toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

»õ·Î ¸¸µé±â Microsoft Word ¹®¼
by unknown＠example.com 26 Oct '01

26 Oct '01

------------------ Virus Warning Message (on scanner) Found virus TROJ_SIRCAM.A in file �� Microsoft Word ��.doc.com The uncleanable file �� Microsoft Word ��.doc.com is moved to /etc/iscan/virus/virDZBO.aq7V. --------------------------------------------------------- Hi! How are you? I send you this file in order to have your advice See you later. Thanks ------------------ Virus Warning Message (on scanner) �� Microsoft Word ��.doc.com is removed from here because it contains a virus. ---------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: F720 CPU Maxing out
by Michael Rogan 26 Oct '01

26 Oct '01

We are using NFSV3, TCP/IP and ONTAP 5.3.5 The symlinks we removed were pointing to another machine and path so the only IO on the F740 (for the 1/3 of our writes that are affected) was the symlink lookup. From our observations the symlink caused a 60% load on the F740 for less than 10% of the NFS operations. Michael -----Original Message----- From: Muhlestein, Mark [mailto:mark.muhlestein@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 3:45 PM To: 'Michael Rogan'; 'eli.bottrell(a)corp.terralycos.com'; 'kgraham(a)dotnetdotcom.org' Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: F720 CPU Maxing out Assuming you are talking about NFS access, this is likely not an issue with ONTAP. NFS clients have to look up each component of a path as it is parsed, regardless of whether it is a symlink or not. But if it is a symlink, you have to read then look up each component of the symlink, so that adds to the total lookup load, perhaps significantly, depending on the number of components in the symlink. In your case, where you are doing relatively small I/Os against a large number of files, path lookup will probably dominate the mix. Removing symlinks will reduce the lookups, so you would expect a benefit. But I would not expect this to be something that would be affected much by changing ONTAP, since it is a fundamental property of your load. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Michael Rogan [mailto:mrogan@rim.net] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 11:22 AM To: 'eli.bottrell(a)corp.terralycos.com'; 'kgraham(a)dotnetdotcom.org' Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: F720 CPU Maxing out In our environment we are doing 1-2MB/s write and 2-3MB/s reads, on many small files. 1/3 of our writes were going through symlinks. When looking at the stats for one of our systems, lookup was the highest on the list of operations. When we changed our software to avoid the symlink the CPU load dropped about 60%. We are running 5.3.5 so this may have been fixed in later versions of Ontap. -------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net) -----Original Message----- From: Eli Bottrell <eli.bottrell(a)corp.terralycos.com> To: kevin graham <kgraham(a)dotnetdotcom.org> CC: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Fri Oct 26 13:13:40 2001 Subject: Re: F720 CPU Maxing out kevin graham wrote: > > I've got a 720 that's becoming very unresponsive under high loads. It doesn't > > get up to 100%, but it does hit 85-90%. This is during times of high writes to > > one volume, on the order of 5-10 Megs/sec. > > The unresponsiveness to pings seems odd, but those writes are probably > about as much as you'll get out of the 720. Looking at my 760's in the > past, they had exhausted cpu at just over 20MB/s of writes (those were > full-frame packets over a non-jumbo'ed Gig-II). Having been at a > cash-strapped dot com for some time now, I haven't had the luxury of > perusing new hardware options much, but does anyone know what kind of > performance benefit is picked up w/ ZCS vs. BCS volumes? Is this a memory bottleneck? I think I only have 256 mb in my filers, should I upgrade for better performance? > > > > Could it be symlinks causing my woes? Any tips for solving this > > problem? > > No matter how many, or how inefficient the symlinks are, they won't affect > write performance (unless of course you've got writes competing wiht > lookups). Once the file's open, it doesn't matter how the filesystem got > there. The sluggishness is noticed on lookups and read. Mainly because all of our developers have paths on that filer sourced in their profiles in their unix shells (/usr/local/ and home directories for instance) their shells get REALLY REALLY slow all of the sudden. I think I may need to rethink my storage architecture if heavy reads/writes are going to the filers performance this much. Basically, I guess I should balance it between my 2 filers that the one with the highest traffic is not where the home directories and /usr/local sit. This is on my older f720, and I just got a f740. Is it much of an upgrade in CPU? Can I just swap heads and have a faster filer? - Eli > > ..kg..

