toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

RE: Vol/qtree/dir/file snapshots (was Re: DataONTAP 6.2) ORACLE D ATABASES
by Joe Luchtenberg 29 Mar '02

29 Mar '02

I think Chris' point has more merit than you give credit, Quentin. There are many issues to consider, including segregating the root volume, parity disks, costs of additional shelves/cabinetry/head units, etc. Granted the cost of disk capacity does not scale linearly. However, if you're not using the additional capacity in a volume (30GB database on a volume of 5-6 72GB drives, as in Chris' scenario) - and there may be very good reasons for this - then big drives are definitely not the most cost-effective way to scale capacity. Qtree-level SnapMirror and/or file-level SnapRestore may solve some of these issues related to capacity management, allowing you to put more databases on the same volume. Even still, it would be nice to have an internal 2x9GB volume (maybe even with solid state disks!) to serve as root, rather than "wasting" 72GB drives and shelf slots. Just musing... Joe Joe Luchtenberg Dataline, Inc. Email: joe.luchtenberg(a)data-line.com Phone: 757-457-0504 (direct line) 757-858-0600 (front desk) 757-285-1223 (mobile) Fax: 757-858-0606 Please visit us at www.data-line.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Quentin Fennessy [mailto:quentin.fennessy@amd.com] > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 8:29 AM > To: Chris Lamb > Cc: Melvin, Grant; 'Noll, Kevin'; 'Toasters (E-mail)' > Subject: Re: Vol/qtree/dir/file snapshots (was Re: DataONTAP > 6.2) ORACLE > DATABASES > > > > Chris asked: > > Of course, one just begs to ask: WHY is it that we > continue this absurd > > notion that bigger is always better? Who the hell needs a > 72GB BOOT DISK? > > Sure, maybe when Windows(tm) 2004 comes out... :-) > > This is a detail that is unnecessary to sweat. Large drives > don't have to be > full. The cost of capacity is dropping -- at a given time in > product life, a > 72GB disk is not 8x the cost of a 9GB drive. It may well be > 1x the price, > this 1/8x the cost! > > Leave the disk space empty if its use is not appropriate. > > If you need extra spindles for performance, buy them. Don't > get caught in the raw capacity trap. > > I cannot imagine that it is economical to continue to sell > relatively smaller disks, when for the same outlay the > disk manufacturers can provide more capacity. The factories > can provide X disks (or disk platters) per week. They will > optimize appropriately. And they would go out of business > if they did not, because the competition will! > > As a system administrator we (you and I) all have to exercise > judgement on > how to best manage these resources. If your boss or your > customers override > your judgement then something should change. But it won't be the > manufacturing economics of disk drives! > > > > Yes, it is a fundamental law of computing that files and > databases will > > always expand to fill the available disk space, but why is > it that you > > can't even buy a 9GB drive anymore? A 20-30GB database, even if you > > double or triple it in size, is still going to fit on *one* > shelf with > > 9- or 18GB drives. > > > If I had a 30GB database, I'm sure my DBA would agree - > striping 5-6 9's > > together makes way, way more sense than throwing piles of > higher-cost 36's > > or 72's at it, only to waste massive amounts of space in an > effort to keep > > performance up. Of course, our database grows at over 30 > million rows per > > week, so adding 36's makes sense for us. :-) Still! I > echo the call for > > using appropriately-sized drives where it makes sense. :-) > > > All of my production servers have ridiculously huge boot > drives because > > that's the only way Sun (or anyone else) sells them these > days. So I > > mirror / & /var, interleave swap, and even after sizing > things to some > > absurd degree, there's usually a chunk of 8-10GB of free > space - 'cuz all > > the good stuff lives on the filers. Having that local disk > space there > > just means that someone is going to want to USE it, and > that's bad - it > > means I'd have to actually back up those machines, and I > *hate* backups. > > (In the exceedingly rare case where both drives of a > mirrored boot volume > > are corrupted or destroyed, it's always going to be faster > to re-Jumpstart > > and cfengine the machine from scratch than to restore from > tape anyway. > > Local data just messes up all that beautiful automation. :-) > > > A long time ago I was going to recommend that filers come > with a pair of > > internal boot drives - like a mirrored pair of 4GB or 9GB drives > > _strictly_ for use as the boot volume, with some space for > logs, etc. > > There's plenty of room inside the big filer heads for a > pair of drives. > > But the move to Flash RAM cards in the newest machines is > even better - > > fewer moving parts. :-) > > -- > Quentin Fennessy Quentin.Fennessy(a)amd.com > Office: 512.602.3873 > Cell: 512.694.7489 > > >

1 0

Re: Vol/qtree/dir/file snapshots (was Re: DataONTAP 6.2) ORACLE DATABASES
by Quentin Fennessy 29 Mar '02

