toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13516 discussions

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

NDMPCOPY solved
by Haber, David J. 18 Dec '02

18 Dec '02

Let me thank everyone one more time. I was successful in copying file from the 840 filer (6.1.1R2) to the NearStore (6.2.1) without upgrading the 840. By running this command from the NearStore it worked: NEARSTORE> ndmpcopy -sa root:rootpassword -da root:rootpassword -st text -dt text 840:/vol/vol0/Test NearStore:/vol/vol0/test Thanks to everyone's input I realized I needed to add the -st option and, after awhile the obvious was revealed---the path needs is case sensitive. Once I had these two elements in place everything worked. So thanks again for everyone's help. I also now have fresh, new root passwords for all of my filers!!!

1 0

RE: Ndmpcopy
by Chitre, Amol 18 Dec '02

18 Dec '02

Hi David, Let me clear some of the confusion for you.... ndmpcopy command on the filer acts like an application. It was introduced in Ontap 6.2. Hence you need to have the filer running the ndmpcopy command at Ontap 6.2 or higher. You can run the ndmpcopy command on any one of the following filers: 1. the source filer for the copy [ source has to be atleast 6.2, destination atleast 5.3.7 ] 2. destination filer for the copy [ destination has to be atleast 6.2, source atleast 5.3.7 ] 3. filer which is neither the source nor destination. [ filer has to be atleast 6.2, source and destination atleast 5.3.7 ] Basically it makes 2 ndmp connections to the ndmp servers on the source filer and the destination filer. The source and destination must support ndmp version 3 or higher. Now, looking at your last email, I see you have waded through the initial issues. Currently, there seems to be trouble kicking off the dump. Check if the path supplied on the ndmpcopy command line is correct, and it exists. So from the command line, it seems like you are running the ndmpcopy command on a machine NEARSTORE. And you are copying (source) alifiler:/vol/vol0/test to (destination)pacsnas1:/vol/vol0/test. Let me know if this is what you intended. If so, please send me the ndmpd debug logs (level 50). Thanks, Amol. *-----Original Message----- *From: Haber, David J. [mailto:David.Haber@vtmednet.org] *Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 10:31 AM *To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' *Subject: Ndmpcopy * * *Thanks to everyone for their responses. I am getting closer to *a solution. *The consensus from the NetApp engineers is that I need to *upgrade the source *filer (840) to at least version 6.2.1. Others have told me *that I should be *able to run ndmpcopy from a third machine and still be able to copy the *files from the 840 to the NearStore even though the 840 is not *at 6.2.1. *This is where I'm at before the upgrade: * *NEARSTORE> ndmpcopy -sa root:dedsam9ap -da root:dedsam9ap -st *text -dt text *alifiler:/vol/vol0/test p *acsnas1:/vol/vol0/test *Ndmpcopy: Starting copy [ 21 ] ... *Ndmpcopy: alifiler: Connect: Connection Established. *Ndmpcopy: pacsnas1: Connect: Connection Established. *Ndmpcopy: alifiler: Log: DUMP: *Ndmpcopy: alifiler: Log: cannot open /vol/vol0/test. *Ndmpcopy: alifiler: Log: DUMP: *Ndmpcopy: alifiler: Log: DUMP IS ABORTED *Ndmpcopy: alifiler: Notify: dump failed *Ndmpcopy: pacsnas1: Notify: restore failed *Ndmpcopy: Transfer failed *Ndmpcopy: Fatal error. Aborting ... * *I can make a connection but for some reason I can't open the *file on the *source. Any suggestions before I upgrade would be appreciated. *Also, I ran *the same command with ndmpd debug set to 50 and have those results. If *someone out there would like to look at this maybe they can understand *what's happening better than I. E-mail me off the list and I *will send a *copy of the debug output if you're up to it. *Thanks again for everyone's help. *

1 0

OOPS!!
by Haber, David J. 18 Dec '02

18 Dec '02

I have changed the root password on my filers! Thanks for pointing out my egregious oversight!

