toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

NDMP
by grey jolly 24 Sep '02

24 Sep '02

Most of the folks we deal with have a lot of problems with NDMP. It would certainly be helpful if you could provide the list with some of your tricks to make NDMP work consistently. --- Mike Ball <MBall(a)datalink.com> wrote: > Go with NDMP on Legato. As others stated, NDMP and > Legato work very well. I > have setup a few environments with Legato Networker > and NDMP via Netapp. The > nice thing about NDMP is you directly dump off the > Netapp to tape which is > very quick. It will push LTO and SDLT tape drives to > the full performance > capabilities. In addition, the CPU overhead > required to do a NDMP backup vs > over NFS is much lower on the Netapp. Keep in mind > though that the tape > drives dedicated to the Netapp for NDMP can not be > shared by other non > Netapp Legato clients/storage nodes/servers (can be > shared by other Netapps > though). > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > From: devnull(a)adc.idt.com > [mailto:devnull@adc.idt.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:57 AM > To: Toasters (E-mail) > Subject: Legato Backups. > > > Dear Toasters, > > I was wondering if any of you guys were using Legato > for backing up your > NetApps. I currently have 2 filers that i am backing > up to a Legato server > running Solaris 2.8 over NFS. I mount the NetApp > volumes onto the legato > server and then backup those mount points. > > I am not sure this is the best thing to do in terms > of performance. > > Is there an alternate, easier solution. > > Thanks, > > /dev/null > > devnull(a)adc.idt.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com

1 0

RE: Sun Solaris 8 optimal performance with F880
by Art Hebert 24 Sep '02

24 Sep '02

Deepak -- As I haven't been able to come up with any performance numbers for the 700, 800, 900 series, can you let us know how your oracle db performs on the 880? We are currently using an F760 with a gig network, tcp, etc and we are seeing a lot of I/O waits pertaining to Oracle temp and redos. I'd be interested in if you also see a bottleneck in that area. Thanks art hebert -----Original Message----- From: Deepak Soneji [mailto:sonejideepak@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 8:08 PM To: Mike Sphar; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Sun Solaris 8 optimal performance with F880 I agree with you. Mostly I am going to use TCP and as you said about dropped packets, we are working with Cisco to identify the problem. At this moment, I am not confident of using UDP. We will have several Oracle databases running on the filer and I dont want to take any chances to corrupt the data. Thanks /Deepak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Sphar" <mike.sphar(a)Remedy.COM> To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 12:30 PM Subject: RE: Sun Solaris 8 optimal performance with F880 > There is of course some additional overhead associated with the TCP protocol > though, which is why it really depends on the reliability of your network > and clients to determine which of the two protocols is ideal for your > environment. > > Certainly in the situation being described, where a client is dropping > packets, TCP will likely be the better choice. (Though I'd also want to try > to address the dropped packet problem as well if possible.) > > -- > Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Remedy Corporation > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Salmon [mailto:Michael.Salmon@uab.ericsson.se] > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 3:59 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Sun Solaris 8 optimal performance with F880 > > > > On Thursday, September 19, 2002 11:04:35 PM -0700 Deepak Soneji > <sonejideepak(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > +------ > | Brian/Tim > | > | Great ! READS are greatly improved upto 12-15 mbps after changing xfersize > | to 8k. > | Any idea about what magic numbers for read/write I should try to achieve > | while tuning ? > | > | Another question, why TCP ? > +-----X8 > > UDP has no retry mechanism so if you loose any of the 22 packets involved > in a 32k transfer then you need to start again. A powerful server sending > to a weaker client is a good way to ensure that packets are lost. TCP has > mechanism to ensure that packets are not lost and hence works better when > the packet recipient is the weaker partner. > > /Michael > -- > This space intentionally left non-blank. >

1 0

Why do different backup tools copy different amounts of data?
by Spencer Kantor 24 Sep '02

