toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

mounting foreign root volume (multiple root volumes) causes panick
by steve＠hq.newdream.net 06 Jan '03

06 Jan '03

Does anyone know if you can mount two (or more) root volumes on one filer and how tell it which on to boot from? I had a filer/shelf with a corrupt vol0. However there was user data on there I wanted to get at. So I mounted it on another test filer whose root volume was named boot, but the filer now complained about having two root volumes (boot and vol0). Thu Jan 2 21:09:00 GMT [fmmbx_instanceWorke:info]: Disk 4.1 is a primary mailbox disk Thu Jan 2 21:09:00 GMT [fmmbx_instanceWorke:info]: Disk 4.0 is a primary mailbox disk Thu Jan 2 21:09:00 GMT [fmmbx_instanceWorke:info]: normal mailbox instance on primary side Thu Jan 2 21:09:01 GMT [raid.assim.tree.multipleRootVols:error]: Volumes vol0 and boot both claim to be the root volume. 2 root volumes found: vol0 boot PANIC: 2 root volumes found, 2 of which are online. in process rc on release NetApp Release 6.3.1 on Thu Jan 2 21:09:02 2003 version: NetApp Release 6.3.1: Wed Nov 20 13:00:54 PST 2002 cc flags: 1 I was trying to boot both as readonly so I could boot off a previous inode on the corrupt vol0. Anyone know if there is a way to specify which volume to boot from when you are mounting multiple root volumes on one filer? I've already gotten the data in another fashion but I thought it should be able to mount two root volumes on one filer. Steve

2 1

未承諾広告※出会いチャット！
by cocoa 06 Jan '03

06 Jan '03

MÒRNu \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ @@@@@@ßÅ·àŠ@PoÅR~I @@@PñÌ[ÌóMÅR~ªáŠ¿á€I @TChrWlXH@ûüH@à€MûÍ[Ü©¹ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ±ÌéæÉQÁó]ÌûÍºLÌ[AhXÉMûÌ[AhXðÔMµÄŸ³¢B @@@@@@momoko_club2003@yahoo.co.jp V é æ ú{ÅåÌ`bg[ªnodmµÜµœBià¿ëñ³¿j lXÈoï¢ðßé Èœ¥ñ²pº³¢B http://www.gg-koukoku.com/index.html [ÌóMðó]µÈ¢ûÍºLÜÅÔMº³¢B me465156(a)members.interq.or.jp Z@@sæâÀ8-19-3 3F sdk@090-1214-7883 RÌ®

1 0

Mac (pre OSX) and NFS
by Peter Bryant 06 Jan '03

06 Jan '03

*** Before acting on this e-mail or opening any attachment you are advised to read the disclaimer at the end of this e-mail *** Anyone out there got any preferences for MAC (OS9) NFS clients to toaster world? We've been using Helios Ethershare from the Sun servers, but I want to remove that part of the equation.... Cheers, Peter ******************************* Disclaimer ***************************** Confidentiality: This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the addressee(s) only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please reply to this e-mail and highlight the error. Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. ********************** http://www.burallplastec.com ********************

1 0

Bakbone and Netapp
by Levent Kaptanoglu 04 Jan '03

04 Jan '03

Hello , My company is providing security and storage solutions and we are a Netapp Reseller. Nowadays we are looking for a backup software to expand our storage solutions and I am examining Bakbone's Netvault . I read some guides , whitepapers , reports which I have received from Bakbone and they are all positive but I need some real world experience. Any positive/negative feedback from you about using Bakbone with Filer or any other storage products would be very helpful. Thanks in advance Levent Kaptanoglu System Engineer PROLINK *:+90 216 5737300 ext.108 *:+90 532 4507283 *:+90 216 5737307 *:www.prolink.com.tr