1 0

Ndmpcopy
by Haber, David J. 18 Dec '02

18 Dec '02

Thanks to everyone for their responses. I am getting closer to a solution. The consensus from the NetApp engineers is that I need to upgrade the source filer (840) to at least version 6.2.1. Others have told me that I should be able to run ndmpcopy from a third machine and still be able to copy the files from the 840 to the NearStore even though the 840 is not at 6.2.1. This is where I'm at before the upgrade: NEARSTORE> ndmpcopy -sa root:dedsam9ap -da root:dedsam9ap -st text -dt text alifiler:/vol/vol0/test p acsnas1:/vol/vol0/test Ndmpcopy: Starting copy [ 21 ] ... Ndmpcopy: alifiler: Connect: Connection Established. Ndmpcopy: pacsnas1: Connect: Connection Established. Ndmpcopy: alifiler: Log: DUMP: Ndmpcopy: alifiler: Log: cannot open /vol/vol0/test. Ndmpcopy: alifiler: Log: DUMP: Ndmpcopy: alifiler: Log: DUMP IS ABORTED Ndmpcopy: alifiler: Notify: dump failed Ndmpcopy: pacsnas1: Notify: restore failed Ndmpcopy: Transfer failed Ndmpcopy: Fatal error. Aborting ... I can make a connection but for some reason I can't open the file on the source. Any suggestions before I upgrade would be appreciated. Also, I ran the same command with ndmpd debug set to 50 and have those results. If someone out there would like to look at this maybe they can understand what's happening better than I. E-mail me off the list and I will send a copy of the debug output if you're up to it. Thanks again for everyone's help.

1 0

RE: Ndmpcopy again
by Kennedy, Jeffrey 18 Dec '02

18 Dec '02

I believe the problem is that ndmpcopy was only introduced as part of OT in 6.2; previously it required a platform specific binary. The original poster's 840 filer is running 6.1.1. ~JK > -----Original Message----- > From: Collin Park [mailto:collin@netapp.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 7:47 AM > To: David J. Haber > Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: Re: Ndmpcopy again > > >This is what I got: > >Ndmpcopy: starting copy [13] > >Ndmpcopy: Trouble connecting to destination NearStore > >Ndmpcopy: fatal error. Aborting.... > > Does your version of software support "ndmpd debug 50" ? If so, > issuing that command on both sides should tell you what IP address[es] > are being used/recommended, and at what point the connection isn't > connecting. > > === > Collin Park Not a statement of my employer. > 408-822-6878 3.1.039

2 1

RE: Ndmpcopy again
by Noll, Kevin 18 Dec '02

18 Dec '02

Dont know if this helps, but here is my how to on NDMP Task NDMP Copy Commands: options ndmpd Outputs the options for ndmp. Ndmpd status Status of NDMP Ndmpd on/off Switches ndmp on / off Options ndmpd.enable on Enables NDMP Options ndmpd.enable off Disables NDMP Options ndmpd.preferred_interface Specifies the interface through which ndmp would send data Steps to enable NDMP Options ndmpd.enable on Options ndmpd.preferred_interface <interface name> Commands to copy data through NDMP Volumes, Qtrees, Directories can be copied through NDMP using the below syntax ndmpcopy -sa username:password -da username:password <source> <destination> where sa and da are source/destination filer authentication <source> and <destination> are of the form [<filer>:]<path> Limitations: Individual file(s) cannot be copied through NDMP Not preferred for transfer for small data Kevin Noll tel +44 7801765042 Cap Gemini Ernst & Young -----Original Message----- From: Kennedy, Jeffrey [mailto:jkennedy@qualcomm.com] Sent: 18 December 2002 16:01 To: Collin Park; David J. Haber Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Ndmpcopy again I believe the problem is that ndmpcopy was only introduced as part of OT in 6.2; previously it required a platform specific binary. The original poster's 840 filer is running 6.1.1. ~JK > -----Original Message----- > From: Collin Park [mailto:collin@netapp.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 7:47 AM > To: David J. Haber > Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: Re: Ndmpcopy again > > >This is what I got: > >Ndmpcopy: starting copy [13] > >Ndmpcopy: Trouble connecting to destination NearStore > >Ndmpcopy: fatal error. Aborting.... > > Does your version of software support "ndmpd debug 50" ? If so, > issuing that command on both sides should tell you what IP address[es] > are being used/recommended, and at what point the connection isn't > connecting. > > === > Collin Park Not a statement of my employer. > 408-822-6878 3.1.039 ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ********************************************************************************************