24 Sep '02

In both preparing for a data migration between filers as well as assessing a new backup program we've been comparing different backup tools. We're trying to rectify why different backup tools report wide variations in the amount of data they copy. Here's the setup. One F720 filer with two FC9 shelves attached. One volume (vol0) of approx. 180GB with 23 qtrees. Nfs-only, no CIFS. The volume report from FilerView reports there is 47GB of the 180GB total available. From the Unix admin host a df reports vol0 is 180GB and 140GB is used. The df also reports .snapshot is 33.3GB with 10GB used. Question 1: Why the difference in used and available space between the FilerView report and df? We employed three different backup tools to backup the entire volue; ndmpcopy (run from a Unix host, not the built-in Ontap verion), Omniback and Commvault Galaxy. Ndmpcopy was set as a filer to filer copy whereas Omniback and Galaxy backed up to tape. The Omniback and Galaxy backup policy was defined to backup the nightly.0 snapshot of the filer. After each approach was run ndmpcopy reported it copied approximately 125GB of data, Omniback reported copying approximately 130GB of data and Galaxy reported copying 115GB of data. Question 2: Why do different backup methodologies report such a wide disparity in the amount of data copied? Has anyone encountered this before and can provide a rational explanation. Thanks. Spencer Kantor Telcordia Technologies

1 0

RE: Sun Solaris 8 optimal performance with F880
by Mike Sphar 24 Sep '02

24 Sep '02

There is of course some additional overhead associated with the TCP protocol though, which is why it really depends on the reliability of your network and clients to determine which of the two protocols is ideal for your environment. Certainly in the situation being described, where a client is dropping packets, TCP will likely be the better choice. (Though I'd also want to try to address the dropped packet problem as well if possible.) -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Remedy Corporation -----Original Message----- From: Michael Salmon [mailto:Michael.Salmon@uab.ericsson.se] Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 3:59 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Sun Solaris 8 optimal performance with F880 On Thursday, September 19, 2002 11:04:35 PM -0700 Deepak Soneji <sonejideepak(a)hotmail.com> wrote: +------ | Brian/Tim | | Great ! READS are greatly improved upto 12-15 mbps after changing xfersize | to 8k. | Any idea about what magic numbers for read/write I should try to achieve | while tuning ? | | Another question, why TCP ? +-----X8 UDP has no retry mechanism so if you loose any of the 22 packets involved in a 32k transfer then you need to start again. A powerful server sending to a weaker client is a good way to ensure that packets are lost. TCP has mechanism to ensure that packets are not lost and hence works better when the packet recipient is the weaker partner. /Michael -- This space intentionally left non-blank.

2 1

23 Sep '02

1 0

Sun Solaris 8 optimal performance with F880
by Deepak Soneji 23 Sep '02

23 Sep '02

Toasters Configuration : Sun E6000 server running Solaris 8 latest patch level Filer : F880 Cisco Switch 6509(Flowcontrol turned on) We have recently bought 2- F880 filers and we are in the implementation phases. The weird performance results we are getting with following system settings and mount parameters. The output from "sysstat 1" on filer, shows writes 35 MBPS but reads just very slow or not even generate any traffic. Here are the settings ndd -set /dev/udp udp_recv_hiwat 65535 ndd -set /dev/udp udp_xmit_hiwat 65535 ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_recv_hiwat 65535 ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_xmit_hiwat 65535 ndd -set /dev/ge instance 1 ndd -set /dev/ge adv_pauseTX 1 ndd -set /dev/ge adv_pauseRX 1 ndd -set /dev/ge adv_1000autoneg_cap 0 ndd -set /dev/ge adv_1000fdx_cap 1 set sq_max_size = 30 set nstrpush = 90 set ncsize 8000 set nfs:nfs3_max_threads = 24 set nfs:nfs3_nra =10 set nfs:nfs_max_threads = 24 set nfs:nfs_nra = 10 Mount file system : mount -o rw,bg,hard,intr,proto=udp,vers=3,rsize=32768,wsize=32768 filer01:/vol/test /test Test method dd if=/dev/zero of=/test/foo bs=32k count=50000 I have tried to search some documents on now site for the optimal performance but I could not find any optimal numbers which I should try to achieve. Why reads are chocking up ? anyone has any proven configuration which works optimally ? Thanks in advance for your inputs and thoughts. Regards -Deepak Soneji Flextronics International