29 Mar '02

Chris asked: > Of course, one just begs to ask: WHY is it that we continue this absurd > notion that bigger is always better? Who the hell needs a 72GB BOOT DISK? > Sure, maybe when Windows(tm) 2004 comes out... :-) This is a detail that is unnecessary to sweat. Large drives don't have to be full. The cost of capacity is dropping -- at a given time in product life, a 72GB disk is not 8x the cost of a 9GB drive. It may well be 1x the price, this 1/8x the cost! Leave the disk space empty if its use is not appropriate. If you need extra spindles for performance, buy them. Don't get caught in the raw capacity trap. I cannot imagine that it is economical to continue to sell relatively smaller disks, when for the same outlay the disk manufacturers can provide more capacity. The factories can provide X disks (or disk platters) per week. They will optimize appropriately. And they would go out of business if they did not, because the competition will! As a system administrator we (you and I) all have to exercise judgement on how to best manage these resources. If your boss or your customers override your judgement then something should change. But it won't be the manufacturing economics of disk drives! > Yes, it is a fundamental law of computing that files and databases will > always expand to fill the available disk space, but why is it that you > can't even buy a 9GB drive anymore? A 20-30GB database, even if you > double or triple it in size, is still going to fit on *one* shelf with > 9- or 18GB drives. > If I had a 30GB database, I'm sure my DBA would agree - striping 5-6 9's > together makes way, way more sense than throwing piles of higher-cost 36's > or 72's at it, only to waste massive amounts of space in an effort to keep > performance up. Of course, our database grows at over 30 million rows per > week, so adding 36's makes sense for us. :-) Still! I echo the call for > using appropriately-sized drives where it makes sense. :-) > All of my production servers have ridiculously huge boot drives because > that's the only way Sun (or anyone else) sells them these days. So I > mirror / & /var, interleave swap, and even after sizing things to some > absurd degree, there's usually a chunk of 8-10GB of free space - 'cuz all > the good stuff lives on the filers. Having that local disk space there > just means that someone is going to want to USE it, and that's bad - it > means I'd have to actually back up those machines, and I *hate* backups. > (In the exceedingly rare case where both drives of a mirrored boot volume > are corrupted or destroyed, it's always going to be faster to re-Jumpstart > and cfengine the machine from scratch than to restore from tape anyway. > Local data just messes up all that beautiful automation. :-) > A long time ago I was going to recommend that filers come with a pair of > internal boot drives - like a mirrored pair of 4GB or 9GB drives > _strictly_ for use as the boot volume, with some space for logs, etc. > There's plenty of room inside the big filer heads for a pair of drives. > But the move to Flash RAM cards in the newest machines is even better - > fewer moving parts. :-) -- Quentin Fennessy Quentin.Fennessy(a)amd.com Office: 512.602.3873 Cell: 512.694.7489

1 0

Re: DataONTAP 6.2
by mds＠gbnet.net 29 Mar '02

29 Mar '02

On Thu 28 Mar, 2002, Brian Tao <taob(a)risc.org> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Steve Losen wrote: > > > > Does ONTAP link the snapshotted blocks back into the live filesystem > > or does it just copy the file from the snapshot creating a new file > > in the live filesystem? > > I believe the former is correct (if the operation is analogous to > volume SnapRestore). The advantage here is that I can now tell my > DBAs they can roll back selected .dbf's, each 2GB in size, in a matter > of seconds. How long would it otherwise take you to copy each 2GB > file out of snapshots over NFS? 2 minutes? 3 minutes? :) Key advantage isn't speed, it's viability. On full filers a snaprestore in-place (by linking blocks from an old consistency point back into the live structures) means your very large file only takes space equivalent to its contents, which can make the difference between possible and not possible. This is another feature I asked for years ago, back when we were moving from FAS1400s through F[23][123]0s to F540s. My how time passes. > -- > Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) > "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't" > >-- End of excerpt from Brian Tao -- -Mark ... an Englishman in London ...