2 1

RE: accessing local group
by Bui, Marcus 02 Jan '03

02 Jan '03

I can mapped to the ETC folder, but unable to view/change the contents. Get 'access denied'. -----Original Message----- From: Fox, Adam [mailto:Adam.Fox@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 2:49 PM To: 'Bui, Marcus' Subject: RE: accessing local group The key is to be in the Local Adminstrators group. When you changed domains, perhaps this wasn't updated. Try taking a peek at the filer etc\lclgroups.cfg on the filer and look at the SIDs under the Administrators group. You can use the cifs lookup command to decode the SIDs. If the Domain Admins Group isn't there, fix it by changing the SIDs. BE VERY CAREFUL and have your old copy of this file available either by copying it or having a known good copy in a snapshot because you want to be careful and be able to fall back. In order to make CIFS see changes in this file, you must terminate and restart cifs (at least it's quicker than a reboot). Hope this helps. You may want to consider calling NTAP to walk you through it, but that's how I would approach it. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Bui, Marcus [mailto:Marcus_Bui@AIMFUNDS.COM] Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 2:39 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: accessing local group All, I have a test F85 (ONTAP 6.2.2) in an NT4 Domain but I am unable to access the local group on the filer. The box was previously in W2K AD but was moved to an NT4 domain. The filer is listed in the domain. I logged as Domain Admin but still get 'access denied' when trying to access the filer's local group. Did 'cifs testdc' and it is authenticating to the correct DC. Any suggestions is appreciated. thanks, Marcus Bui

2 1

sizing for space_reservation
by Nicko Demeter 02 Jan '03

02 Jan '03

I have an F840c filer and I am trying to create a VLD drive on another host. Everything is peachy except that I don't have enough disk space. VLD apparently needs space_reservation on but I cannot turn it on because of space. Here's a df -r: Filesystem kbytes used avail reserved Mounted on /vol/vol0/ 551319184 448615848 102691880 11456 /vol/vol0/ /vol/vol0/.snapshot 137829796 74526472 63303324 0 /vol/vol0/.snapshot and here's what I get after trying to turn on space_reservation: vol options: Option 'space_reservations' could not be set. Volume does not have enough free disk space. Is there a sizing tool that I can put my numbers in and tell me how much free or additional space I need to be able to turn on space_reservations? TIA. Nicko

1 0

accessing local group
by Bui, Marcus 02 Jan '03

02 Jan '03

All, I have a test F85 (ONTAP 6.2.2) in an NT4 Domain but I am unable to access the local group on the filer. The box was previously in W2K AD but was moved to an NT4 domain. The filer is listed in the domain. I logged as Domain Admin but still get 'access denied' when trying to access the filer's local group. Did 'cifs testdc' and it is authenticating to the correct DC. Any suggestions is appreciated. thanks, Marcus Bui

1 0

CONGRATULATIONS!!!
by ALPHA LOTTERY INTERNATIONAL 02 Jan '03

02 Jan '03

ALPHA LOTTERY INTERNATIONAL FROM: INTERNATIONAL PROMOTION/PRIZE AWARD DEPT. REF: OGS/2311786008/01 BATCH: 14/011/IPD /NL RE: WINNING NOTIFICATION / FINAL NOTICE Sir/Madam We are pleased to inform you of the result of the of the Lottery Winners International programs held on the 1st of January 2003. Your e-mail address attached to ticket number 20511465886-629 with serial number 3772-99 drew lucky numbers 7-14-17-23-31-22 which consequently won in the 2nd category, you have therefore been approved for a lump sum pay out of 1,000,000.00 Euro. (One Million Euro) CONGRATULATIONS!!! Due to mix up of some numbers and names, we ask that you keep your winning information confidential until your claims has been processed and your money Remitted to you. This is part of our security protocol to avoid double claiming and unwarranted abuse of this program by some participants. All participants were selected through a computer ballot system drawn from over 100,000 company and 50,000,000 individual email addresses and names from all over the world. This promotional program takes place every three year. We hope with part of your winning you will take part in our end of year 50 million Euro International lottery. To file for your claim, please contact our fiducially agent MR DUCK HAVARD of the, NORTH ATLANTIC CONSULTANCY TEL:+31-627 431 470 FAX:+31-641 744 645 Email: duckhavard(a)netscape.net Remember, all winning must be claimed not later than 31st of January 2003. After this date all unclaimed funds will be included in the next stake. Please note in order to avoid unnecessary delays and complications please remember to quote your reference number and batch numbers in all correspondence. Furthermore, should there be any change of address do inform our agent as soon as possible. Congratulations once more from our members of staff and thank you for being part of our promotional program. Note: Anybody under the age of 18 is automatically disqualified. Sincerely yours, Mrs. Elizabeth Van Bosch Lottery Coordinator.