3 3

RE: Legato Backups.
by Peter Bryant 23 Sep '02

23 Sep '02

*** Before acting on this e-mail or opening any attachment you are advised to read the disclaimer at the end of this e-mail *** Technically speaking (as we found out and are correcting) this is an unsupported Legato configuration. They'll not help you out if there is an issue. I consider this to be a marketing ploy as much as anything to sell NDMP licences. Legato's position is that they do not support ANY backup of NFS attached mounts (whether filer or another server). Practically speaking it works, but sometimes the load on the backup servers is just too great and a few things "pop loose" for the users. Peter -----Original Message----- From: devnull(a)adc.idt.com [mailto:devnull@adc.idt.com] Sent: 19 September 2002 14:57 To: Toasters (E-mail) Subject: Legato Backups. Dear Toasters, I was wondering if any of you guys were using Legato for backing up your NetApps. I currently have 2 filers that i am backing up to a Legato server running Solaris 2.8 over NFS. I mount the NetApp volumes onto the legato server and then backup those mount points. I am not sure this is the best thing to do in terms of performance. Is there an alternate, easier solution. Thanks, /dev/null devnull(a)adc.idt.com ******************************* 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 ********************

3 2

SNMP Behaviour
by Ben Rockwood 22 Sep '02

22 Sep '02

Hello Toasterites, I've come across some odd behaviour in the SNMP reporting of OnTap. I have a script that uses Net-SNMP to check for failures on our Filers. This came about due to disks slipping offline silently rather than failing. The script does 3 checks: the failed count OID, the number of spares OID, and an overall comparison of total disks, spare disks, and active disks. Every saturday night (when the INFO report mail is sent out) I get a run of my script generating errors. To isolate the problem I put some debugging into the script and found that I get back the following numbers for one of my Filers: Active Disks: 50 Spare Disks: 2 Total Disks: 56 Some how 4 disks disappeared from the SNMP reporting for that run... and it's gotta be the parity disks. The Filers run great, no problems there, it's just a simple reporting issue. So the question: why? It's not a big issue, but it'd be nice to not get paged every saturday night for no reason, and I'd rather not have to work around this too in my script (which was written to work around a previous reporting issue, etc, etc). Oh, and I'm running OnTap 6.1R1, on several 760 and 840s. Ben Rockwood UNIX Systems Admin Homestead.com