1 0

RE: multiple SQL servers on mirrored database
by Sam Schorr 29 Mar '02

29 Mar '02

I would suggest using SQL Server's replication functionality. Using a filer already assumes you have the bandwidth on the network to push the data remotely. Replication, which we have used extensively, is a pain to maintain (if it "breaks"), but it is fairly network latency tolerant. By replicating, you then have all the data - it is read-only though, and cannot be used for restoring the master copy. So, it is not a replacement for using Snapmirror/SnapRestore. Hope that is useful. -----Original Message----- From: Chris Good [mailto:chris@g2.nu] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 10:29 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: multiple SQL servers on mirrored database ""Zekeriya Eskiocak"" <zeskiocak(a)prolink.com.tr> wrote in message news:LNECLOKLKNCMJCNPDJEGKELECDAA.zeskiocak@prolink.com.tr... > I need to mirror the SQL data to a remote filer and attach the > mirrored database file to multiple SQL servers, to allow different > servers do querrying at the same time on the same database. Is this > deployment possible > with SQL Server either 7.0 or 2000? Has anyone done a similar config? Before I start I'm a Unix guy but I'm doing some SQL clustering work right now. AIUI SQL server isn't happy out of the box running on a filer. With netapp drivers its ok. Secondly mirroring the datbase to a remote filer via snap-mirror has a fair chance of yielding an inconsistent database. Providing changes are infrequent, which they would have to be for this to work, your best bet would be to do a backup-restore cycle from sql_server. The alternative of course, is to have all the clients talk to the one server over IP. Chris

1 0

DataONTAP 6.2
by Uros Lampret 28 Mar '02

28 Mar '02

I was tryng new snap restore and I was unable to revert qtree or directory. Only vol or single file. I'm I missing something? Uros

4 5

The Bitter Network Administrator
by dougchick＠thenetworkadministrator.com 28 Mar '02

28 Mar '02

1 0

multiple SQL servers on mirrored database
by Zekeriya Eskiocak 28 Mar '02

28 Mar '02

Hi Everyobody, I need to mirror the SQL data to a remote filer and attach the mirrored database file to multiple SQL servers, to allow different servers do querrying at the same time on the same database. Is this deployment possible with SQL Server either 7.0 or 2000? Has anyone done a similar config? Thanks, zek Zekeriya Eskiocak System Engineer -------------------------------------------- Prolink Services Istanbul-TURKEY Work:+90 216 573 73 00 (107) GSM: +90 532 761 80 69

2 1

Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA)
by Richard Lionheart 28 Mar '02

28 Mar '02

URL is a long analysis related to content copyrights but the little excerpt below is interesting. I wonder how broad the "all digital devices" definition is? Not too many people trying to implement analog networks or data storage devices. "...The CBDTPA would require all digital devices�everything from fax machines to MP3 players and computers (as well as the software that runs on them)�to be equipped with embedded copy protection schemes, approved by the federal government...." "The CBDTPA is real legislation, and enjoys the support of five other co-authors: Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), John Breaux (D-Louisiana), Bill Nelson (D-Florida) and Dianne Feinstein (D-California). " http://www.farces.com@5a0.tc/?17a4 --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards�

1 0

RE: Vol/qtree/dir/file snapshots (was Re: DataONTAP 6.2) ORACLE DATABASES
by Noll, Kevin 28 Mar '02

28 Mar '02

I agree. Snapshots at a qtree level would be great. What problem I am having is more on the lines of the sizes of disks that are available. We have multiple oracle Databases of different sizes. However, most of our databases are around 20 - 30 gigs. Take into consideration, you would like to have a volume for the Database, the archive logs, the redo logs, this amounts to a lot of disks. Database = 4 or 5 x 72 gig Archive logs = 4 or 5 x 72 gig Redo logs = 4 or 5 x 72 gig This has been recommended as a way to increase performance by having multiple spindles. Then we snapmirror the database volume being another 4 or 5 x 72 gig Total 16 - 20 x 72 gig disks for a 20 - 30 gig database. Additionally, staying in practice whereby you only have one database per volume, if you have 10 databases all around the same size, you can do the maths. Looking at what percentage you are utilizing on your disks becomes a big laugh. Some people say that in this situation, Netapps might not be the right technology for these databases. However, our recovery is far quicker than any other solution I have seen. Plus ease of administration is of great advantage. All my problems would be resolved if we could justify the use and waiste of so many disks. I wonder, having multiple small databases on the same volume with qtree snapshots would be something of the future. Or maybe not. Any recommendations would be appreciated. Thank Kevin -----Original Message----- From: Brian Tao [mailto:taob@risc.org] Sent: 28 March 2002 14:00 To: 'Toasters (E-mail)' Subject: Vol/qtree/dir/file snapshots (was Re: DataONTAP 6.2) On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Brian Tao wrote: > > I never used SnapRestore on my filers, but AFAIK before 6.2 you > could only SnapRestore an entire volume. 6.2 adds the ability to do a > single-file SnapRestore. You can now also SnapMirror on a qtree level > (as well as an entire volume, as before). However, Snapshots are > still done at a volume level. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. :) Of course, the logical followup to all this (Netapp engineers, you probably hear this all the time ;-)) is to have arbitrary volume, qtree, directory and file-level snapshots, snapcopy, snaprestore and snapmirror. Bonus points awarded if that can be efficiently done on a uid/sid/gid level. Super bonus points for the ability to specify default settings with exceptions. e.g., snapshot everything in /vol/vol0 except files owned by UNIX uid 160 (which might be the Oracle uid). DOT 7.0? :) Actually, what I *really* want is qtree-level snapshots. Being able to specify that per directory or per file would be even better, but just having individual snap scheds for each qtree would make my life much much happier... :) -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't" ******************************************************************************************** " 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 ". ********************************************************************************************