1 0

gigabit disappointment
by Piotr KUCHARSKI 31 Dec '02

31 Dec '02

Welcome toasters, I must say I'm pretty disappointed with gigabit. Having ATM OC3 in filer and OC12 in Solaris 2.6 I was getting 12MB/s read. After installing gigabit cards in both it is now max 15MB/s -- I was rather expecting more than 30MB/s. UDP/TCP no matter (well, TCP is a bit slower), rsize and wsize are 32k, so is xfersize. I start to seriously consider buying OC12 for filer and use it for (more or less) back to back connection with that Sun, which might seem to be more effective. (I'll try to get such card for testing, though.) Gigabit in Sun is SunGigabit, in filer is GbE-II in slot 8 (e8: GbE-II is self-configuring - mediatype ignored, so I cannot disable negotation, like I used to in FE). I'm waiting for Sun GigaSwift and perhaps GbE-III, but don't know if it's going to help. Any pieces of advice, perhaps? p. PS Sun processors are 4x450MHz, latest Solaris/GbE patches applied, filer is 740 with 6.2.1 -- Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -- Commissioner Pravin Lal http://nerdquiz.sgh.waw.pl/ -- polska wersja quizu dla nerdów ;)

1 0

Slow Solaris 2.6 NFS client
by Dan O'Brien 31 Dec '02

31 Dec '02

Hello, We are having trouble with a Solaris client having slow read performance. Both the Filer, F630 running 5.3.6R2, and Solaris, Ultra 2 running 2.6, client are on 100BT networks coupled thru Linksys EF24G2 Fast Etherswitch. I looked at the obvious, all ethernet devices are in 100BT mode, running full duplex. SUNW,hme0: Using Internal Transceiver SUNW,hme0: 100 Mbps full-duplex Link Up slot 4: 10BaseT/100BaseTX Quad-Ethernet Controller e4a MAC Address: 00:c0:95:e0:2f:48 (100tx-fd-up) Both are running V3 NFS over UDP. I set the filer to nfs.udp.xfersize=8192. (We changed this from the default value with only small improvement in performance.) The filer is serving just a few clients and at this point the only real, demanding, client is this one Sun. Reads are quote slow. Here's what the filer says during this time: mlswfsa> sysstat CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 1% 0 0 0 0 2 42 42 0 0 >60 1% 0 0 0 0 2 45 52 0 0 >60 1% 0 0 0 0 1 27 27 0 0 >60 1% 2 0 0 1 2 15 14 0 0 >60 1% 0 0 0 0 2 43 52 0 0 >60 3% 18 0 0 3 52 197 83 0 0 >60 I do see a some timeouts and retrans on the Solaris box: Client rpc: Connection oriented: calls badcalls badxids timeouts newcreds badverfs 929582 9 1 8 0 0 timers cantconn nomem interrupts 0 0 0 1 Connectionless: calls badcalls retrans badxids timeouts newcreds 28489619 630 323405 5 324069 0 badverfs timers nomem cantsend 0 238992 0 0 Any pointers? Thanks in advance. Dan O'Brien, dmobrien(a)lcsi.net Cell: 614-783-4859 Work: 614-476-8473 Home: 740-927-2178 Pataskala, OH