1 0

RE: Sun Solaris 8 optimal performance with F880
by Art Hebert 20 Sep '02

20 Sep '02

I thought the 880's were supposed to get around 60MB writes. Seems that 12-15 would be worse than an F760. Is there any published numbers for read or write performance for the various models? I think the licensing forbids Netapp users from discussing performance numbers for some reason, am I mistaken on this? art -----Original Message----- From: Deepak Soneji [mailto:sonejideepak@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 11:05 PM To: Brian Long Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Sun Solaris 8 optimal performance with F880 Brian/Tim Great ! READS are greatly improved upto 12-15 mbps after changing xfersize to 8k. Any idea about what magic numbers for read/write I should try to achieve while tuning ? Another question, why TCP ? Thanks -Deepak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Long" <brilong(a)cisco.com> To: "Deepak Soneji" <sonejideepak(a)hotmail.com> Cc: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 6:47 PM Subject: Re: Sun Solaris 8 optimal performance with F880 > UDP and 32K transfers don't mix. Reduce to 8K transfers (nfs.udp.xfersize > 8192) or change to TCP, the preferred method in which to use NFS. > > /Brian/ > > > Toasters > > > > Configuration : Sun E6000 server running Solaris 8 latest patch level > > Filer : F880 > > Cisco Switch 6509(Flowcontrol turned on) > > > > > > We have recently bought 2- F880 filers and we are in the implementation phases. The weird > > performance results we are getting with following system settings and mount parameters. > > The output from "sysstat 1" on filer, shows writes 35 MBPS but reads just very slow > > or not even generate any traffic. Here are the settings > > > > ndd -set /dev/udp udp_recv_hiwat 65535 > > ndd -set /dev/udp udp_xmit_hiwat 65535 > > ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_recv_hiwat 65535 > > ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_xmit_hiwat 65535 > > ndd -set /dev/ge instance 1 > > ndd -set /dev/ge adv_pauseTX 1 > > ndd -set /dev/ge adv_pauseRX 1 > > ndd -set /dev/ge adv_1000autoneg_cap 0 > > ndd -set /dev/ge adv_1000fdx_cap 1 > > > > set sq_max_size = 30 > > set nstrpush = 90 > > set ncsize 8000 > > set nfs:nfs3_max_threads = 24 > > set nfs:nfs3_nra =10 > > set nfs:nfs_max_threads = 24 > > set nfs:nfs_nra = 10 > > > > Mount file system : > > > > mount -o rw,bg,hard,intr,proto=udp,vers=3,rsize=32768,wsize=32768 filer01:/vol/test /test > > > > Test method > > > > dd if=/dev/zero of=/test/foo bs=32k count=50000 > > > > > > I have tried to search some documents on now site for the optimal performance but I could not > > find any optimal numbers which I should try to achieve. > > Why reads are chocking up ? > > anyone has any proven configuration which works optimally ? > > > > Thanks in advance for your inputs and thoughts. > > > > Regards > > > > -Deepak Soneji > > Flextronics International > > > > > > -- > Brian Long | | | > Americas IT Hosting Sys Admin | .|||. .|||. > Phone: (919) 392-7363 | ..:|||||||:...:|||||||:.. > Pager: (888) 651-2015 | C i s c o S y s t e m s >

1 0

Moving data from NT to NetApp painfully slow
by Friedrich, Bernhard 20 Sep '02

20 Sep '02

Hi Toasters, we're in the process of consolidating NT file services on a NetApp Filer. We have an F810 where we want to store all our user's data which is now spread across multiple servers, some of which are close to being maxed out. We now have the problem of moving all the data while we're still servicing our users - we're on 24/7 here. We found that copying the data to the filer is painfully slow; we're suspecting that NT ACLs might be the culprit. We've tried robocopy, secure copy and xxcopy to no avail - moving a small part of the total data took 15 hours. Anybody out there willing to share their experiences with moving several hundreds of GB across the network? We need to keep NT permissions, obviously. On the mailing list I saw references to Fastlane and Aelita's SCW - any experience with those or other 3rd party products? Greetings and thanks in advance Bernhard -- Bernhard Friedrich ZIM Uniklinikum Heidelberg Unix/NT administration

2 1

RE: Legato Backups.
by Mike Sphar 20 Sep '02

20 Sep '02

We've been backing up 3 of our filers over NFS for 4-5 years now with no significant problems. We've done lots of restores as well. The only real caveat would be that NT ACL's are not preserved, but since all our qtrees are UNIX, that's not a problem for us. We tried a demo of the NDMP Legato solution shortly after it was made available, but we found it flaky and unreliable, so we went back to NFS. I'd imagine it's much improved now over what it was then. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Remedy Corporation -----Original Message----- From: Peter Bryant [mailto:PBryant@burallplastec.com] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:47 AM To: 'Paul J. Bell' Cc: 'Netapp Toasters Mailing List' Subject: RE: Legato Backups. *** Before acting on this e-mail or opening any attachment you are advised to read the disclaimer at the end of this e-mail *** Erm... Well sort of, and it works. As far as I remember that's how some data was moved about shortly after the install (of the Filer) early this year. But we've been discussing <bg> the supported framework ever since and that is why we are moving over to NDMP very soon now. But I cannot claim any great competency in doing it. If we have that kind of need (for now) we involve our support partner. However I did speak to a techie deep within the bowels of Legato, and it's essentially "of course it all works - why shouldn't it? but of course that's not our position". Peter -----Original Message----- From: Paul J. Bell [mailto:paul.bell@rbccm.com] Sent: 20 September 2002 12:41 To: Peter Bryant Cc: 'Netapp Toasters Mailing List' Subject: Re: Legato Backups. have you every tried to restore files backed up via nfs mounts? -paul Peter Bryant wrote: > > Technically speaking (as we found out and are correcting) this is an > unsupported Legato configuration. They'll not help you out if there > is an issue. I consider this to be a marketing ploy as much as > anything to sell NDMP licences. > > Legato's position is that they do not support ANY backup of NFS > attached mounts (whether filer or another server). > > Practically speaking it works, but sometimes the load on the backup > servers is just too great and a few things "pop loose" for the users. > > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: devnull(a)adc.idt.com [mailto:devnull@adc.idt.com] > Sent: 19 September 2002 14:57 > To: Toasters (E-mail) > Subject: Legato Backups. > > Dear Toasters, > > I was wondering if any of you guys were using Legato for backing up > your NetApps. I currently have 2 filers that i am backing up to a > Legato server running Solaris 2.8 over NFS. I mount the NetApp volumes > onto the legato server and then backup those mount points. > > I am not sure this is the best thing to do in terms of performance. > > Is there an alternate, easier solution. > > Thanks, ******************************* 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