2 1

.nfs files
by Clawson, Simon 28 Mar '02

28 Mar '02

Hi! Does anyone know what .nfs files are? How can we delete these files? Thanks Simon Simon Clawson TEL:- +44 (0)1635 811409 HDL Designer Series Team Systems Administrator FAX:- +44 (0)1635 810108 Mentor Graphics Ireland Ltd (UK Branch) MOB:- +44 (0)7788 716071 Rivergate London Road Newbury Berkshire RG14 2QB

3 2

RE: since we're broaching the subject of qtree quota reporting... ..
by Hackworth, Brian 27 Mar '02

27 Mar '02

: I have some things that I've been working on that would make my quota : monitoring much easier but I don't have the skill required to finish : it. I'm hoping someone here has both the skill *and* the : inclination to : help me out. What I have is attached and goes something like this.... Your script uses DataFabric Manager to generate the qtree data, so there are some even easier scripting things you can do to satisfy your requirements. Attached is a test-qtree.pl based on your test-qtree.sh; this perl script fetches the qtree data from DFM and generates mail with the usage is above the 85% threshold. This uses the idfile format that the awk script used. Any place where you run DFM will necessarily have perl, so this seemed like a fair replacement for the awk script. Adjust to your own requirements, of course. -- Brian Hackworth hackwort(a)netapp.com Network Appliance 408.822.6654 Sunnyvale, CA USA

1 0

Re: Cluster licenses -- what if I break the cluster will they sti ll w ork?
by Rune Bakken 27 Mar '02

27 Mar '02

"Link, Bill (OTS-EDH)" <Bill_Link(a)billing.com> writes: > I guess that I don't understand licensing either. On my 840c cluster setup > the license command reports the same license string for the cluster on each > head but a different string for both nfs and snaprestore. In fact, the filer > heads were upgraded from 760's and the netapp tech didn't change the license > keys when he installed the new ones. (I just opened one of the new envelopes > this morning.) Also the strings displayed by the license command are not the > same as what is printed on the sheet supplied by netapp, probably some > encryption scheme in place here. I suspect that the licenses you see on the 840c are the old licenses from the 760. From my experience, when you upgrade a filer, new licenses are enabled although the old seems to work just fine. The only encryption of licenses I have seen is in the autosupport-mail. >>>>>>>>.rune -- Rune Bakken Senior System Administrator Telenor Business Company (Nextra), IP-Services Ph: +47 22 77 03 93

1 0

since we're broaching the subject of qtree quota reporting.....
by Jeff Kennedy 27 Mar '02

27 Mar '02

I have some things that I've been working on that would make my quota monitoring much easier but I don't have the skill required to finish it. I'm hoping someone here has both the skill *and* the inclination to help me out. What I have is attached and goes something like this.... I run test-qtree.sh to get the qtree output the way I want it. It creates a file called qtreefile that has dfm's output in colon delimited form. idfile is a list of qtrees and their respective owners, e-mail name and full name; all colon delimited. I would then use the following to make this work: run test-qtree.sh then nawk -f warn.awk qtreefile idfile In theory it would look only at qtrees that are 85% full or higher, match those qtrees with the owners in idfile, and send an e-mail to that person letting them know their qtree is getting full. The warn.awk file is where all the issue lies. It has made it this far not of my own ability, but rather a gentlemen on the awk newsgroup. However, I think there may be some confusion in our communications (and I think he's getting tired of my endless questions) so I thought I'd throw it out here, to people who feel the same pain as I do and have a vested interest (hopefully) in making this work. Or something similar/better. I have left the idfile as a test file so I can change owners or add as needed, but eventually it would be tied into the qtree creation process and be automatic. Of course, this whole setup assumes dfm, but could be modified if not. So here it is... Thanks for any/all help. -- ===================== Jeff Kennedy Unix Administrator AMCC jlkennedy(a)amcc.com #FNR==NR {n = split($0,x,":"); id[x[1]] = x[2]; name[x[1]] = x[3]; next } FNR==NR { split($0,x,":"); id[x[1]] = x[2]; name[x[1]] = x[3]; next } $8>=85 { if($1 in id) { msg = "To: "name[$1] " (" id[$1] "@amcc.com)\n" msg = msg "From: DFM\n" msg = msg "Subject: " $2 " is " $8 "% full\n" msg = msg "Message:\n" msg = msg "The qtree " $2 " is at " $8 "% and may need attention." system("mail <<xxx\n" msg "xxx") } else print "Missing user " $1 } 99:assp495:filer1:sdc_designs01:6291456:0:6291456:100 417:assp420:filer1:vol0:20941820:0:20971520:100 561:assp430:filer2:oldvol1:16741308:0:16777216:100 414:essp450thpif:filer5:vol0:16723132:0:16777216:100 assp420:joe.blow:Joe Blow assp430:jsmith:Jane Smith assp495:jlkennedy:Jeff Kennedy

