higher
by kyle 26 Mar '03

26 Mar '03

Seems there is a limit of 64k. This is keeping me from upgrading. I currently use 6.1R1 and just tried upgrading one of my lab netapps and see I cant go higher than 64k for maxdir size. Is there some workaround?

2 1

RE: Virus Scanning
by Mike Sphar 25 Mar '03

25 Mar '03

What situation are you still seeing virus files deposited? The only situations I'm aware of would be if a client placed the file there via NFS, then no scan takes place, or if a virus-infected file is embedded deep in an archive such as a zip or tar file. In the first case though, when a windows client attempts to read the file, I believe the virus scan will still take place, so it should get caught then. I'm not sure what solution there is to a deeply embedded virus. Most systems (server or desktop) simply can't handle the performance hit of doing deep scans of every zip file. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Remedy, a BMC Software Company -----Original Message----- From: David Papas [mailto:david.papas@newisys.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:13 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Virus Scanning I asked tis list recently regarding the "most popular software" part of your question. Trend seems to have been the winner in that poll, followed by Symantec. The reason I was inquiring is that, despite having file system and mail scanners everywhere else, I found it is still possible to deposit viruses on the filer. With a batch of infected files there, it is only a matter of time until an unprotected client connects and keeps spreading the love. -D. > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoff Hardin [mailto:geoff.hardin@dalsemi.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 11:45 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Virus Scanning > > > I was wondering what other admins were using for virus scanning. > And as an aside, I really want to know whether it is worth > the time and > money. Basically, I've been asked to evaluate the virus scanning > software out there for the filers, but I'm not really sure it's even > necessary. > I am a UNIX admin, so I typically don't see the viruses > that plague > my NT compatriots, but I don't believe we've really had a > problem on our > filers with CIFS shares. But maybe I'm just biased, so > that's why I'm > asking for your input. > > 1. Which A/V software do you use > a) McAfee NetShield for Netapp > b) Symantec Antivirus for Netapp > c) Trend Micro Server Protect > d) other (are there any others?) > > 2. Is it really necessary? Please explain your answer. > > > Thanks for any and all input. > > Geoff Hardin > UNIX System Administrator > geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com > This space is for rent in order to increase company revenue. > >

2 1

RE: Virus Scanning
by Ed Sanborn 25 Mar '03

25 Mar '03

One other consideration is the issue of new viruses. Viruses that do not yet have a fix posted in an antivirus software's definitions will not yet detect this new virus. Whether through email, web browsers, ftp download, etc, it can find it's way on the NetApp (especially if you are using the NetApp for home directories). Now if this new virus infects .exe's or other heavily shared files the virus can spread like wild-fire. Once the new virus fix is found and the new definition is posted and applied then it will be auto-detected just fine but by then the damage is done. The NetApp may already have a kagillion infected files. Although scanning does take a long time depending on how large your filesystems are I try to scan the NetApp atleast once a month. It will stop the spread of brand new viruses but atleast once the definition is in place atleast you'll find that you were infected and can actually clean-up. Of course, even if you we're hit and the PC client's have the new def's then whenever they hit one of the bad files they would sound the alarm too but I try to be proactive, atleast a bit, so that if files need to be restored I can get a jump on it before users complain. Also, another suggestion is to try and dissuade folks from placing executables of any nature on the fileserver. That is, if IT is using the server to place CD copies of MS-Office or other apps in order to more easily load software over the net try to not do this. The .exe files are too easily infected and then it is easy to spread the virus to other's unwittingly. The Klez virus nailed us here until I had a chance to reinstall our old, decrepit McAfee virus server. By the time I fixed the server and reinstalled client software our NetApp was soaked with viruses mostly .exe files.... -Ed -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mike.sphar@Remedy.COM] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:37 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Virus Scanning What situation are you still seeing virus files deposited? The only situations I'm aware of would be if a client placed the file there via NFS, then no scan takes place, or if a virus-infected file is embedded deep in an archive such as a zip or tar file. In the first case though, when a windows client attempts to read the file, I believe the virus scan will still take place, so it should get caught then. I'm not sure what solution there is to a deeply embedded virus. Most systems (server or desktop) simply can't handle the performance hit of doing deep scans of every zip file. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Remedy, a BMC Software Company -----Original Message----- From: David Papas [mailto:david.papas@newisys.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:13 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Virus Scanning I asked tis list recently regarding the "most popular software" part of your question. Trend seems to have been the winner in that poll, followed by Symantec. The reason I was inquiring is that, despite having file system and mail scanners everywhere else, I found it is still possible to deposit viruses on the filer. With a batch of infected files there, it is only a matter of time until an unprotected client connects and keeps spreading the love. -D. > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoff Hardin [mailto:geoff.hardin@dalsemi.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 11:45 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Virus Scanning > > > I was wondering what other admins were using for virus scanning. > And as an aside, I really want to know whether it is worth > the time and > money. Basically, I've been asked to evaluate the virus scanning > software out there for the filers, but I'm not really sure it's even > necessary. > I am a UNIX admin, so I typically don't see the viruses > that plague > my NT compatriots, but I don't believe we've really had a > problem on our > filers with CIFS shares. But maybe I'm just biased, so > that's why I'm > asking for your input. > > 1. Which A/V software do you use > a) McAfee NetShield for Netapp > b) Symantec Antivirus for Netapp > c) Trend Micro Server Protect > d) other (are there any others?) > > 2. Is it really necessary? Please explain your answer. > > > Thanks for any and all input. > > Geoff Hardin > UNIX System Administrator > geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com > This space is for rent in order to increase company revenue. > >