1 0

Ndmpcopy again
by Haber, David J. 18 Dec '02

18 Dec '02

I used this command from the Nearstore ndmpcopy -sa root:passwd -da root:passwd 840:/vol/vol0/test NearStore:/vol/vol0/ (I used the real names for the 840 and the Nearstore) This is what I got: Ndmpcopy: starting copy [13] Ndmpcopy: Trouble connecting to destination NearStore Ndmpcopy: fatal error. Aborting.... Ndmpcopy: Done

3 2

test1
by Roy Ruigrok 18 Dec '02

18 Dec '02

this is a test, please ignore __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com

1 0

Ndmpcopy
by Haber, David J. 18 Dec '02

18 Dec '02

I have to move 60G of data from a folder on an 840 filer to a folder on a NearStore. I want to use ndmpcopy however, I can't seem to get it to work. The 840 is running 6.1.1R1 and the NearStore is running 6.2.1. Does the 840 need to be upgraded to 6.2.1? Also, there is no ndmpcopy on the 840. Is this because of the downlevel version of software? NetApp tech support has not been helpful at all. I was on the phone with them about this issue for a few hours today and they couldn't answer these questions. Also, I think I got some bad advice on how to set up the /etc/hosts file and the /etc/hosts.equiv file. Any help would be appreciated.

1 0

RE: CIFS Files are Moving
by Steve Evans 17 Dec '02

17 Dec '02

I just talked with the help desk guy earlier this morning and I just found out that it has happening in different departments, and they are headed to different locations. Also nobody has an account that has access to all the different places this has been happening. Also nobody here has Windows XP. Steve Evans SDSU Foundation (619) 594-0653 -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Bishop [mailto:Joseph.Bishop@jpl.nasa.gov] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 9:39 PM To: Steve Evans; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: CIFS Files are Moving Steve, This might be reaching a little, but who knows. I have noticed on my WinXp machine that if I hover with the mouse over a directory name in Windows Explorer, that it will auto select the directory. It is possible that the person that has an access to all users directories could be auto-selecting the directory....then thinking they are clicking on another directory on the same level, they actually dragged one directory under another. I don't like this handy feature in Windows...it can be a problem if you are not used to it. I am used to having to click on the directory to highlight, then hold down the mouse to drag, then release on the directory you want to drop/move the folder to. It is not to hard to accidentally do this if the auto select feature is on. I have only noticed this problem on my personal machine...and I don't know how to turn off the auto select. Maybe that will help...maybe it is not related. Sounds like someone is accidentally moving folders though. Someone with the right level of access. Cheers! Joe At 07:56 PM 12/16/02 -0800, Steve Evans wrote: >We have one department that is having a problem with their share on our >Filer. > >About 4 times in the last month a users directory has been randomly >placed in a certain users folder. So two folders that are usually on >the same level (\\filer\dept\user-a and \\filer\dept\user-b) all of a >sudden user-a will be under user-b. The other interesting thing is >that when you go to \\filer\dept\user-a\~snapshot\ all of the folders >are listed as files. (named hourly.0, weekly.0, etc) But if you go >through \\filer\dept\~snapshot\hourly.0\user-a everything is fine. We >are almost sure that this isn't a user doing something stupid (but we >can't be sure.) > >Steve Evans >SDSU Foundation >(619) 594-0653