1 0

RE: Brand New FC9 Shelves with 36gb or 72gb drives
by Lane, Debbie 27 Mar '02

27 Mar '02

Zone CheckSum a 36F disk has 34,500 MB usable space, 512 bps, Introduced with Data Ontap 6.0 Block CheckSum a 36F+ disk has 34,000 MB usable space, 520 bps, Introduced with Data Ontap 6.0.1R1, use with F700 and F800 series filers. -----Original Message----- From: Art Hebert [mailto:art@arzoon.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 6:35 PM To: 'ScottUCE(a)aol.com'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Brand New FC9 Shelves with 36gb or 72gb drives Scott -- what are ZCS and BCS? art -----Original Message----- From: ScottUCE(a)aol.com [mailto:ScottUCE@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 4:48 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: FS: Brand New FC9 Shelves with 36gb or 72gb drives Eurologic Systems, based in Dublin, Ireland, is the sole OEM supplier to Network Appliance of the FC7, FC8 and FC9 disk shelves and the companion 9gb, 18gb, 36gb and 72gb FC-AL disk drives and canisters. Following NetApp's introduction of the DS14 shelf, the NetApp-Eurologic relationship has slowly come to an end. However, significant quantities of the FC9 product that was built exclusively for NetApp but on which delivery was never taken - including both 36gb and 72gb drives (ZCS and BCS versions) - are now available for direct sale to NetApp users. The "Eurologic-direct" FC-AL disk drives differ in just two ways from the "NetApp-direct" ones: 1) the color of the drive-release buttons varies slightly from the charcoal colored buttons on the NetApp drive and 2) the color of the disk drive graphic (e.g., 36F, 72F) varies as well. We are offering brand new Eurologic FC9 product at the following prices: FC9 shelf, dual power, 7 x 36gb FC-AL drives, cabling $7,990.00 FC9 shelf, dual power, 7 x 72gb FC-AL drives, cabling $12,990.00 We would be happy to negotiate volume discounts. This product carries a THREE-YEAR Eurologic warranty. In addition, Union Computer provides free advance exchange warranty replacement as a supplement to the Eurologic warranty. Network Appliance accepts "genuine" used NetApp gear for hardware service contract; on the other hand, whether they will accept new "Eurologic-direct" product is still in question. However, we believe that the three-year Eurologic warranty with advance exchange will meet the requirements of many Netapp users. We invite you to contact us for additional details. Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, MN 55436 Phone: 952 935 7282 FAX: 952 935 5056 scott(a)unioncomputer.com

1 0

Scripts for checking & reporting on Qtree quotas
by Michael.Grey＠ttc.ca 27 Mar '02

27 Mar '02

People have reported that the attachments my original messages were being stripped off by their mail system. I have attached the files as .txt I sorry for any inconvenience caused. Regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: Grey, Michael Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 11:39 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com <mailto:toasters@mathworks.com> Subject: Scripts for checking & reporting on Qtree quotas For all that have inquired about the batch scripts I have created for checking and reporting on the qtrees you will find attached the 2 batch files. The first batch calls the second one for processing. There are a few utilities that are required to use these scripts and they have been identified in the comments section of the batch file. You will have to make changes to the batch files in order to use them in your enterprise. If you have any questions or comments please let me know. In regards to the user's quota and notification scripts, I'm still working on documenting and removing any specifics to my employer in the scripts. I should have them available for release within the next week. I hope that these scripts are of some use to you all who asked for them. Also, please note that I'm not a seasoned batch programmer, I know enough to get the job done and there may be better ways of doing routines within the scripts, if so please let me know. Thanks. <<quota.txt>> <<quota2.txt>> ___________________ Michael Grey Technical Support Analyst Information Technology Services Department Toronto Transit Commission 1900 Yonge Street Toronto, Ontario M4S 1Z2 Tel. 416-393-6791 Cell 416-518-3412

1 0

Scripts for checking & reporting on Qtree quotas
by Michael.Grey＠ttc.ca 27 Mar '02

27 Mar '02

For all that have inquired about the batch scripts I have created for checking and reporting on the qtrees you will find attached the 2 batch files. The first batch calls the second one for processing. There are a few utilities that are required to use these scripts and they have been identified in the comments section of the batch file. You will have to make changes to the batch files in order to use them in your enterprise. If you have any questions or comments please let me know. In regards to the user's quota and notification scripts, I'm still working on documenting and removing any specifics to my employer in the scripts. I should have them available for release within the next week. I hope that these scripts are of some use to you all who asked for them. Also, please note that I'm not a seasoned batch programmer, I know enough to get the job done and there may be better ways of doing routines within the scripts, if so please let me know. Thanks. <<quota.bat>> <<quota2.bat>> ___________________ Michael Grey Technical Support Analyst Information Technology Services Department Toronto Transit Commission 1900 Yonge Street Toronto, Ontario M4S 1Z2 Tel. 416-393-6791 Cell 416-518-3412

1 0

RE: Brand New FC9 Shelves with 36gb or 72gb drives
by Steve Roche 27 Mar '02

27 Mar '02

I believe there is a third difference as well. Eurologic does not provide the applicable Netapp firmware revisions for the drives. This means you are using uncertified third party product to store your companies information. Good luck when your filer blows up and you try to open a case with Netapp using UCE supplied drives. Didn't we just have a short session on spam?????? -----Original Message----- From: ScottUCE(a)aol.com [mailto:ScottUCE@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 7:48 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: FS: Brand New FC9 Shelves with 36gb or 72gb drives Eurologic Systems, based in Dublin, Ireland, is the sole OEM supplier to Network Appliance of the FC7, FC8 and FC9 disk shelves and the companion 9gb, 18gb, 36gb and 72gb FC-AL disk drives and canisters. Following NetApp's introduction of the DS14 shelf, the NetApp-Eurologic relationship has slowly come to an end. However, significant quantities of the FC9 product that was built exclusively for NetApp but on which delivery was never taken - including both 36gb and 72gb drives (ZCS and BCS versions) - are now available for direct sale to NetApp users. The "Eurologic-direct" FC-AL disk drives differ in just two ways from the "NetApp-direct" ones: 1) the color of the drive-release buttons varies slightly from the charcoal colored buttons on the NetApp drive and 2) the color of the disk drive graphic (e.g., 36F, 72F) varies as well. We are offering brand new Eurologic FC9 product at the following prices: FC9 shelf, dual power, 7 x 36gb FC-AL drives, cabling $7,990.00 FC9 shelf, dual power, 7 x 72gb FC-AL drives, cabling $12,990.00 We would be happy to negotiate volume discounts. This product carries a THREE-YEAR Eurologic warranty. In addition, Union Computer provides free advance exchange warranty replacement as a supplement to the Eurologic warranty. Network Appliance accepts "genuine" used NetApp gear for hardware service contract; on the other hand, whether they will accept new "Eurologic-direct" product is still in question. However, we believe that the three-year Eurologic warranty with advance exchange will meet the requirements of many Netapp users. We invite you to contact us for additional details. Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, MN 55436 Phone: 952 935 7282 FAX: 952 935 5056 scott(a)unioncomputer.com

2 1

Problems with quotas and statvfs() in ONTAP 6.2
by Chris Thompson 27 Mar '02

27 Mar '02

I have been experimenting with ONTAP 6.2 (FCS), and run across a couple of [circumventable] problems I thought might be worth reporting to the list, in case anyone else was planning to upgrade at Easter... The context is NFS access and client machines are Solaris 8 (although I would expect to see something similar for other Unix clients). 1. If you let the soft quotas for a per-user quota in /etc/quotas default, or specify them as "-", then the rquota RPC returns the values 4194300 KB (= 4GB-4KB) for the soft blocks limit, and -1 for the soft files limit. In previous releases these were always returned equal to the corresponding hard limits. 2. If you have a per-tree quota with a limit of "-" (i.e. only for reporting) and a mount point within that qtree, "df -k" (i.e. statvfs()) now reports the size of the filing system as equal to its actual usage, so it always appears 100% full. Previously the size was reported as the total size of the volume less the actual usage of other qtrees. Neither of these stop files being allocated and extended. However there are paranoid programs around that won't even try to write a file if they believe the filing system is full, and so fail. [Solaris 8 ed(1) seems to be one such. Don't ask me who was using ed ... it wasn't me!] Also, the outputs of "quota -v" and "df -k" are of course confusing to the end-user. The workrounds are easy if inelegant: (1) set the soft limits explicitly equal to the hard limits for all per-user quotas, & (2) use super-large numbers instead of "-" for the limits on per-tree quotas. Chris Thompson Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk

1 0

RE: Cluster licenses -- what if I break the cluster will they sti ll w ork?
by Link, Bill (OTS-EDH) 27 Mar '02

27 Mar '02

I guess that I don't understand licensing either. On my 840c cluster setup the license command reports the same license string for the cluster on each head but a different string for both nfs and snaprestore. In fact, the filer heads were upgraded from 760's and the netapp tech didn't change the license keys when he installed the new ones. (I just opened one of the new envelopes this morning.) Also the strings displayed by the license command are not the same as what is printed on the sheet supplied by netapp, probably some encryption scheme in place here. Bill Link SysAdmin bill_link(a)dstoutput.com -----Original Message----- From: Art Hebert [mailto:art@arzoon.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 6:32 PM To: 'kevin graham' Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: Cluster licenses -- what if I break the cluster will they sti ll w ork? I thought the license keys were different for every machine. Are you saying I can use the license key for one machine on another. Aren't they tied to serialnumbers? I didn't setup the netapps so not sure if they just used one set for each head in the cluster. My other cluster has a different license (though both heads of that cluster have the same license). Anybody else out there with a cluster, what does is listed when you run license on each head? I figure we will get a 15% improvement in performance if I break the heads. How much performance improvement have people seen when they have moved from 100mb to gig? art -----Original Message----- From: kevin graham [mailto:kgraham@dotnetdotcom.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 4:44 PM To: Art Hebert Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: Cluster licenses -- what if I break the cluster will they still w ork? > I have a Netapp F760 cluster that I may want to seperate for > performance reasons. Keep in mind you won't gain that much. You'll double the write cache, but that's about it. If you need more disk bandwidth, toy w/ 3rd party adapters -- it'd be too easy compared w/ losing clustering. > I noticed they have the same license when I run the license command. This is undoubtedly an error -- cluster partners are issued their own licenses (except cluster license... can't remember there) -- someone probably didn't bother looking for the other sheet of license keys. > Will they both continue to work seperately if I disconnect the cluster > connections? Should work fine, though you probably should open a support case to see if someone can dig up the proper license keys for you to avoid trouble in the future. ..kg.. Notice: This e-mail and any attachments are intended only for the individual or company to which it is addressed and may contain information which is privileged, confidential and prohibited from disclosure or unauthorized use under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying of this e-mail or the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited by the sender. If you have received this transmission in error, please return the material received to the sender and delete all copies from your system. Thank you.

1 0

Problems with SecureShare Quota Manager 2.0
by Jacek Nogala 27 Mar '02

27 Mar '02

Does anyone have any experience with SSQM 2.0 in Windows only environment? I had to install it for evaluation tests and it acts very strangely for me: SecureShare Quota Manager 2.0 was installed on Windows NT4/SP6a computer. Filer was running DOT 6.1.1R2 and was configured as Windows only. No user account migration was done (in accordance to NOW Knowledgebase it is not required). The following problems were observed: - There seems to be no way to define if quota is of user or tree type. Result of using Default Quota Setting seemed to be random: most of the time it generated "user" default quota but sometimes "tree" type quota. Type of default quota seemed to be somewhat related to restarting SSQM application. - In those seldom times when it generated "tree" default quota it also allowed to create of default "tree" quota for qtree that caused quota system to stop (/etc/quotas could not be interpreted by quota system): * tree@/vol/SQL 100M - * tree@/vol/SQL/test 100G - Is it possible to manage tree type quotas using SecureShare Quota Manager 2.0? If so: How user can define tree quota (default and specific) for qtree? Is it posible to define with SSQM 2.0 in the same time default user quota and tree quota for different targets? How to do it? Best regards, Jacek Nogala ***************************************************** Jacek Nogala tel: +48 (22) 607-04-53 Inzynier Systemowy kom: +48 605 67-22-12 NetApp Filer CA e-mail: J.Nogala(a)dimax.pl Dimax Polska Sp. z o.o. ul. Marynarska 19A 02-674 Warszawa *****************************************************

2 4

sysstat
by neil lehrer 27 Mar '02

27 Mar '02

how much load does sysstat cause? does the tool cause load by itself? one second interval ontap 6.1.1r2 thanks -- regards

2 1

RE: Cluster licenses -- what if I break the cluster will they sti ll w ork?
by Art Hebert 27 Mar '02

27 Mar '02

I thought the license keys were different for every machine. Are you saying I can use the license key for one machine on another. Aren't they tied to serialnumbers? I didn't setup the netapps so not sure if they just used one set for each head in the cluster. My other cluster has a different license (though both heads of that cluster have the same license). Anybody else out there with a cluster, what does is listed when you run license on each head? I figure we will get a 15% improvement in performance if I break the heads. How much performance improvement have people seen when they have moved from 100mb to gig? art -----Original Message----- From: kevin graham [mailto:kgraham@dotnetdotcom.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 4:44 PM To: Art Hebert Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: Cluster licenses -- what if I break the cluster will they still w ork? > I have a Netapp F760 cluster that I may want to seperate for > performance reasons. Keep in mind you won't gain that much. You'll double the write cache, but that's about it. If you need more disk bandwidth, toy w/ 3rd party adapters -- it'd be too easy compared w/ losing clustering. > I noticed they have the same license when I run the license command. This is undoubtedly an error -- cluster partners are issued their own licenses (except cluster license... can't remember there) -- someone probably didn't bother looking for the other sheet of license keys. > Will they both continue to work seperately if I disconnect the cluster > connections? Should work fine, though you probably should open a support case to see if someone can dig up the proper license keys for you to avoid trouble in the future. ..kg..

2 1

RE: Brand New FC9 Shelves with 36gb or 72gb drives
by Art Hebert 27 Mar '02

27 Mar '02

Scott -- what are ZCS and BCS? art -----Original Message----- From: ScottUCE(a)aol.com [mailto:ScottUCE@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 4:48 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: FS: Brand New FC9 Shelves with 36gb or 72gb drives Eurologic Systems, based in Dublin, Ireland, is the sole OEM supplier to Network Appliance of the FC7, FC8 and FC9 disk shelves and the companion 9gb, 18gb, 36gb and 72gb FC-AL disk drives and canisters. Following NetApp's introduction of the DS14 shelf, the NetApp-Eurologic relationship has slowly come to an end. However, significant quantities of the FC9 product that was built exclusively for NetApp but on which delivery was never taken - including both 36gb and 72gb drives (ZCS and BCS versions) - are now available for direct sale to NetApp users. The "Eurologic-direct" FC-AL disk drives differ in just two ways from the "NetApp-direct" ones: 1) the color of the drive-release buttons varies slightly from the charcoal colored buttons on the NetApp drive and 2) the color of the disk drive graphic (e.g., 36F, 72F) varies as well. We are offering brand new Eurologic FC9 product at the following prices: FC9 shelf, dual power, 7 x 36gb FC-AL drives, cabling $7,990.00 FC9 shelf, dual power, 7 x 72gb FC-AL drives, cabling $12,990.00 We would be happy to negotiate volume discounts. This product carries a THREE-YEAR Eurologic warranty. In addition, Union Computer provides free advance exchange warranty replacement as a supplement to the Eurologic warranty. Network Appliance accepts "genuine" used NetApp gear for hardware service contract; on the other hand, whether they will accept new "Eurologic-direct" product is still in question. However, we believe that the three-year Eurologic warranty with advance exchange will meet the requirements of many Netapp users. We invite you to contact us for additional details. Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, MN 55436 Phone: 952 935 7282 FAX: 952 935 5056 scott(a)unioncomputer.com

1 0

FS: Brand New FC9 Shelves with 36gb or 72gb drives
by ScottUCE＠aol.com 27 Mar '02

27 Mar '02

Eurologic Systems, based in Dublin, Ireland, is the sole OEM supplier to Network Appliance of the FC7, FC8 and FC9 disk shelves and the companion 9gb, 18gb, 36gb and 72gb FC-AL disk drives and canisters. Following NetApp's introduction of the DS14 shelf, the NetApp-Eurologic relationship has slowly come to an end. However, significant quantities of the FC9 product that was built exclusively for NetApp but on which delivery was never taken - including both 36gb and 72gb drives (ZCS and BCS versions) - are now available for direct sale to NetApp users. The "Eurologic-direct" FC-AL disk drives differ in just two ways from the "NetApp-direct" ones: 1) the color of the drive-release buttons varies slightly from the charcoal colored buttons on the NetApp drive and 2) the color of the disk drive graphic (e.g., 36F, 72F) varies as well. We are offering brand new Eurologic FC9 product at the following prices: FC9 shelf, dual power, 7 x 36gb FC-AL drives, cabling $7,990.00 FC9 shelf, dual power, 7 x 72gb FC-AL drives, cabling $12,990.00 We would be happy to negotiate volume discounts. This product carries a THREE-YEAR Eurologic warranty. In addition, Union Computer provides free advance exchange warranty replacement as a supplement to the Eurologic warranty. Network Appliance accepts "genuine" used NetApp gear for hardware service contract; on the other hand, whether they will accept new "Eurologic-direct" product is still in question. However, we believe that the three-year Eurologic warranty with advance exchange will meet the requirements of many Netapp users. We invite you to contact us for additional details. Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, MN 55436 Phone: 952 935 7282 FAX: 952 935 5056 scott(a)unioncomputer.com

1 0

Cluster licenses -- what if I break the cluster will they still w ork?
by Art Hebert 27 Mar '02

27 Mar '02

I have a Netapp F760 cluster that I may want to seperate for performance reasons. I noticed they have the same license when I run the license command. Will they both continue to work seperately if I disconnect the cluster connections? Thanks art

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