1 0

RE: Virus Scanning
by Mike Sphar 25 Mar '03

25 Mar '03

I think it depends on how close to 100% you can guarantee that your windows clients are virus free. Depending on permissions on your shares and files, all it could take is one infected windows machine in your entire network to infect thousands of files on your filer. We've had this happen probably at least a half-dozen times. We just have way too many windows machines in our network: desktop machines, laptops that people take home and hook up to their home networks, and often the worst of all lab machines since we often can't fully control how those machines are set up. We have probably hundreds of machines running IIS for web development, trying to keep all of them patched is so far an extremely difficult job. You can block viruses through your mail gateway, but are you blocking employees from accessing hotmail or msn or any other web-based mail? Because viruses can easily sneak into your network from there. Are you blocking/filtering ftp? Because that's another way. Not to mention the various P2P file sharing services. We have Norton corporate edition deployed throughout most of our desktop clients, which in theory should be keeping all the clients up-to-date, but we find far too often that the automated client updates aren't happening, or that the client AV software is not running for some reason, etc. From what I've heard from people using other vendors like Symantec and Mcafee in big enterprise environments, they can be plagued with similar problems as well. We're still working on deploying the Netapp AV solution from Trend (budgeting and planning can sometime take *way* too long) but when we deployed a trial version we were very impressed by the efficiency with which it stopped virus infections onto the file server. We started getting notices of attempted virus infections within minutes of activating the software. For a long time when people complained about viruses on the file server, I would take the position that if we just prevented virus infections on the client side there would be no problem. But I've come to accept that it is just virtually impossible to guarantee that you can keep every client on your network up to date and virus-free at all times. And manually scanning the file server regularly just isn't feasible, given a very large file server it can be like painting the golden gate bridge, and with today's viruses it can only take a window of a few minutes to infect thousands of files. So, in summary, I'd say that virus protection on the file server is very important, unless you are *very* confident that your windows clients will always be virus free, or perhaps if your file server is very very restrictive permission-wise, such that an individual infected user can't do anything more than damage their own personal folders, *and* you have good frequent backups. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Remedy, a BMC Software Company -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Hardin [mailto:geoff.hardin@dalsemi.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 11:45 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Virus Scanning I was wondering what other admins were using for virus scanning. And as an aside, I really want to know whether it is worth the time and money. Basically, I've been asked to evaluate the virus scanning software out there for the filers, but I'm not really sure it's even necessary. I am a UNIX admin, so I typically don't see the viruses that plague my NT compatriots, but I don't believe we've really had a problem on our filers with CIFS shares. But maybe I'm just biased, so that's why I'm asking for your input. 1. Which A/V software do you use a) McAfee NetShield for Netapp b) Symantec Antivirus for Netapp c) Trend Micro Server Protect d) other (are there any others?) 2. Is it really necessary? Please explain your answer. Thanks for any and all input. Geoff Hardin UNIX System Administrator geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com This space is for rent in order to increase company revenue.

1 0

RE: Virus Scanning
by David Papas 25 Mar '03

25 Mar '03

I asked tis list recently regarding the "most popular software" part of your question. Trend seems to have been the winner in that poll, followed by Symantec. The reason I was inquiring is that, despite having file system and mail scanners everywhere else, I found it is still possible to deposit viruses on the filer. With a batch of infected files there, it is only a matter of time until an unprotected client connects and keeps spreading the love. -D. > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoff Hardin [mailto:geoff.hardin@dalsemi.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 11:45 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Virus Scanning > > > I was wondering what other admins were using for virus scanning. > And as an aside, I really want to know whether it is worth > the time and > money. Basically, I've been asked to evaluate the virus scanning > software out there for the filers, but I'm not really sure it's even > necessary. > I am a UNIX admin, so I typically don't see the viruses > that plague > my NT compatriots, but I don't believe we've really had a > problem on our > filers with CIFS shares. But maybe I'm just biased, so > that's why I'm > asking for your input. > > 1. Which A/V software do you use > a) McAfee NetShield for Netapp > b) Symantec Antivirus for Netapp > c) Trend Micro Server Protect > d) other (are there any others?) > > 2. Is it really necessary? Please explain your answer. > > > Thanks for any and all input. > > Geoff Hardin > UNIX System Administrator > geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com > This space is for rent in order to increase company revenue. > >

1 0

Virus Scanning
by Geoff Hardin 25 Mar '03

25 Mar '03

I was wondering what other admins were using for virus scanning. And as an aside, I really want to know whether it is worth the time and money. Basically, I've been asked to evaluate the virus scanning software out there for the filers, but I'm not really sure it's even necessary. I am a UNIX admin, so I typically don't see the viruses that plague my NT compatriots, but I don't believe we've really had a problem on our filers with CIFS shares. But maybe I'm just biased, so that's why I'm asking for your input. 1. Which A/V software do you use a) McAfee NetShield for Netapp b) Symantec Antivirus for Netapp c) Trend Micro Server Protect d) other (are there any others?) 2. Is it really necessary? Please explain your answer. Thanks for any and all input. Geoff Hardin UNIX System Administrator geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com This space is for rent in order to increase company revenue.

1 0

Will a DS14 shelf go in to a 900 deep rack?
by Clawson, Simon 25 Mar '03

25 Mar '03

Hi, I have two DS14 selves in an 800mm rack and the went in no trouble. Due to the massive tape library I use I need to switch over to a 900mm rack. Will the rail kit on the DS14 extend far enough back to go into a 900 deep rack? Simon Simon Clawson Mentor Graphics HDL Designer Series R&D Rivergate Systems Administrator London Road Berkshire RG14 2QB TEL: 01635 811409

1 0

PC�\�t�g��̔��I�I�I
by soft123 25 Mar '03

25 Mar '03

��Ãr�W�l�X�\�t�g�̔�! �l�C��i��W�߂ăZ�b�g�̔��܂� http://softsoft0.www2.dotnetplayground.com http://www.kurthost.net/softsoft/ http://www.online.in.th/softsoft/cd/ http://softsoft.flashmaster.ru http://www.duno.com/softsoft/index.html http://softsoft.erospace.pl/