1 0

RE: Legato Networker NDMP backup of Filers
by Kim, Christopher 26 Oct '01

26 Oct '01

Michael, Please take a look at patch LGTpa31270. This is not related but it will help on recovery. ftp.legato.com \pub\LGTpa31270 -Chris -----Original Message----- From: Marcus Smiley [mailto:marcus.smiley@ericsson.com] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 9:21 AM To: mcope(a)isisph.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Legato Networker NDMP backup of Filers Yeah, I am. Running Networker 6.1 on a Solaris box, with the latest patches from Legato. It did fix the problem you talk about. The patch below replaces the nwsave/save apps with shiny brand new ones. LGTpa31247 Hope this helps. -Marc On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, mcope(a)isisph.com wrote: | | | Are there any other brave souls out there using Legato Networker's NDMP software | to backup a Filer? I know most everyone uses Veritas but the locally Veritas | has some customer support/satisfaction issues. | | I'm running Networker 6.1 build 186 backing up Filers running DOT 6.1R1. The | problem I'm having is restoring files using their Direct Access Restore (DAR) | which they crow so loudly about as THE feature that puts them ahead of the | competition. For restores from multi- tape backups the restore fails when | trying to find files on the second or third tape. I've applied their unreleased | patches for nwrecover and recover which made some improvements but I'm still | getting failures. I starting to feel like I payed to be a beta-tester for them. | | Is there anyone else using Legato's NDMP backup that has any info, tips, war | stories to share? | | Thanx, | | Michael Cope | UNIX/Linux Systems Administrator | ISIS Pharmaceuticals | mcope(a)isisph.com | | UNIX is very user friendly... | it's just highly selective about who it makes friends WITH! | Marcus Smiley Ericsson Wireless Sr. Unix Sys Admin

1 0

RE: F720 CPU Maxing out
by Muhlestein, Mark 26 Oct '01

26 Oct '01

Assuming you are talking about NFS access, this is likely not an issue with ONTAP. NFS clients have to look up each component of a path as it is parsed, regardless of whether it is a symlink or not. But if it is a symlink, you have to read then look up each component of the symlink, so that adds to the total lookup load, perhaps significantly, depending on the number of components in the symlink. In your case, where you are doing relatively small I/Os against a large number of files, path lookup will probably dominate the mix. Removing symlinks will reduce the lookups, so you would expect a benefit. But I would not expect this to be something that would be affected much by changing ONTAP, since it is a fundamental property of your load. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Michael Rogan [mailto:mrogan@rim.net] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 11:22 AM To: 'eli.bottrell(a)corp.terralycos.com'; 'kgraham(a)dotnetdotcom.org' Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: F720 CPU Maxing out In our environment we are doing 1-2MB/s write and 2-3MB/s reads, on many small files. 1/3 of our writes were going through symlinks. When looking at the stats for one of our systems, lookup was the highest on the list of operations. When we changed our software to avoid the symlink the CPU load dropped about 60%. We are running 5.3.5 so this may have been fixed in later versions of Ontap. -------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net) -----Original Message----- From: Eli Bottrell <eli.bottrell(a)corp.terralycos.com> To: kevin graham <kgraham(a)dotnetdotcom.org> CC: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Fri Oct 26 13:13:40 2001 Subject: Re: F720 CPU Maxing out kevin graham wrote: > > I've got a 720 that's becoming very unresponsive under high loads. It doesn't > > get up to 100%, but it does hit 85-90%. This is during times of high writes to > > one volume, on the order of 5-10 Megs/sec. > > The unresponsiveness to pings seems odd, but those writes are probably > about as much as you'll get out of the 720. Looking at my 760's in the > past, they had exhausted cpu at just over 20MB/s of writes (those were > full-frame packets over a non-jumbo'ed Gig-II). Having been at a > cash-strapped dot com for some time now, I haven't had the luxury of > perusing new hardware options much, but does anyone know what kind of > performance benefit is picked up w/ ZCS vs. BCS volumes? Is this a memory bottleneck? I think I only have 256 mb in my filers, should I upgrade for better performance? > > > > Could it be symlinks causing my woes? Any tips for solving this > > problem? > > No matter how many, or how inefficient the symlinks are, they won't affect > write performance (unless of course you've got writes competing wiht > lookups). Once the file's open, it doesn't matter how the filesystem got > there. The sluggishness is noticed on lookups and read. Mainly because all of our developers have paths on that filer sourced in their profiles in their unix shells (/usr/local/ and home directories for instance) their shells get REALLY REALLY slow all of the sudden. I think I may need to rethink my storage architecture if heavy reads/writes are going to the filers performance this much. Basically, I guess I should balance it between my 2 filers that the one with the highest traffic is not where the home directories and /usr/local sit. This is on my older f720, and I just got a f740. Is it much of an upgrade in CPU? Can I just swap heads and have a faster filer? - Eli > > ..kg..

1 0

Re: F720 CPU Maxing out
by Michael Rogan 26 Oct '01

26 Oct '01

In our environment we are doing 1-2MB/s write and 2-3MB/s reads, on many small files. 1/3 of our writes were going through symlinks. When looking at the stats for one of our systems, lookup was the highest on the list of operations. When we changed our software to avoid the symlink the CPU load dropped about 60%. We are running 5.3.5 so this may have been fixed in later versions of Ontap. -------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net) -----Original Message----- From: Eli Bottrell <eli.bottrell(a)corp.terralycos.com> To: kevin graham <kgraham(a)dotnetdotcom.org> CC: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Fri Oct 26 13:13:40 2001 Subject: Re: F720 CPU Maxing out kevin graham wrote: > > I've got a 720 that's becoming very unresponsive under high loads. It doesn't > > get up to 100%, but it does hit 85-90%. This is during times of high writes to > > one volume, on the order of 5-10 Megs/sec. > > The unresponsiveness to pings seems odd, but those writes are probably > about as much as you'll get out of the 720. Looking at my 760's in the > past, they had exhausted cpu at just over 20MB/s of writes (those were > full-frame packets over a non-jumbo'ed Gig-II). Having been at a > cash-strapped dot com for some time now, I haven't had the luxury of > perusing new hardware options much, but does anyone know what kind of > performance benefit is picked up w/ ZCS vs. BCS volumes? Is this a memory bottleneck? I think I only have 256 mb in my filers, should I upgrade for better performance? > > > > Could it be symlinks causing my woes? Any tips for solving this > > problem? > > No matter how many, or how inefficient the symlinks are, they won't affect > write performance (unless of course you've got writes competing wiht > lookups). Once the file's open, it doesn't matter how the filesystem got > there. The sluggishness is noticed on lookups and read. Mainly because all of our developers have paths on that filer sourced in their profiles in their unix shells (/usr/local/ and home directories for instance) their shells get REALLY REALLY slow all of the sudden. I think I may need to rethink my storage architecture if heavy reads/writes are going to the filers performance this much. Basically, I guess I should balance it between my 2 filers that the one with the highest traffic is not where the home directories and /usr/local sit. This is on my older f720, and I just got a f740. Is it much of an upgrade in CPU? Can I just swap heads and have a faster filer? - Eli > > ..kg..

1 0

Legato Networker NDMP backup of Filers
by mcope＠isisph.com 26 Oct '01

26 Oct '01

Are there any other brave souls out there using Legato Networker's NDMP software to backup a Filer? I know most everyone uses Veritas but the locally Veritas has some customer support/satisfaction issues. I'm running Networker 6.1 build 186 backing up Filers running DOT 6.1R1. The problem I'm having is restoring files using their Direct Access Restore (DAR) which they crow so loudly about as THE feature that puts them ahead of the competition. For restores from multi- tape backups the restore fails when trying to find files on the second or third tape. I've applied their unreleased patches for nwrecover and recover which made some improvements but I'm still getting failures. I starting to feel like I payed to be a beta-tester for them. Is there anyone else using Legato's NDMP backup that has any info, tips, war stories to share? Thanx, Michael Cope UNIX/Linux Systems Administrator ISIS Pharmaceuticals mcope(a)isisph.com UNIX is very user friendly... it's just highly selective about who it makes friends WITH!

2 1

RE: Virus Scanning?
by Venkat, Narayan 26 Oct '01

26 Oct '01

In addition, Network Associates'(McAfee) NetShield for NetApp v4.5 also works with Data ONTAP. -----Original Message----- From: Simeone, David [mailto:David.Simeone@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 8:07 AM To: 'Ziller, Frank'; Strange, John Cc: toasters (E-mail) Subject: RE: Virus Scanning? Data ONTAP communicates with virus scanning servers: Symantec (CarrierScan v2.1) TrendMicro (ServerProtect v5.31) Secure, authenticated, private connection between filer and AV server. Read all about it in the recently released tech pub: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3107.html -----Original Message----- From: Ziller, Frank [mailto:FZiller@IKON.com] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 7:15 AM To: Strange, John; toasters (E-mail) Subject: RE: Virus Scanning? Trnd Micro and Symantec both sell "carrier" grade solutions designed specifically for the NetApp filers. I think Symantec's product is called CarrierScan, not sure about TrendMicro. -----Original Message----- From: Strange, John [mailto:John.ws.Strange@marconi.com] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 8:06 AM To: toasters (E-mail) Subject: Virus Scanning? We were just wondering how everyone was handling virus scanning of their Netapp filers, with the recent attack of nimda we've been cleaning up the filers. We would prefer to do this from a solaris box, unless it's not possible. Is there a native app for the filer? Or is everyone doing this through cifs/nfs? Thanks, - John

1 0

RE: Virus Scanning?
by Simeone, David 26 Oct '01

26 Oct '01

Data ONTAP communicates with virus scanning servers: Symantec (CarrierScan v2.1) TrendMicro (ServerProtect v5.31) Secure, authenticated, private connection between filer and AV server. Read all about it in the recently released tech pub: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3107.html -----Original Message----- From: Ziller, Frank [mailto:FZiller@IKON.com] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 7:15 AM To: Strange, John; toasters (E-mail) Subject: RE: Virus Scanning? Trnd Micro and Symantec both sell "carrier" grade solutions designed specifically for the NetApp filers. I think Symantec's product is called CarrierScan, not sure about TrendMicro. -----Original Message----- From: Strange, John [mailto:John.ws.Strange@marconi.com] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 8:06 AM To: toasters (E-mail) Subject: Virus Scanning? We were just wondering how everyone was handling virus scanning of their Netapp filers, with the recent attack of nimda we've been cleaning up the filers. We would prefer to do this from a solaris box, unless it's not possible. Is there a native app for the filer? Or is everyone doing this through cifs/nfs? Thanks, - John

1 0

RE: Upgrade from F740 to F840
by Jay Newton 26 Oct '01

26 Oct '01

It's pretty easy. Go ahead and download the version of OnTap you want to use (Intel of course). Grab the disks and make them, too. Extract the new OnTap (Intel) to the 740 that's in place using the standard OnTap upgrade procedure. Down the original 740 and swap heads. Boot with floppies on the 840. When normal boot is complete, log in and run "download" command. Reboot again without the floppies and it should be good to go. Did this 2 months ago. Went smooth as glass. -----Original Message----- From: Uros Lampret [mailto:uros.lampret@ourspace.si] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 7:06 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Upgrade from F740 to F840 Hi! I intend to upgrade from F740 to F840. I will only swap heads and keep the disks. I can't seem to find document describing this procedure. Any body done that? How do you change ONTAP from Alpha to Intel version? Regards, Uros

2 1

Virus Scanning?
by Strange, John 26 Oct '01

26 Oct '01

We were just wondering how everyone was handling virus scanning of their Netapp filers, with the recent attack of nimda we've been cleaning up the filers. We would prefer to do this from a solaris box, unless it's not possible. Is there a native app for the filer? Or is everyone doing this through cifs/nfs? Thanks, - John

2 1

RE: Virus Scanning?
by Ziller, Frank 26 Oct '01

26 Oct '01

Trnd Micro and Symantec both sell "carrier" grade solutions designed specifically for the NetApp filers. I think Symantec's product is called CarrierScan, not sure about TrendMicro. -----Original Message----- From: Strange, John [mailto:John.ws.Strange@marconi.com] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 8:06 AM To: toasters (E-mail) Subject: Virus Scanning? We were just wondering how everyone was handling virus scanning of their Netapp filers, with the recent attack of nimda we've been cleaning up the filers. We would prefer to do this from a solaris box, unless it's not possible. Is there a native app for the filer? Or is everyone doing this through cifs/nfs? Thanks, - John

1 0

Upgrade from F740 to F840
by Uros Lampret 26 Oct '01

26 Oct '01

Hi! I intend to upgrade from F740 to F840. I will only swap heads and keep the disks. I can't seem to find document describing this procedure. Any body done that? How do you change ONTAP from Alpha to Intel version? Regards, Uros

1 0

Etherchannel vs. Jumbo Frames
by jwitham＠takedapharm.com 25 Oct '01

25 Oct '01

Hi all: Firing up my new F880 and have a question about gigabit Ethernet throughput: Currently, we vif multi our filers to our Catalyst 6509 switches using Cisco Gigabit EtherChannel with 1500 MTU I went to fire up the 880 today, and decided new filer, new UNIX boxes, let's use Jumbo Frames! (9000 MTU). Looks like you can't EtherChannel Jumbo frame ports. I'm wondering if anyone has done a comparison (formal or informal) between Gig EtherChannel and Jumbo Frames. If so, which was faster? I'm fine single vif'ing the 2 gig-E nics to different switches if that will perform better than the lower MTU port channeling. Thanks! -john

1 0

F720 CPU Maxing out
by Jean-Christophe Smith 25 Oct '01

25 Oct '01

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

1 0

RE: Veritas Netbackup Database
by Strange, John 25 Oct '01

25 Oct '01

Hmm, I would say that file locking has improved, if you want to test that setup a mail server on the NFS mount and generate a lot of emails, or database of some type to test it. Where I would be concerned would be in the middle of the back to have a network problem and end up trashing the backup database. I would really be hard pressed to use NFS to store the backup database. If you plan on doing it make sure you are forcing sync on your NFS mount also as NFS v2 usually defaults to async writes. Which could cause a consistency problem if you suffer a network outage. Also another concern would be that your backup would probably fail if you hang the NFS mount as most *NIX boxes hate when you lose network connectivity across an active NFS mount. - John -----Original Message----- From: Manny Kaiser [mailto:mkaiser@mmcnet.com] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 3:28 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

2 1

carrierscan
by Tim Longo 25 Oct '01

25 Oct '01

Greetings: I am preparing to install Symantec CarrierScan, and came across something in the manual I have a question about. There is a statement in the manual that says "Virus scanning should be disabled before initiating backup of the NetApp Filer". It seems to me that this may not apply if ndmp were being used for backup? Anyone else have experience with this issue? Thanks, Tim

1 0

Ndmpcopy - inconsistent dumpmap
by Dawn Lovell 25 Oct '01

25 Oct '01

Thanks to everyone who replied to my question regarding ndmpcopy versus vol copy when migrating from a F740 to a F820! Based on the recommendations, we've done a level 0 ndmpcopy and two increasing incrementals (level 1 and level 2). On what was to be our last incremental (level 3) with the source filesystem read-only, we received the following message: newfiler: LOG: RESTORE: newfiler: LOG: Inconsistent dumpmap on inode 10831660. The copy goes on to complete successfully, but I'm concerned about the impact of this. I'm running a find to try to locate the file or directory with that inode, but it's going to run forever with the number of files we have. Is there a faster way than find to match the inode to a file? Does anyone know if this is a serious error? I'd thought that it was probably the result of a file on the target filesystem being changed outside of the ndmpcopy process. That shouldn't have happened, but it's certainly possible. I called NetApp support about this, however, and was told that it was a filesystem problem on the target filer and that we should bring it down and run wafl_check. I can't find the error in the archives or on the NOW site, so I would greatly appreciate any insight. Thanks for your time! Dawn Lovell dlovell(a)centurytel.net

2 2

RE: Veritas Netbackup Database
by Jon Walton 25 Oct '01

25 Oct '01

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

3 2

Deleting data
by Benny Wiström 25 Oct '01

25 Oct '01

Hi! I have copied approximately 70Gb from one volume to another. Now I want to delete the data from the original volume. Is is possible to do this without having the data end up in the snapshots and filling up the volume? I would prefer if this could be done without having to delete any snapshots since it still is other data on the volume. -- Regards: Benny Wiström CSC Phone: +46 13 4653647 Systemadministrator 581 88 Linköping Fax: +46 13 185771 Benny.Wistrom(a)consultant.saab.se Sweden Mobile: +46 13 4653647 Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. -Calvin & Hobbes (Bill Watterson)

2 1

RE: MRTG for filers
by Mohler, Jeff 24 Oct '01

24 Oct '01

Then please, do ask. :^) -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 4:11 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: MRTG for filers has anyone downloaded the software on the NOW site for MRTG? I need to ask a question but Netapp says they dont support it

1 0

MRTG for filers
by Jennifer Armenta 24 Oct '01

24 Oct '01

has anyone downloaded the software on the NOW site for MRTG? I need to ask a question but Netapp says they dont support it

1 0

RE: View Security Log from W2K Client
by Drew O'Donnell 24 Oct '01

24 Oct '01

I would like to be able to scan my security logs on our netapps for unauthorized access. Most of the products I have looked at only work on NT servers, and will not work on our filers. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Drew -----Original Message----- From: stefan.holzwarth(a)zentrale.adac.de [mailto:stefan.holzwarth@zentrale.adac.de] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 2:53 AM To: pkeim(a)snap.org; toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: twulff(a)snap.org Subject: AW: View Security Log from W2K Client Hi, i had the same problem. Copy the file to a local disk@windows2000 system. Then it works! Regards, Stefan Holzwarth > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: pkeim(contr-ird) [mailto:pkeim@snap.org] > Gesendet am: Dienstag, 23. Oktober 2001 20:50 > An: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Cc: twulff(contr-ird) > Betreff: View Security Log from W2K Client > > I have an F840 with 6.1.1R1. I've got CIFS access > logging enabled > and I'm able to view my /etc/logs/adtlog.evt file from an > NT4.0 server. > However, when I attempt to open the same file from a Windows 2000 > Professional machine, I receive an error indicating that I > should "Select a > Type for this Log". The pull-down menu of the "Log Type" > field only has > "(Unspecified)" as an option -- it should have application, > security, or > system as choices. Has anyone else had success opening a > filer security log > from the event viewer of a W2K client? > > Thank you in advance, > > Patrick Keim >

1 0

RE: Veritas Netbackup Database
by Jon Walton 24 Oct '01

24 Oct '01

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

2 1

AW: View Security Log from W2K Client
by stefan.holzwarth＠zentrale.adac.de 24 Oct '01

24 Oct '01

Hi, i had the same problem. Copy the file to a local disk@windows2000 system. Then it works! Regards, Stefan Holzwarth > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: pkeim(contr-ird) [mailto:pkeim@snap.org] > Gesendet am: Dienstag, 23. Oktober 2001 20:50 > An: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Cc: twulff(contr-ird) > Betreff: View Security Log from W2K Client > > I have an F840 with 6.1.1R1. I've got CIFS access > logging enabled > and I'm able to view my /etc/logs/adtlog.evt file from an > NT4.0 server. > However, when I attempt to open the same file from a Windows 2000 > Professional machine, I receive an error indicating that I > should "Select a > Type for this Log". The pull-down menu of the "Log Type" > field only has > "(Unspecified)" as an option -- it should have application, > security, or > system as choices. Has anyone else had success opening a > filer security log > from the event viewer of a W2K client? > > Thank you in advance, > > Patrick Keim >

1 0

View Security Log from W2K Client
by pkeim(contr-ird) 23 Oct '01

23 Oct '01

I have an F840 with 6.1.1R1. I've got CIFS access logging enabled and I'm able to view my /etc/logs/adtlog.evt file from an NT4.0 server. However, when I attempt to open the same file from a Windows 2000 Professional machine, I receive an error indicating that I should "Select a Type for this Log". The pull-down menu of the "Log Type" field only has "(Unspecified)" as an option -- it should have application, security, or system as choices. Has anyone else had success opening a filer security log from the event viewer of a W2K client? Thank you in advance, Patrick Keim

1 0

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