3 3

RE: Slow Solaris 2.6 NFS client
by Toal, Dave 30 Dec '02

30 Dec '02

Dan, What does iostat -xnp 1 on the sun box look like? Are nfs mounts at 100% busy? 2.6 is a real dog when it comes to concurrent nfs i/o; start a cp in a mounted dir, and ls (from another terminal, cd to that same dir) will hang for 30 seconds sometimes. 2.8, no problem. -- Dave Toal Systems Architect Thomson & Thomson N. Quincy, MA -----Original Message----- From: Dan O'Brien To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Cc: Wijit Siripun Sent: 12/30/02 4:17 PM Subject: Slow Solaris 2.6 NFS client Hello, We are having trouble with a Solaris client having slow read performance. Both the Filer, F630 running 5.3.6R2, and Solaris, Ultra 2 running 2.6, client are on 100BT networks coupled thru Linksys EF24G2 Fast Etherswitch. I looked at the obvious, all ethernet devices are in 100BT mode, running full duplex. SUNW,hme0: Using Internal Transceiver SUNW,hme0: 100 Mbps full-duplex Link Up slot 4: 10BaseT/100BaseTX Quad-Ethernet Controller e4a MAC Address: 00:c0:95:e0:2f:48 (100tx-fd-up) Both are running V3 NFS over UDP. I set the filer to nfs.udp.xfersize=8192. (We changed this from the default value with only small improvement in performance.) The filer is serving just a few clients and at this point the only real, demanding, client is this one Sun. Reads are quote slow. Here's what the filer says during this time: mlswfsa> sysstat CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 1% 0 0 0 0 2 42 42 0 0 >60 1% 0 0 0 0 2 45 52 0 0 >60 1% 0 0 0 0 1 27 27 0 0 >60 1% 2 0 0 1 2 15 14 0 0 >60 1% 0 0 0 0 2 43 52 0 0 >60 3% 18 0 0 3 52 197 83 0 0 >60 I do see a some timeouts and retrans on the Solaris box: Client rpc: Connection oriented: calls badcalls badxids timeouts newcreds badverfs 929582 9 1 8 0 0 timers cantconn nomem interrupts 0 0 0 1 Connectionless: calls badcalls retrans badxids timeouts newcreds 28489619 630 323405 5 324069 0 badverfs timers nomem cantsend 0 238992 0 0 Any pointers? Thanks in advance. Dan O'Brien, dmobrien(a)lcsi.net Cell: 614-783-4859 Work: 614-476-8473 Home: 740-927-2178 Pataskala, OH

1 0

Weird error
by July ＠ Zerowait 30 Dec '02

30 Dec '02

Hi. Anyone ever seen output like this on booting a F700 series filer? If so, how do I get rid of it!!!? TIA-- July ----------------------- NetApp Release 6.2.1: Tue Jun 25 01:22:35 PDT 2002 Copyright (c) 1992-2002 Network Appliance, Inc. Starting boot on Thu Dec 26 16:56:30 GMT 2002 Thu Dec 26 16:57:09 GMT [net_e0:info]: Ethernet e0: Link up. Thu Dec 26 16:57:09 GMT [snmp.link.up:debug]: Interface 1 is up fm_run: completed stage B4ASSIM Thu Dec 26 16:57:19 GMT [fmmbx_instanceWorke:info]: Disk 7.4 is a primary mailbo x disk Thu Dec 26 16:57:19 GMT [fmmbx_instanceWorke:info]: Disk 7.3 is a primary mailbo x disk Thu Dec 26 16:57:19 GMT [fmmbx_instanceWorke:info]: normal mailbox instance on p rimary side fm_run: completed stage 1 processing Loading volume vol0 fm_run: completed stage 2 processing fm_run: completed stage 3 processing Thu Dec 26 16:57:22 GMT [rc:notice]: The system was down for 136 seconds Thu Dec 26 16:57:26 GMT [ems.engine.startReplay:info]: Replay begins for EMS boo t-time cache Thu Dec 26 16:57:26 GMT [ems.engine.endReplay:info]: Replay ends for EMS boot-ti me cache July Linett Zerowait Corporation tel: 302.266.9408

2 1

NearStore questions
by Haber, David J. 27 Dec '02

27 Dec '02

I'm setting up a new R100 and I'm hoping someone can clarify a few things for me: 1. I was told by a NetApp sales engineer to reserve 4 disks for spares. This sounded like overkill to me. Does anyone have an opinion about this? 2. After the NearStore disks are right sized, how much usable space is left? 3. Is it a bad thing to have the root volume contain data? I will be using the NearStore to store radiology images. The image files are large, static files.

4 3

snapshot_for_backup problem
by Leigh David Heyman 24 Dec '02

24 Dec '02

Hi, I have a snapshot_for_backup which snap list reports as "busy" but it's not. There's no backups currently running. However, when I try to delete this snapshot I get "Snapshot in use by dump or a CIFS share." I've confirmed that dump is not running, nor are any of the cifs sessions touching it. How can I get rid of this snapshot? My snap reserve is about to get dangerously full. Thanks, -Leigh

9 10

RE: snapshot_for_backup problem
by John Clear 20 Dec '02

20 Dec '02

DataOnTap below version <mumble> has this problem. Unfortunately, the only way to clear it is to reboot and then delete it. IIRC, it was fixed in 6.0 or 6.1, since we haven't seen it in awhile. John -----Original Message----- From: Leigh David Heyman To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Sent: 12/20/2002 10:35 AM Subject: snapshot_for_backup problem Hi, I have a snapshot_for_backup which snap list reports as "busy" but it's not. There's no backups currently running. However, when I try to delete this snapshot I get "Snapshot in use by dump or a CIFS share." I've confirmed that dump is not running, nor are any of the cifs sessions touching it. How can I get rid of this snapshot? My snap reserve is about to get dangerously full. Thanks, -Leigh

1 0

RE: snapshot_for_backup problem
by Toal, Dave 20 Dec '02

20 Dec '02

Leigh, Has the filer been rebooted since the snap was created? I've seen failed ndmp (netbackup) jobs leave them in this state, ndmpd status showed none, but reboot killed/closed something. -- Dave Toal Systems reenignE Thomson & Thomson N. Quincy, MA -----Original Message----- From: Leigh David Heyman To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Sent: 12/20/02 1:35 PM Subject: snapshot_for_backup problem Hi, I have a snapshot_for_backup which snap list reports as "busy" but it's not. There's no backups currently running. However, when I try to delete this snapshot I get "Snapshot in use by dump or a CIFS share." I've confirmed that dump is not running, nor are any of the cifs sessions touching it. How can I get rid of this snapshot? My snap reserve is about to get dangerously full. Thanks, -Leigh

1 0

Defragmentation
by Edward Hibbert 20 Dec '02

20 Dec '02

I think it's general knowledge that once a NetApp gets above 90% full, performance starts to degrade quite noticeably. I've been testing an application recently and observed that this is the case on ONTAP 5.2: * When ~95% full, my performance test came up with a number of ~4 seconds. * Freeing up space to get to around 60% full, the number was ~3.5 seconds. * Copying off my data files and copying them back to defragment them, the number was 2.8s. The only thing I've been able to find about fragmentation is: * Some statements that WAFL tries hard to avoid fragmentation (which I'm sure it does) but can't always (which I'm sure of too). * Copying off data and copying it back again is the only way to resolve it. The latter solution doesn't seem practical if the data in question is supposed to be available 24*7. Some applications have a method of doing this at an application level, but does anyone know whether there are methods/future plans for background non-intrusive defragmentation at a filesystem level? Or is it just me who thinks this would be a good idea? Edward Hibbert Internet Applications Group Data Connection Ltd Tel: +44 131 662 1212 Fax: +44 131 662 1345 Email: eh(a)dataconnection.com Web: http://www.dataconnection.com

4 4

RE: Jukeboxes for filers
by Ed Sanborn 19 Dec '02

19 Dec '02

Hi folks, I too am using QuickRestore and backing up my F720 via a SpectraLogic Ait-2 Bullfrog tape library direct-attached via HVD SCSI to the filer. I am see'ing about 16GB's transfer rate over SCSI. However, all for all of my other clients (PC's, Sun's, etc.) I am see'ing only about 1.7 GB transfer rate. All of these other clients are being backed up over a 100Mb switched network. 2 of my clients take about 6+ hours to backup as they have about 13GB of data on each of them. I was contemplating purchasing local tape drives for these 2 clients however more tape libraries equals more tape changing headaches. Have folks found that migrating clients like these to GigE REALLY does take care of the I/O issue? It certainly makes sense to me but I want to be sure before purchasing GiGE NIC cards. Thanks, Ed -----Original Message----- From: Quentin Fennessy [mailto:quentin.fennessy@amd.com] Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 1:58 PM To: Ed Sanborn Cc: Geoff Hardin; Barry Lustig; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Jukeboxes for filers >>>>> Ed Sanborn writes: > That's 16MB/sec over GigE? Yes. > -----Original Message----- > From: Quentin Fennessy [mailto:quentin.fennessy@amd.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 1:02 PM > To: Geoff Hardin > Cc: Barry Lustig; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Jukeboxes for filers >>>>> Geoff Hardin writes: >> Barry, >> We use an ATL P3000 library with 16 DLT7000 drives. We use >> Workstation Solutions QuickRestore (now Reliaty Backup) to back >> everything up. We have 15 filers being backed up and the library is >> starting to get overwhelmed. We are considering the new SDLT drives, >> since they are backwards read compatible with DLT. It's been a great >> solution for over two years now; only change I would have made would >> have been to wait for the P3000 GbE library. > We've installed a P14000 with 24 SDLT220 Gigethernet NDMP tape drives, also > using Quickrestore. > First: Quickrestore is an excellent product, with excellent vendor support. > The Reliaty/Quickrestore staff are very impressive. > But: The Quantum P14000 with ethernet/ndmp sdlt tape drives has been a major > hassle. We may have finally reached stability, but not after too much work > with the vendor. Quantum support is not in the same class as Quickrestore or > Netapp. And I question our decision to go with ethernet/ndmp tape drives. > Our integration might have gone easier if we'd used FC drives. > We use this library to support an environment with >30TB of data, >15 filers, > over a Cisco dedicated gigethernet backup network. Our best backup throughput > for one filer is 16MB/sec--a good number! (F880) >> Barry Lustig wrote: >>> >>> What jukeboxes are people running on their filers, DLT, AIT-2, etc? >>> Are you happy with what you've chosen? The last group of folks I >>> worked with had a Spectralogic juke with AIT-2 and Netvault. It took >>> way too long to get the problems with firmware on the juke and the >>> drives working with the software. > -- > Quentin Fennessy Quentin.Fennessy(a)amd.com > Office: 512.602.3873 > Cell: 512.694.7489 -- Quentin Fennessy Quentin.Fennessy(a)amd.com Office: 512.602.3873 Cell: 512.694.7489

3 2

RE: Jukeboxes for filers
by Ed Sanborn 19 Dec '02

19 Dec '02

That's 16MB/sec over GigE? -----Original Message----- From: Quentin Fennessy [mailto:quentin.fennessy@amd.com] Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 1:02 PM To: Geoff Hardin Cc: Barry Lustig; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Jukeboxes for filers >>>>> Geoff Hardin writes: > Barry, > We use an ATL P3000 library with 16 DLT7000 drives. We use > Workstation Solutions QuickRestore (now Reliaty Backup) to back > everything up. We have 15 filers being backed up and the library is > starting to get overwhelmed. We are considering the new SDLT drives, > since they are backwards read compatible with DLT. It's been a great > solution for over two years now; only change I would have made would > have been to wait for the P3000 GbE library. We've installed a P14000 with 24 SDLT220 Gigethernet NDMP tape drives, also using Quickrestore. First: Quickrestore is an excellent product, with excellent vendor support. The Reliaty/Quickrestore staff are very impressive. But: The Quantum P14000 with ethernet/ndmp sdlt tape drives has been a major hassle. We may have finally reached stability, but not after too much work with the vendor. Quantum support is not in the same class as Quickrestore or Netapp. And I question our decision to go with ethernet/ndmp tape drives. Our integration might have gone easier if we'd used FC drives. We use this library to support an environment with >30TB of data, >15 filers, over a Cisco dedicated gigethernet backup network. Our best backup throughput for one filer is 16MB/sec--a good number! (F880) > Barry Lustig wrote: >> >> What jukeboxes are people running on their filers, DLT, AIT-2, etc? >> Are you happy with what you've chosen? The last group of folks I >> worked with had a Spectralogic juke with AIT-2 and Netvault. It took >> way too long to get the problems with firmware on the juke and the >> drives working with the software. -- Quentin Fennessy Quentin.Fennessy(a)amd.com Office: 512.602.3873 Cell: 512.694.7489

2 1

RE: Jukeboxes for filers
by Greg Libert 19 Dec '02

19 Dec '02

We are using 4 - ATL M1500 dual SDLT modular units with LVD SCSI interfaces. We backup three filers via NDMP and about 40 W2K and UNIX servers via a NT media server using Reliaty backup software. The adminhost is a Sun V120 that also manages the robotics. Nice units as they are a scalable solution and can be stacked on-demand to increase capacity. In the next phase of our implementation we intend to convert the SCSI interfaces to a fiber SAN interface (M1500 has swappable interfaces) to increase performance and flexibility. Install was relatively painless (aside from a DOA unit with the wrong "mushware") and was up and running pretty quickly. -----Original Message----- From: John Clear [mailto:jclear@ati.com] Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 11:29 AM To: 'Geoff Hardin'; Barry Lustig Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Jukeboxes for filers We have an ATL dual P4000 hybrid with 6 SDLT NDMP drives and 4 SDLT SCSI drives, and are mostly happy with it (an ATL Field Engineer is onsite right now dealing with a hardware issue :( ). The NDMP drives speak gigabit, so the library isn't connected directly to the filer at all, just via the network. The NetApps just see the NDMP drives as a remote device. We previously had a <mumble> jukebox with DLT7000s connected directly to the filers, and had a few occasions where we had to reboot a filer to fix a hung drive. The SCSI side is used for the other Unix/NT hosts. Software is Legato Networker. John -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Hardin [ mailto:geoff.hardin@dalsemi.com <mailto:geoff.hardin@dalsemi.com> ] Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 8:52 AM To: Barry Lustig Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Jukeboxes for filers Barry, We use an ATL P3000 library with 16 DLT7000 drives. We use Workstation Solutions QuickRestore (now Reliaty Backup) to back everything up. We have 15 filers being backed up and the library is starting to get overwhelmed. We are considering the new SDLT drives, since they are backwards read compatible with DLT. It's been a great solution for over two years now; only change I would have made would have been to wait for the P3000 GbE library.

1 0

Jukeboxes for filers
by Barry Lustig 19 Dec '02

19 Dec '02

What jukeboxes are people running on their filers, DLT, AIT-2, etc? Are you happy with what you've chosen? The last group of folks I worked with had a Spectralogic juke with AIT-2 and Netvault. It took way too long to get the problems with firmware on the juke and the drives working with the software. barry

3 2

RE: Jukeboxes for filers
by John Clear 19 Dec '02

19 Dec '02

We have an ATL dual P4000 hybrid with 6 SDLT NDMP drives and 4 SDLT SCSI drives, and are mostly happy with it (an ATL Field Engineer is onsite right now dealing with a hardware issue :( ). The NDMP drives speak gigabit, so the library isn't connected directly to the filer at all, just via the network. The NetApps just see the NDMP drives as a remote device. We previously had a <mumble> jukebox with DLT7000s connected directly to the filers, and had a few occasions where we had to reboot a filer to fix a hung drive. The SCSI side is used for the other Unix/NT hosts. Software is Legato Networker. John -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Hardin [mailto:geoff.hardin@dalsemi.com] Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 8:52 AM To: Barry Lustig Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Jukeboxes for filers Barry, We use an ATL P3000 library with 16 DLT7000 drives. We use Workstation Solutions QuickRestore (now Reliaty Backup) to back everything up. We have 15 filers being backed up and the library is starting to get overwhelmed. We are considering the new SDLT drives, since they are backwards read compatible with DLT. It's been a great solution for over two years now; only change I would have made would have been to wait for the P3000 GbE library.