1 0

[SUMMARY]Re: Terminating CIFS sessions via CLI.
by Clarence Ngoh 24 Mar '03

24 Mar '03

Mark The way we have it structured is that the destination file is locked. This is where the users have access to the templates. The source file/location is never locked - this is where the developers update the templates to put to the destination. As one of the people suggested, perhaps the best way to approach this is to rsh to the filer, get the list of username's that have the file opened, then running through a regexp, and then terminating the user's cifs sessions. This job can be scheduled on the weekend or in the wee hours of the morning when we are certain that the file is not needed. -- Clarence. In a distant galaxy, far, far, away, Muhlestein, Mark wrote: > Is the source file locked, or the destination? If it's the source, maybe > you could create a snapshot first, then copy from the snapshot, since > that wouldn't have any openers on it. That also has the advantage that > all the source files will be consistent in time. > > Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: Clarence Ngoh [mailto:cngoh@bigpond.net.au] > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 7:31 PM > To: Stephane Bentebba; Ngoh, Clarence; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Terminating CIFS sessions via CLI. > > The use of cifs terminate [user] terminates all the files opened by the > user. > What I am looking is something that will go into more detail i.e. > terminating > only "certain" files opened by the user not all the files. > > The reason for this is I am writing a script that will copy global > templates > from the master templates directory to the templates folder. If the > file is > in used by the user, the copy job will not proceed. > > Thanks for your replies so far. > > -- Clarence. > > > On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:49 pm, in a distant galaxy, Stephane Bentebba, > > wrote: > > filer cli provide the command : > > cifs terminate { machine | user } > > this let you terminate a cifs session for a user or a machine in > > particular, > > you can get users with the "cifs session" command : > > << > > genghis:~/tmp# rsh nac cifs sessions > > Server Registers as 'MYFILER' in group 'MYDOMAIN' > > Root volume language is not set. Use vol lang. > > Using the UNIX password database for authentication > > Comment: Filer FPS > > ======================================== > > PC (user) #shares #files > > AMACHINE (user1 - user1) 1 0 > > ANOTHERMACHINE (user2 - user2) > > 2 1 > > > > as you can see, I used this command throught rsh, so you could get > > users > > > throught rsh, make a script wich parse the ouput and launch several > > rsh > > > cifs terminate user/machine as you need. > > > > bye > > > > Ngoh, Clarence wrote: > > >Hi all > > > > > >I was wondering if any of you has attempted to kill a single or a set > > of > > > >CIFS sessions via CLI? After obtaining the files that are opened > > via > > > > cifs sessions on the filer, I wish to run a regexp through it and > > kill a > > > > set of opened files. > > > > > >Do you if there is a utility for Windows to do this via CLI or if > > there is > > > >an equivalent way of doing this via UNIX? The only method that I am > > > limited to so far is using MMC to list the appropriate open files > > and > > > > terminating it. > > > > > >TIA. > > > > > >-- Clarence. > > > > > > > > >************** IMPORTANT MESSAGE ************** > > >This e-mail message is intended only for the addressee(s) and > > contains > > > > information which may be confidential. If you are not the intended > > > recipient please advise the sender by return email, do not use or > > > disclose the contents, and delete the message and any attachments > > from > > > > your system. Unless specifically indicated, this email does not > > > constitute formal advice or commitment by the sender or the > > Commonwealth > > > > Bank of Australia (ABN 48 123 123 124) or its subsidiaries. > > > **************************************************

2 1

Terminating CIFS sessions via CLI.
by Ngoh, Clarence 22 Mar '03

22 Mar '03

Hi all I was wondering if any of you has attempted to kill a single or a set of CIFS sessions via CLI? After obtaining the files that are opened via cifs sessions on the filer, I wish to run a regexp through it and kill a set of opened files. Do you if there is a utility for Windows to do this via CLI or if there is an equivalent way of doing this via UNIX? The only method that I am limited to so far is using MMC to list the appropriate open files and terminating it. TIA. -- Clarence. ************** IMPORTANT MESSAGE ************** This e-mail message is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains information which may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient please advise the sender by return email, do not use or disclose the contents, and delete the message and any attachments from your system. Unless specifically indicated, this email does not constitute formal advice or commitment by the sender or the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (ABN 48 123 123 124) or its subsidiaries. **************************************************

3 2

RE: Terminating CIFS sessions via CLI.
by Smith, Gil 21 Mar '03

21 Mar '03

Also, try "cifs sessions *" to get the info you are looking for because it will give you details on each file opened by each session/user. -Gil -----Original Message----- From: Stephane Bentebba [mailto:stephane.bentebba@fps.fr] Sent: Fri 3/21/2003 6:49 AM To: Ngoh, Clarence; toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: Subject: Re: Terminating CIFS sessions via CLI. filer cli provide the command : cifs terminate { machine | user } this let you terminate a cifs session for a user or a machine in particular, you can get users with the "cifs session" command : << genghis:~/tmp# rsh nac cifs sessions Server Registers as 'MYFILER' in group 'MYDOMAIN' Root volume language is not set. Use vol lang. Using the UNIX password database for authentication Comment: Filer FPS ======================================== PC (user) #shares #files AMACHINE (user1 - user1) 1 0 ANOTHERMACHINE (user2 - user2) 2 1 >> as you can see, I used this command throught rsh, so you could get users throught rsh, make a script wich parse the ouput and launch several rsh cifs terminate user/machine as you need. bye Ngoh, Clarence wrote: >Hi all > >I was wondering if any of you has attempted to kill a single or a set of >CIFS sessions via CLI? After obtaining the files that are opened via cifs >sessions on the filer, I wish to run a regexp through it and kill a set of >opened files. > >Do you if there is a utility for Windows to do this via CLI or if there is >an equivalent way of doing this via UNIX? The only method that I am limited >to so far is using MMC to list the appropriate open files and terminating >it. > >TIA. > >-- Clarence. > > >************** IMPORTANT MESSAGE ************** >This e-mail message is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains information which may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient please advise the sender by return email, do not use or disclose the contents, and delete the message and any attachments from your system. Unless specifically indicated, this email does not constitute formal advice or commitment by the sender or the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (ABN 48 123 123 124) or its subsidiaries. >************************************************** > > > >

1 0

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