RE: Moving data from NT to NetApp painfully slow
by Haber, David J. 20 Sep '02

20 Sep '02

We've moved about 500G to the filer from our file servers using SecureCopy. Have you checked the port speed and duplex settings on your servers and switches and filer. We have found that if they don't match you will have excruciating performance. -----Original Message----- From: Friedrich, Bernhard [mailto:Bernhard.Friedrich@med.uni-heidelberg.de] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:29 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Moving data from NT to NetApp painfully slow Hi Toasters, we're in the process of consolidating NT file services on a NetApp Filer. We have an F810 where we want to store all our user's data which is now spread across multiple servers, some of which are close to being maxed out. We now have the problem of moving all the data while we're still servicing our users - we're on 24/7 here. We found that copying the data to the filer is painfully slow; we're suspecting that NT ACLs might be the culprit. We've tried robocopy, secure copy and xxcopy to no avail - moving a small part of the total data took 15 hours. Anybody out there willing to share their experiences with moving several hundreds of GB across the network? We need to keep NT permissions, obviously. On the mailing list I saw references to Fastlane and Aelita's SCW - any experience with those or other 3rd party products? Greetings and thanks in advance Bernhard -- Bernhard Friedrich ZIM Uniklinikum Heidelberg Unix/NT administration

1 0

RE: Legato Backups.
by Peter Bryant 20 Sep '02

20 Sep '02

*** Before acting on this e-mail or opening any attachment you are advised to read the disclaimer at the end of this e-mail *** Erm... Well sort of, and it works. As far as I remember that's how some data was moved about shortly after the install (of the Filer) early this year. But we've been discussing <bg> the supported framework ever since and that is why we are moving over to NDMP very soon now. But I cannot claim any great competency in doing it. If we have that kind of need (for now) we involve our support partner. However I did speak to a techie deep within the bowels of Legato, and it's essentially "of course it all works - why shouldn't it? but of course that's not our position". Peter -----Original Message----- From: Paul J. Bell [mailto:paul.bell@rbccm.com] Sent: 20 September 2002 12:41 To: Peter Bryant Cc: 'Netapp Toasters Mailing List' Subject: Re: Legato Backups. have you every tried to restore files backed up via nfs mounts? -paul Peter Bryant wrote: > > Technically speaking (as we found out and are correcting) this is an > unsupported Legato configuration. They'll not help you out if there > is an issue. I consider this to be a marketing ploy as much as > anything to sell NDMP licences. > > Legato's position is that they do not support ANY backup of NFS > attached mounts (whether filer or another server). > > Practically speaking it works, but sometimes the load on the backup > servers is just too great and a few things "pop loose" for the users. > > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: devnull(a)adc.idt.com [mailto:devnull@adc.idt.com] > Sent: 19 September 2002 14:57 > To: Toasters (E-mail) > Subject: Legato Backups. > > Dear Toasters, > > I was wondering if any of you guys were using Legato for backing up > your NetApps. I currently have 2 filers that i am backing up to a > Legato server running Solaris 2.8 over NFS. I mount the NetApp volumes > onto the legato server and then backup those mount points. > > I am not sure this is the best thing to do in terms of performance. > > Is there an alternate, easier solution. > > Thanks, ******************************* 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

RE: Legato Backups.
by Caven, Marilyn 19 Sep '02

19 Sep '02

For three years I did just that, back up 7 Netapp filers by way of nfs mounts, using Networker 6.0.1 build 174 on a Solaris 2.8 OS, two E250 Servers. and using two L1000 tape library w/4 DLT7000 drives each. The Networker servers have a Gigabit connection to the network, (2) 296MHz CPU's and 768mb memory and I'm backing up 1.5 TB of Netapp data. We recently went to LTO tapes, one Sun 220R server w/ (1) 450MHz, 1GB memory, gig card for the Solaris side and a NT box to map mount our CIFS only server, both connected to a single Dell Powervault 60 slot tape library. One of the reasons we went this way was because we were already invested in Legato Networker software licenses for 60 clients and 2 servers. I do weekly full backups of the 1.5 TB Netapp data and another half TB of Solaris and NT clients and daily incrementals. So my final statement is, performance is not an issue for me. Regards, Marilyn Caven Next Level Communications -----Original Message----- From: devnull(a)adc.idt.com [mailto:devnull@adc.idt.com] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 6:57 AM To: Toasters (E-mail) Subject: Legato Backups. Dear Toasters, I was wondering if any of you guys were using Legato for backing up your NetApps. I currently have 2 filers that i am backing up to a Legato server running Solaris 2.8 over NFS. I mount the NetApp volumes onto the legato server and then backup those mount points. I am not sure this is the best thing to do in terms of performance. Is there an alternate, easier solution. Thanks, /dev/null devnull(a)adc.idt.com

1 0

NFS security concerns
by Allen, Pat 19 Sep '02

19 Sep '02

Hi all, I hope that this isn't too obvious a question but here goes.... I'm wondering how people are handling NFS security in environments where you have a lot of Mac OS X or Linux computer systems. For ease of administration, I would love to be able to specify that any computer within our network has read access to various qtrees. But this opens up a can of worms in that anybody with root access on their local Mac or Linux box can spoof user accounts with legitimate UID's and GID's. This essentially gives away the keys to the kingdom. The other obvious alternative is using netgroups but that would be a lot of administration as machines come and go. It's certainly better than opening up access to everybody but not a course that I'd like to take. Are there any other alternatives that I'm missing? Thanks! --- Pat Allen (pat(a)mbari.org) Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) 7700 Sandholdt Rd, Moss Landing, CA 95039 (voice) 831-775-1724; (fax) 831-775-1620

10 11

SV: antivirus ?
by Vibeke Ostensvik 19 Sep '02

19 Sep '02

Hi, You can run Trend Micro (serverprotect) ,Mcafee and Symantec - your ontap-version has to be 6.1 or higher. http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3107.html?fmt=print Vibeke -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: Frank Bonnet [mailto:bonnetf@bart.esiee.fr] Sendt: 19. september 2002 10:46 Til: toasters(a)mathworks.com Emne: antivirus ? Hi Does anyone knows some anti-virus scanning solutions that could run on a F85 filer ? or a third party software that could runs thru NFS mounted partitions ? Thx -- Frank Bonnet

1 0

antivirus ?
by Frank Bonnet 19 Sep '02

19 Sep '02

Hi Does anyone knows some anti-virus scanning solutions that could run on a F85 filer ? or a third party software that could runs thru NFS mounted partitions ? Thx -- Frank Bonnet

1 0

NAC on "Using the Linux® NFS Client with Network Appliance?"
by Quentin Fennessy 18 Sep '02

18 Sep '02

I don't recall seeing this mentioned on the toasters list. Netapp has a new (12 Aug 2002) white paper on Linux NFS client tuning, done by Chuck Lever. http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3183.html I think you can get to this paper without NOW access. The paper is self-described as: This report provides advice for getting the best from your Linux NFS clients in an environment that includes Network Appliance filers. You'll learn what level of performance to expect from your Linux systems. You'll learn how to tune your Linux clients and diagnose performance and reliability problems. We'll recommend software levels and hardware combinations that are known to work well. Finally, you'll learn where to look for more information when faced with problems that are difficult to diagnose. Good stuff. two thumbs way up. This paper should perhaps be read while using an internal voice with a Scottish burr. -- Quentin Fennessy Quentin.Fennessy(a)amd.com Office: 512.602.3873 Cell: 512.694.7489

1 0

Re: NetApp Gripe.
by ScottUCE＠aol.com 18 Sep '02

18 Sep '02

NetApp operates no differently than other vendors -- hardware maintenance pricing ratchets up on aging systems as newer models begin to deliver in volume. However, third parties can usually provide hardware maintenance contracts for older systems that provide significant savings to the user in the range of 30-50%. As part of these contracts, spare parts and/or complete (unlicensed) "failover" filers/systems are often kept on-site; this paves the way for "mean-time-to-repair" and "availability" that are actually superior to what the manufacturers' field engineering organizations can deliver. Scott Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, MN 55436 email: scott(a)unioncomputer.com phone: 952 935 7282 | fax: 952 935 5056 > Subj:NetApp Gripe. > Date:9/17/2002 5:53:04 PM Central Standard Time > From:<A HREF="mailto:devnull@adc.idt.com">devnull(a)adc.idt.com</A> > To:<A HREF="mailto:toasters@mathworks.com">toasters(a)mathworks.com</A> > Sent from the Internet > > Toasters, > > Not really amused about the hike in NetApp maintenance prices, which seem > to have doubled. > > Is this a disturbing trend ya'll are seeing with other vendors also ? > > Anyways, i just wanted to bitch about it. > > > /dev/null > > devnull(a)adc.idt.com

1 0

RE:
by Hill, Aaron 17 Sep '02

17 Sep '02

Hi Bruno, We ran Solaris 2.6 with ASE 12.0 for a while with the devices on our F820 and F880 but ran into some major performance issues. Mostly related to network throughput. Once we moved to 2.8 and SUN 2.0 Gigabit NICS, these problems disappeared. I am not a sybase expert, but I know we have a separate volume that we perform sybase dumps to. We ftp the dumps daily to a F820 at our Disaster Recovery site. This process works fine as long as we have bandwidth available on the WAN. We would have preferred to use Snapmirror, but that requires ASE 12.5 and a special quiesce procedure. You can find more on this at the NetApp NOW website, I think the article is a whitepaper on Sybase Disaster Recovery. If you have any more specific questions, let me know, I may be able have a chat to our Sybase Architect. Thanks, Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Bruno Boyer [mailto:bboyer@refer.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 7:53 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Has anyone got experience with doing Sybase (ASE 12.5, Solaris 2.6 and 2.8) dump on NetApp filers ? I am looking for recommendations on this subject: what is the best architecture ? What are the traps to be avoided? Perfomances ? Etc. Thank you for your help. Bruno. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/

1 0

NFS run amok
by Lance A. Brown 17 Sep '02

17 Sep '02

Greetings, I have an F720 with 6.1.1R2 running on it displaying an extremely weird situation. 'sysstat 2' reports: CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 16% 0 0 0 12300 1 0 0 0 0 >60 16% 0 0 0 12301 1 0 0 0 0 >60 18% 0 0 0 12302 1 88 110 0 0 >60 16% 0 0 0 12301 0 0 0 0 0 >60 16% 0 0 0 12301 0 0 0 0 0 >60 16% 0 0 0 12300 0 0 0 0 0 >60 16% 0 0 0 12305 0 0 0 0 0 >60 18% 0 0 0 12300 0 82 104 0 0 >60 17% 0 0 0 12300 0 0 0 0 0 >60 17% 0 0 0 12299 0 0 0 0 0 >60 17% 2 0 0 12301 1 0 0 0 0 >60 16% 0 0 0 12301 0 0 0 0 0 >60 16% 0 0 0 12300 0 0 0 0 0 >60 18% 0 0 0 12300 1 88 110 0 0 >60 16% 0 0 0 12301 0 0 0 0 0 >60 16% 0 0 0 12301 0 0 0 0 0 >60 16% 0 0 0 12300 0 0 0 0 0 >60 17% 0 0 0 12301 0 0 0 0 0 >60 18% 0 0 0 12301 0 82 104 0 0 >60 Running pktt on the netapp reveals LOTS of UDP nfs traffic to the filer but no responses from the filer. The client is a Red Hat linux box. We are stumped on this at this point. Any advice? --[Lance] -- Lance A. Brown SysAdmin Task LMIT ITSS Contract for National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 919.361.5444x420

7 8

None
by Bruno Boyer 17 Sep '02

17 Sep '02

Has anyone got experience with doing Sybase (ASE 12.5, Solaris 2.6 and 2.8) dump on NetApp filers ? I am looking for recommendations on this subject: what is the best architecture ? What are the traps to be avoided? Perfomances ? Etc. Thank you for your help. Bruno. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/

1 0

None
by HEMANTH BK 13 Sep '02

13 Sep '02

anybody out there using following combination, Filer + win2k + oracle 8i please do let me know any issues. Thanks Hem __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! News - Today's headlines http://news.yahoo.com

1 0

Volume sizes
by Haber, David J. 12 Sep '02

12 Sep '02

I just added two DS14 shelves to an F840. I have 24 of the disks available for a new volume(s). Would it be better to create 2 volumes of 12, 72G drives or 1 volume of 24, 72G drives. The filer is used as a cache for storing radiology images. No backups are required and there are no snapshots required either. I have two hot spares available.

3 2

SUMMARY: how to get back the Tape drive after brocade switch went down
by ilya.birman＠abnamro.com 11 Sep '02

11 Sep '02

Thanks to two great responces I got from Drew O'Donnell and Adam Fox tghe problem was fixed: Drew O'Donnell: toaster>priv set advanced toaster>fcadmin reset_adapter "adapter#" Adam Fox: filer> storage enable adapter <adapter_name> Original question: We had an outage on the Brocade fiber switch that attaches STK tape drives to 3 filers 1 filer that is running 6.2.1 pick the drive after the fiber switch went live again The other 2 are running 6.1R1 and they do not see their drives any more Short of rebooting the Filers running 6.1R1, what can be done Here is a log from filer with 6.1R1 Wed Sep 11 11:28:23 CDT [filer1: ispfc_main:warning]: Loop break detected on Fibre Channel adapter 5. Wed Sep 11 11:28:54 CDT [filer1: ispfc_timeout:error]: Could not recover loop on Fibre Channel adapter 5 after 30 seconds. Wed Sep 11 11:28:54 CDT [filer1: ispfc_timeout:error]: Offlining loop attached to Fibre Channel adapter 5. Wed Sep 11 11:28:54 CDT [filer1: ispfc_init_3:notice]: Fibre Channel adapter 5 is now offline. Here is the log from Filer 6.2.1 Wed Sep 11 11:37:53 CDT [ispfc_main:warning]: Link break detected on Fibre Channel adapter 5. Wed Sep 11 11:37:53 CDT [ispfc_timeout:warning]: Resetting Fibre Channel adapter 5. Wed Sep 11 11:38:10 CDT [ispfc_timeout:warning]: Resetting Fibre Channel adapter 5. Wed Sep 11 11:38:27 CDT [ispfc_timeout:error]: Offlining Fibre Channel adapter 5. Wed Sep 11 11:38:27 CDT [ispfc_init_2:notice]: Fibre Channel adapter 5 is now offline. Wed Sep 11 11:40:14 CDT [ispfc_init_2:warning]: Fibre Channel switch attached to Fibre Channel adapter 5 advertises an R_A_TOV value of 10000 mSecs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. If you have received it by mistake please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Any unauthorised use or dissemination of this message in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. Please note that e-mails are susceptible to change. ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (including its group companies) shall not be liable for the improper or incomplete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your system. ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (or its group companies) does not guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that this communication is free of viruses, interceptions or interference. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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