1 0

RE: Jukeboxes for filers
by Clawson, Simon 19 Dec '02

19 Dec '02

We have just got a Storage Tek L80, with SDLT drives. I have to say it is excellent so far. I was using an aging DLT 4000 autoloader, and compared to that the STK is lightyears ahead. We use it in conjunction with Netbackup 4.5 and all in all it is working well, with extreamly good performanc both using NDMP and using cross network backups for other systems. The main swaying point for a unit like the STK L80 was that each drive can be used independantly, meaning we can get more from our investment, backing up NT systems, UNIX boxes and the NetApp. Simon -----Original Message----- From: Barry Lustig [mailto:barry-dated-1040712031.6fa001@lustig.com] Sent: 19 December 2002 06:41 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Jukeboxes for filers What jukeboxes are people running on their filers, DLT, AIT-2, etc? Are you happy with what you've chosen? The last group of folks I worked with had a Spectralogic juke with AIT-2 and Netvault. It took way too long to get the problems with firmware on the juke and the drives working with the software. barry

1 0

RE: Jukeboxes for filers
by Alan McLachlan 19 Dec '02

19 Dec '02

LANL are running with 8 x F800 series filers to Spectra Logic 64000 libraries with 16 x AIT-3 drives in each (can go to 32 drives in each), no problems. There were firmware issues with AIT2, particularly if you source additional drives direct from Sony to put into an existing Spectra or Overland library. AIT-3 has been relatively trouble free. What version of OnTap are you running? -----Original Message----- From: Barry Lustig [mailto:barry-dated-1040712031.6fa001@lustig.com] Sent: Thursday, 19 December 2002 5:41 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Jukeboxes for filers What jukeboxes are people running on their filers, DLT, AIT-2, etc? Are you happy with what you've chosen? The last group of folks I worked with had a Spectralogic juke with AIT-2 and Netvault. It took way too long to get the problems with firmware on the juke and the drives working with the software. barry **** 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

RE: Defragmentation
by Alan McLachlan 19 Dec '02

19 Dec '02

Hi Edward, It's a case of whether or not it makes sense... Firstly, since WAFL always writes to new locations (a basic reason for NetApp's outstanding write performance - avoidance of seeks), any defragmentation effort would quickly be wasted. Filers tend to stay in a state of "partially fragmented" as NVRAM write gathering keeps files in large contiguous "chunks". Secondly, since blocks in snapshots are shared with the active filesystem and several versions of a file are sharing blocks, defragmenting becomes an impossibly complex task. Even if you treated the active filesystem as the base for gathering file segments you would need to rearrange the pointers in the snapshot metadata inodes. Defragmentation would be VERY slow. Doing what you have done (copy off then back on again) may improve read transfer rate for some large files for a short time. But it would do little to nothing for transactional I/O, so for most applications there's no point. Also, this means that you have created new versions of the files that don't share blocks with any of your snapshots, so you lose huge amounts of disk space. Not knocking your intentions, it's just that this discussion has been coming up for years know, and the answer hasn't changed. If it had (or if it really mattered) NetApp would have done somthing about it long ago. 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: Edward Hibbert [mailto:EH@dataconnection.com] Sent: Wednesday, 18 December 2002 10:36 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Defragmentation I think it's general knowledge that once a NetApp gets above 90% full, performance starts to degrade quite noticeably. I've been testing an application recently and observed that this is the case on ONTAP 5.2: * When ~95% full, my performance test came up with a number of ~4 seconds. * Freeing up space to get to around 60% full, the number was ~3.5 seconds. * Copying off my data files and copying them back to defragment them, the number was 2.8s. The only thing I've been able to find about fragmentation is: * Some statements that WAFL tries hard to avoid fragmentation (which I'm sure it does) but can't always (which I'm sure of too). * Copying off data and copying it back again is the only way to resolve it. The latter solution doesn't seem practical if the data in question is supposed to be available 24*7. Some applications have a method of doing this at an application level, but does anyone know whether there are methods/future plans for background non-intrusive defragmentation at a filesystem level? Or is it just me who thinks this would be a good idea? Edward Hibbert Internet Applications Group Data Connection Ltd Tel: +44 131 662 1212 Fax: +44 131 662 1345 Email: eh(a)dataconnection.com Web: http://www.dataconnection.com **** 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

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