1 0

Re: CIFS Files are Moving
by Joseph Bishop 17 Dec '02

17 Dec '02

Steve, This might be reaching a little, but who knows. I have noticed on my WinXp machine that if I hover with the mouse over a directory name in Windows Explorer, that it will auto select the directory. It is possible that the person that has an access to all users directories could be auto-selecting the directory....then thinking they are clicking on another directory on the same level, they actually dragged one directory under another. I don't like this handy feature in Windows...it can be a problem if you are not used to it. I am used to having to click on the directory to highlight, then hold down the mouse to drag, then release on the directory you want to drop/move the folder to. It is not to hard to accidentally do this if the auto select feature is on. I have only noticed this problem on my personal machine...and I don't know how to turn off the auto select. Maybe that will help...maybe it is not related. Sounds like someone is accidentally moving folders though. Someone with the right level of access. Cheers! Joe At 07:56 PM 12/16/02 -0800, Steve Evans wrote: >We have one department that is having a problem with their share on our >Filer. > >About 4 times in the last month a users directory has been randomly >placed in a certain users folder. So two folders that are usually on >the same level (\\filer\dept\user-a and \\filer\dept\user-b) all of a >sudden user-a will be under user-b. The other interesting thing is that >when you go to \\filer\dept\user-a\~snapshot\ all of the folders are >listed as files. (named hourly.0, weekly.0, etc) But if you go through >\\filer\dept\~snapshot\hourly.0\user-a everything is fine. We are >almost sure that this isn't a user doing something stupid (but we can't >be sure.) > >Steve Evans >SDSU Foundation >(619) 594-0653

1 0

CIFS Files are Moving
by Steve Evans 17 Dec '02

17 Dec '02

We have one department that is having a problem with their share on our Filer. About 4 times in the last month a users directory has been randomly placed in a certain users folder. So two folders that are usually on the same level (\\filer\dept\user-a and \\filer\dept\user-b) all of a sudden user-a will be under user-b. The other interesting thing is that when you go to \\filer\dept\user-a\~snapshot\ all of the folders are listed as files. (named hourly.0, weekly.0, etc) But if you go through \\filer\dept\~snapshot\hourly.0\user-a everything is fine. We are almost sure that this isn't a user doing something stupid (but we can't be sure.) Steve Evans SDSU Foundation (619) 594-0653

1 0

Netapp or Oracle problems every sunday....
by Art Hebert 17 Dec '02

17 Dec '02

We are having a problem with out netapp or oracle config every sunday. Is there a way to find out what if anything is running on a netapp at a scheduled time? eg. disk scrubs on sundays Thanks art hebert

2 1

mounting foreign volumes as readonly
by steve＠hq.newdream.net 16 Dec '02

16 Dec '02

Is it possible to mount a foreign volume as readonly on a different filer? I want to mount a corrupted volume as readonly on another working filer. In fact, I can only get this corrupted volume to work when its in that readonly mode and using inodes from an old snapshot. If the corrupted volume boots normal it causes the filer to panick. So I guess what I'm wondering is if there a way to boot up one volume normally and another volume as readonly (using old inodes)? Steve

1 0

case changing CIFS filenames
by p dar 16 Dec '02

16 Dec '02

I'm considering moving some users from an unsupported Samba server, to our F760. However it's not clear that the filer can accurately replace all the Samba features. Some of my users have become accustomed to relying on the fact that our Samba server allows me to either force all CIFS filenames to lower case, or preserve the case, both of which aren't part of the CIFS protocol. Isthere a way for me to make my filer preserve the case in which files are created via CIFS? Thus allowing users to create and access 2 different files named Test.txt and test.txt. These are the Samba options I'm using and wondering if there's an equivalent OnTap configuration? ; Preserve filenames and their case case sensitive = yes preserve case = yes short preserver case = yes Alternatively, can I make my filer force CIFS created files to lower-case? [Default Samba behaviour]? Are there any other gotcha's or features that the Samba server offers that may not be available on my filer? I want to be sure I can keep these users happy before I move them. Cheers, Mark bg_canuckNO-SPAM-HERE(a)yahoo.com <Remove the Capital letters and Hyphens if you need to send me email directly> CIRT - Center for Internet Resources and Technology --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

2 1

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters