toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

RE: mcafee scanning a cifs share
by Walsh, Warren (MN65) 01 Nov '01

01 Nov '01

I've had problems with the app crashing, with an error about the path being too long. -warren -----Original Message----- From: Leonard, Roger [mailto:Roger.Leonard@marconi.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:42 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: mcafee scanning a cifs share does anyone know of any problems or issues with using NT based mcafee scanner to scan a filers cifs shares from a PC? anything like data corruption or incorrect id'ing of virus infected files? just curious if this is a valid way to scan a filer for viri. thanks Roger D. Leonard

2 1

RE: mcafee scanning a cifs share
by Mike McBride 01 Nov '01

01 Nov '01

Mcafee has worked well for us - so far. We had to make sure "Domain Admins" had rights to the folders or we would get permission problems. ~mike -----Original Message----- From: Walsh, Warren (MN65) [mailto:warren.walsh@honeywell.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 2:47 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: mcafee scanning a cifs share I've had problems with the app crashing, with an error about the path being too long. -warren -----Original Message----- From: Leonard, Roger [mailto:Roger.Leonard@marconi.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:42 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: mcafee scanning a cifs share does anyone know of any problems or issues with using NT based mcafee scanner to scan a filers cifs shares from a PC? anything like data corruption or incorrect id'ing of virus infected files? just curious if this is a valid way to scan a filer for viri. thanks Roger D. Leonard

1 0

RE: mcafee scanning a cifs share
by Maglinger, Paul 01 Nov '01

01 Nov '01

We use McAfee products here and have run scans against our filer with no problems. -----Original Message----- From: Leonard, Roger [mailto:Roger.Leonard@marconi.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:42 To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: mcafee scanning a cifs share does anyone know of any problems or issues with using NT based mcafee scanner to scan a filers cifs shares from a PC? anything like data corruption or incorrect id'ing of virus infected files? just curious if this is a valid way to scan a filer for viri. thanks Roger D. Leonard

1 0

MacOS X and CIFS on filer
by Steve Losen 01 Nov '01

01 Nov '01

MacOS X comes with a CIFS client that works with our filers running 6.0.1R3. To use it just get into the "Finder" and go to the "Go" menu and use "Connect to Server". At the "Address:" text entry type smb://filer.host.name/share And you are prompted for your CIFS loginid and password. I've run into two annoyances. 1) MacOS does not appear to reconnect if a session goes idle. Looks like it's still connected, but nothing works. From a Unix window, df indicates that the share is not mounted. So you have to disconnect by dragging and dropping the icon representing the CIFS share into the wastebasket and connect again. 2) If you drag and drop a file into your CIFS share, you get an annoying dialog box that says: Sorry, the operation could not be completed because an unexpected error occurred (Error Code -50). And in /etc/messages on the filer you see this: Thu Nov 1 16:03:03 EST [home1: FastEnet-10/100/e0:CRITICAL]: CIFS t2 request 6 not implemented debuginfo( 1 39 7a D-128-13-59) ^^^^^^^^^^^ hostname of my mac The file copies just fine, so you can just ignore the error. But you can't drag and drop entire folders because of this. Anyone have any idea what's up? Other stuff works fine, such as Unix commands from a Unix window. Looks like a viable solution for Mac users who want to use a filer. Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 434-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

2 2

RE: mcafee scanning a cifs share
by Nail, Larry 01 Nov '01

01 Nov '01

No, can't say that I've seen that. Are you scanning "compressed" files like zip or tar's? -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mike.sphar@peregrine.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 3:11 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: mcafee scanning a cifs share You haven't run into any problems with the scan "hanging"? The few times I've run scans against very larges shares, every so often the scan would just stop and sit at one file forever, and not the same file each time, it just seemed sort of random. Made automated scans pretty useless for me. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - R&D Support Peregrine Systems, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Nail, Larry [mailto:lnail@ti.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:41 PM To: 'Leonard, Roger'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: mcafee scanning a cifs share We use Norton AntiVirus 5 to scan shares without any problems... Just turn the snapshots off ahead scan time. -----Original Message----- From: Leonard, Roger [mailto:Roger.Leonard@marconi.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:42 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: mcafee scanning a cifs share does anyone know of any problems or issues with using NT based mcafee scanner to scan a filers cifs shares from a PC? anything like data corruption or incorrect id'ing of virus infected files? just curious if this is a valid way to scan a filer for viri. thanks Roger D. Leonard

1 0

RE: mcafee scanning a cifs share
by Mike Sphar 01 Nov '01

01 Nov '01

You haven't run into any problems with the scan "hanging"? The few times I've run scans against very larges shares, every so often the scan would just stop and sit at one file forever, and not the same file each time, it just seemed sort of random. Made automated scans pretty useless for me. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - R&D Support Peregrine Systems, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Nail, Larry [mailto:lnail@ti.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:41 PM To: 'Leonard, Roger'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: mcafee scanning a cifs share We use Norton AntiVirus 5 to scan shares without any problems... Just turn the snapshots off ahead scan time. -----Original Message----- From: Leonard, Roger [mailto:Roger.Leonard@marconi.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:42 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: mcafee scanning a cifs share does anyone know of any problems or issues with using NT based mcafee scanner to scan a filers cifs shares from a PC? anything like data corruption or incorrect id'ing of virus infected files? just curious if this is a valid way to scan a filer for viri. thanks Roger D. Leonard

1 0

RE: mcafee scanning a cifs share
by Nail, Larry 01 Nov '01

01 Nov '01

We use Norton AntiVirus 5 to scan shares without any problems... Just turn the snapshots off ahead scan time. -----Original Message----- From: Leonard, Roger [mailto:Roger.Leonard@marconi.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:42 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: mcafee scanning a cifs share does anyone know of any problems or issues with using NT based mcafee scanner to scan a filers cifs shares from a PC? anything like data corruption or incorrect id'ing of virus infected files? just curious if this is a valid way to scan a filer for viri. thanks Roger D. Leonard

1 0

mcafee scanning a cifs share
by Leonard, Roger 01 Nov '01

01 Nov '01

does anyone know of any problems or issues with using NT based mcafee scanner to scan a filers cifs shares from a PC? anything like data corruption or incorrect id'ing of virus infected files? just curious if this is a valid way to scan a filer for viri. thanks Roger D. Leonard

1 0

Snapmirror
by Neil Stichbury 01 Nov '01

01 Nov '01

Folks, I have a requirement to Snapmirror from a Filer using BCS disks to a Filer using ZCS disks. I understand that checksum reversion will take place during the initial sync and that with around 400GB to mirror this will add around two hours to the process. Question: Will the incremental mirroring that occurs, occur as per normal ?. Ie no issues other than the initial reversion ? After a few weeks the Snapmirror will be set in the other direction (ZCS to BCS). Will the reversion process occur again ?. Ontap is 6.01.R3 in both Filers. Regards, Neil Stichbury Client Services gen-i Limited Ph: +64-9-306-4717 FaX: +64-9-306-4543 Email:nhs@gen-i.co.nz This e-mail message has been scanned and cleared by MailMarshal http://www.gen-i.co.nz

1 0

RE: Veritas NetBackup 3.4 NDMP backup failure
by Collie, Michael 31 Oct '01

31 Oct '01

Attached is a note from STK regarding tape cleaning options on the L700. >>>>>>><<<<<<<<< To let the backup app determine when to clean a drive Auto Clean is turned off in the library. STK libraries, with Auto Clean enabled, will present status to the backup application that a drive is being cleaned. The drives all present to the library that they need to be cleaned and the drive vendors like this because drives should only be cleaned when necessary - prevents excessive head wear. With Auto Clean enabled in a library a clean will occur when the drive tells the library that it needs to be cleaned. This means that a clean operation could occur in the middle of a multi-volume backup causing problems for the backup application. None of the backup applications make use of the status the library presents to say that a clean operation is occurring, they all have different methods of cleaning drives. Some base cleaning on number of mounts and some on hours of use - drive vendors don't like either method as they only want a drive to be cleaned when they determine that it is necessary. Because the backup apps don't make use of the library status notification we usually suggest that customer's let the backup app determine when to clean a device. This means that a clean will occur when the backup app wants to do one, this way you don't encounter cleanings during multi-volume backups. Veritas NetBackup put out a big patch recently that addressed this cleaning issue (and other issues), I think in patch 3.4.1 - you will have to check the Veritas site. NetBackup will now detect that a drive is being cleaned and 'wait' for this to end. In the case of a DLT drive this could take 20-30 minutes because the DLT drives never use the same area of a cleaning tape, they always space forward to a new area on the cleaning tape. -----Original Message----- From: ilya.birman(a)abnamro.com [mailto:ilya.birman@abnamro.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 10:55 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Veritas NetBackup 3.4 NDMP backup failure ----- Forwarded by Ilya Birman/US/ABNAMRO/NL on 10/31/2001 01:00 PM ----- Ilya Birman To: 'toasters <'toasters(a)mathworks.com'" 10/31/2001 <toasters(a)mathworks.com> 10:31 AM cc: support(a)veritas.com, support(a)storagtek.com Subject: Veritas NetBackup 3.4 NDMP backup failure We have a 760 NetApp Filer that we backup using NetBackup 3.4 via NDMP ( StorageTek L700) The volume of the backup job is large and spans across numerous tapes. Often StorageTek L700 detects that tape drive needs to be cleaned and in the middle of the backup job, while backup job switches tapes. This causes Veritas to DOWN the tape drive. Have anyone run into this problem. Is there a setting you can set ( turning off Auto Clean is not an option) TIA Ilya --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 unauthorized 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

Veritas NetBackup 3.4 NDMP backup failure
by ilya.birman＠abnamro.com 31 Oct '01

31 Oct '01

----- Forwarded by Ilya Birman/US/ABNAMRO/NL on 10/31/2001 01:00 PM ----- Ilya Birman To: 'toasters <'toasters(a)mathworks.com'" 10/31/2001 <toasters(a)mathworks.com> 10:31 AM cc: support(a)veritas.com, support(a)storagtek.com Subject: Veritas NetBackup 3.4 NDMP backup failure We have a 760 NetApp Filer that we backup using NetBackup 3.4 via NDMP ( StorageTek L700) The volume of the backup job is large and spans across numerous tapes. Often StorageTek L700 detects that tape drive needs to be cleaned and in the middle of the backup job, while backup job switches tapes. This causes Veritas to DOWN the tape drive. Have anyone run into this problem. Is there a setting you can set ( turning off Auto Clean is not an option) TIA Ilya --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 unauthorized 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

RE: CarrierScan (Resolved)
by Tim Longo 31 Oct '01

31 Oct '01

I forgot to create a unix account to match my Windows service account. Once created, things started working as expected. Thanks. > >I'm having trouble getting my carrier scan server to register with my filer when >using a service account. When I change the service account to a domain admin >account, things work fine. > >I therefore conclude that my install/config is correct, with the exception of my >service account permissions. > >Have done the following: > >- created a service account in the domain >- added the service account to the local "Backup Operators" group on the netapp >- added the service account to local admin group on win2k machine (so it can run >as a service?) > >Any suggestions? > >Thanks. >

1 0

RE: CarrierScan
by Tim Longo 31 Oct '01

31 Oct '01

I'm having trouble getting my carrier scan server to register with my filer when using a service account. When I change the service account to a domain admin account, things work fine. I therefore conclude that my install/config is correct, with the exception of my service account permissions. Have done the following: - created a service account in the domain - added the service account to the local "Backup Operators" group on the netapp - added the service account to local admin group on win2k machine (so it can run as a service?) Any suggestions? Thanks.

1 0

Re: Used gear?
by ScottUCE＠aol.com 31 Oct '01

31 Oct '01

In a message dated 10/29/01 11:05:15 AM Central Standard Time, FZiller(a)IKON.com writes: > They have to "re-certify" the equipment before they support it...can be > costly. > Network Appliance has been very reasonable with respect to accepting used NetApp add-ons and systems onto service contract. This is not to say, however, that users are required to buy NetApp service coverage on their purchases of used gear. Regards, 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

RE: Veritas Netbackup Database
by Jon Walton 29 Oct '01

29 Oct '01

I guess what I am getting at is make sure you get it in writing. I agree with your take on NFS file locking, but I have been in situations where support engineer A promised something that support engineer B would not support. If you can point to a Veritas document that states they support the database over NFS, your are in favorable situation. Regards, Jon -----Original Message----- From: Manny Kaiser [mailto:mkaiser@mmcnet.com] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 12:28 AM To: Jon Walton Cc: toasters@mathworks. com Subject: RE: Veritas Netbackup Database I was under the distinct impression that file locking in NFS in today's operating systems is considerably more reliable then it was years ago. I have never encountered a problem with any application running on an NFS mounted file system. I am under the impression that the quote below is something that was copied out of earlier versions of the manual and never reviewed again. When using NFS you might suffer a performance penalty if your systems are not correctly configured. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]On Behalf Of Jon Walton Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 11:31 PM To: Jeff Kennedy Cc: toasters@mathworks. com Subject: RE: Veritas Netbackup Database Now that I look, the 3.4 DataCenter install guide states: "Because the product uses file locking, VERITAS recommends that you not install NetBackup in an NFS mounted directory. File locking in NFS mounted files systems can be unreliable" I mentally took this to mean "not supported". Sorry if my previous email was misleading. Regards, Jon -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Kennedy [mailto:jlkennedy@amcc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 6:18 AM To: Jon Walton Cc: toasters@mathworks. com Subject: Re: Veritas Netbackup Database OK, I did some checking again. Veritas does officially support putting /usr/openv onto an NFS file system. However, they say that performance does suffer due to the large write streams. So, if performance is not an issue then it is a very nice solution. Also, db backups do not yet support disk storage unit backups. Supposedly in 4.5 they will for just this reason. ~JK Jon Walton wrote: > > I believe they do not support this due the fact that operations on the > database files involve file locking. That is what is remember reading > in the Unix Admin Guide. > > Regards, > > Jon > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Kennedy [mailto:jlkennedy@amcc.com] > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 10:39 AM > To: Manny Kaiser > Cc: toasters@mathworks. com > Subject: Re: Veritas Netbackup Database > > Got word from Vertias that putting the /usr/openv filesystem itself on > NFS was NOT supported. However, you could backup the database to a NFS > disk without issue.... > > ~JK > > > Manny Kaiser wrote: > > > > Has anyone placed the Veritas Netbackup database on an NFS mounted > > file system? > > More specifically on a netapp? > > I was just told by Veritas that they do not recommend doing this > > because NFS is unreliable. > > Any feedback would be helpful. > > > > > > -- > ===================== > Jeff Kennedy > Unix Administrator > AMCC > jlkennedy(a)amcc.com -- ===================== Jeff Kennedy Unix Administrator AMCC jlkennedy(a)amcc.com

1 0

Re: file access on a particular file on cifs side seems to hang Windo wsExplorer
by Don.Hickey＠alcatel.com 29 Oct '01

29 Oct '01

I had the same problem. It turned out to be a bug in ontap. I noticed that disabling the virus scanner on my pc fixed it. I reported the problem to netapp and its fixed in 6.1.1R2 .... my suggestion is to upgrade. Don kim(a)dotcast.com Sent by: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com 2001-10-26 06:30 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com cc: Subject: file access on a particular file on cifs side seems to hang Windo ws Explorer Hi, I have this weird issue with file access to a particular file on our filer. When you click on the file it hangs the Windows Explorer for a good few minutes before it returns control. If I attempt to copy the MS Word file (1.7mb) it takes an extremely long time (up to 5 minutes). Other files of the same size or larger copy fine from Filer to Windows 2000 Server or Professional. From NFS the same file copies fine. If I look at the same file from the snapshot directories in Windows, file access time is fine. Here's what we have: F760 with CIFS and NFS licenses. NetApp Release 6.0.1R3 oplocks globally disabled per netapp support mixed qtrees in Windows 2000 domain and NIS environment Windows 2000 Server/Professional (SP2) as clients Below is a cifs session of the host that has this file open. filer> cifs sessions HOST users shares/files open HOST (DOMAIN\username - username) public R&W-denyN - \Share\Spring_2001_Demonstration\Demonstration - HW SW Interface Description.doc I'm not sure what the "denyN" in "R&W-denyN" means. I'm curious if anyone's run across this before. I have 2 other NetApps in similar environments and haven't seen this condition on either yet. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks, -Kim P. Lam kim(a)dotcast.com

1 0

wafl.maxdirsize max
by Roman.Ustoyev＠chase.com 29 Oct '01

29 Oct '01

What is the maximum value for wafl.maxdirsize option? The default is 10M but we might need to increase it to 40M.

1 0

RE: Used gear?
by Ziller, Frank 29 Oct '01

29 Oct '01

They have to "re-certify" the equipment before they support it...can be costly. -----Original Message----- From: Nick Steel. (lists) [mailto:mrlist@noid.org] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 4:25 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Used gear? Does Netapp have any problems providing hardware support for used equipment? I'm looking at adding some additional space to our F840's and I'd like to shop the used market if the price break is worth it and the support is there from Netapp. Also, does anyone have a vendor they'd recommend for used Netapp gear? Thanks! - Nick

1 0

file access on a particular file on cifs side seems to hang Windo ws Explorer
by kim＠dotcast.com 29 Oct '01

29 Oct '01

Hi, I have this weird issue with file access to a particular file on our filer. When you click on the file it hangs the Windows Explorer for a good few minutes before it returns control. If I attempt to copy the MS Word file (1.7mb) it takes an extremely long time (up to 5 minutes). Other files of the same size or larger copy fine from Filer to Windows 2000 Server or Professional. From NFS the same file copies fine. If I look at the same file from the snapshot directories in Windows, file access time is fine. Here's what we have: F760 with CIFS and NFS licenses. NetApp Release 6.0.1R3 oplocks globally disabled per netapp support mixed qtrees in Windows 2000 domain and NIS environment Windows 2000 Server/Professional (SP2) as clients Below is a cifs session of the host that has this file open. filer> cifs sessions HOST users shares/files open HOST (DOMAIN\username - username) public R&W-denyN - \Share\Spring_2001_Demonstration\Demonstration - HW SW Interface Description.doc I'm not sure what the "denyN" in "R&W-denyN" means. I'm curious if anyone's run across this before. I have 2 other NetApps in similar environments and haven't seen this condition on either yet. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks, -Kim P. Lam kim(a)dotcast.com

2 1

RE: NetApp and Samba anyone ?
by Taylor, Bryant 29 Oct '01

29 Oct '01

Ya that will work without a hitch.... atleast I'm using it that way with an 840 and I haven't see any problems... More secure if you ask me.... -B -----Original Message----- From: Frank Bonnet [mailto:bonnetf@bart.esiee.fr] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 2:05 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: NetApp and Samba anyone ? Hi We actually use a F85 filer as NFS server only but we are palnnig to use it also as a CIFS server for our PCs , I wonder if I could safely use a Samba server as a domain controller in combination with the filer as a user data server ? Any infos/experiences/links welcome Thanks a lot. -- Frank Bonnet

1 0

NetApp and Samba anyone ?
by Frank Bonnet 29 Oct '01

29 Oct '01

Hi We actually use a F85 filer as NFS server only but we are palnnig to use it also as a CIFS server for our PCs , I wonder if I could safely use a Samba server as a domain controller in combination with the filer as a user data server ? Any infos/experiences/links welcome Thanks a lot. -- Frank Bonnet

2 1

Very high CIFS ops
by Uros Lampret 29 Oct '01

29 Oct '01

Hi! Can anybody explain this? I have very high number of CIFS ops/sec but very low trafic. This client uses 10Mbit Ethernet interface. CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 33% 0 1266 0 149 175 48 0 0 0 5 32% 0 1264 0 148 152 0 0 0 0 5 32% 0 1267 0 148 152 0 0 0 0 5 32% 0 1268 0 149 152 0 0 0 0 5 32% 0 1263 0 148 154 0 0 0 0 5 33% 0 1264 0 148 154 0 0 0 0 5 33% 0 1269 0 149 155 0 0 0 0 5 31% 0 1217 0 143 149 0 0 0 0 5 30% 0 1135 0 133 142 0 0 0 0 5 32% 0 1152 0 135 151 84 280 0 0 5 31% 0 1196 0 140 151 0 0 0 0 5 32% 0 1230 0 144 149 0 0 0 0 5 32% 0 1253 0 147 151 0 0 0 0 5 32% 0 1266 0 148 152 0 0 0 0 5 CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 33% 0 1267 0 149 154 0 0 0 0 5 33% 0 1259 0 182 154 0 0 0 0 5 33% 0 1265 0 148 152 0 0 0 0 5 33% 0 1271 0 149 153 0 0 0 0 5 33% 0 1271 0 149 153 0 0 0 0 5 33% 0 1274 0 166 155 0 0 0 0 5 35% 0 1238 0 145 151 100 380 0 0 5 33% 0 1270 0 149 153 0 0 0 0 5 33% 0 1266 0 151 152 0 0 0 0 5 Regards, Uros

1 0

Used gear?
by Nick Steel. (lists) 29 Oct '01

29 Oct '01

Does Netapp have any problems providing hardware support for used equipment? I'm looking at adding some additional space to our F840's and I'd like to shop the used market if the price break is worth it and the support is there from Netapp. Also, does anyone have a vendor they'd recommend for used Netapp gear? Thanks! - Nick

1 0

Virus Alert
by postmaster＠mathworks.com 27 Oct '01

27 Oct '01

Have detected a virus (TROJ_SIRCAM.A) in your mail traffic on 10/27/2001 01:13:01 with an action quarantined.

1 0

Re: F720 CPU Maxing out
by Michael Rogan 27 Oct '01

27 Oct '01

We found that symlinks were causing 60% of the CPU load on our F740. -------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net) -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Christophe Smith <jsmith(a)vitalstream.com> To: toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> CC: jsmith(a)publichost.com <jsmith(a)publichost.com> Sent: Thu Oct 25 13:51:06 2001 Subject: F720 CPU Maxing out We have a NetApp F720 doing both NFS and CIFS using mixed mode security. It has 256 megs of ram. During parts of the day the CPU and RAM spike to %100 utilization. We do a lot of sendmail, windows media, apache and IIS traffic over the filer. I have two questions: 1. Is there a way we can add more ram, perhaps 512 or a gig? The docs say we are maxxed out with 256. 2. Is it possible that the extra cpu overhead that provides the NFS/CIFS user mapping is causing much of the ram and cpu starvation? Perhaps going to a simpler security model would offload a lot of CPU cycles. Any suggestions would be appreciated.. Jean-Christophe Smith VitalStream jsmith(a)vitalstream.com

4 5

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