toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

Netbackup problem logs
by Fayek, Ahmed 16 Aug '01

16 Aug '01

Hello All I'm using Netbackup to backup Netapp servers ( NDMP). After first time backup i received the following error in the Netbackup problem logs email : TIME SERVER/CLIENT TEXT 08/14/2001 16:03:33 alpha toast1 put_ino: file 4M5TTVH.iccel_1 name cannot begin with name array terminator character 08/14/2001 16:03:33 alpha toast1 ndmp_bpfsmap_dir: put_ino returned -1 alpha = Netbackup server toast1 = Netapp filer Anybody got idea about this error ? is it serious ? Nice day All Ahmed

1 0

resizing boot volume
by neil lehrer 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

i am going to redo my boot volume. no data to save. steps: create new volume /vol/vol1 vol create /vol/vol1 2 export /vol/vol1 copy /etc from vol0 to vol1 make vol1 the root volume vol options /vol/vo11 root reboot if vol1 shows as the root volume then vol offline /vol/vol0 reboot vol destroy /vol/vol0 rename back to default root vol name vol rename /vol/vol1 /vol/vol0 add some disks back to the new vol0 vol add /vol/vol0 3 am i missing anything? thanks. -- regards

2 2

RE: /net/filer/blah vs. /net/filer/vol/vol0/blah
by Mike Sphar 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

I'm only running 6.0, so it's possible something changed in 6.1, but I've been able to adjust those paths simply by editing the /etc/exports file to export the paths without the vol0. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Davis [mailto:jdavis@cs.arizona.edu] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 9:46 AM To: toasters Subject: /net/filer/blah vs. /net/filer/vol/vol0/blah After upgrading from 5.3.4-mumble to 6.1.1, it seems that clients can't access pathnames like /net/filer/whatever, but rather have to use /net/filer/vol/vol0/whatever. I think before both seemed to work more or less interchangeably, and unfortunately we have some symlinks that use the old form to point to various things that now are missing. I'm probably just missing something obvious, but is there a way to get the old behavior without using '/vol/vol0' in those pathnames?

2 1

RE: resizing boot volume
by Fox, Adam 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

Actually you can offline vol0 before you reboot. It won't actually offline the volume until you reboot but it will mark it to be offlined. Or if you are running 6.x, you can do it as you want but you won't need the 2nd reboot because you can offline non-root volumes without a reboot on 6.x. If you are running pre-6.x, you can do the first method and only have 1 reboot. Just a thought. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 1:04 PM > To: toasters > Subject: resizing boot volume > > > i am going to redo my boot volume. no data to save. > > steps: > create new volume /vol/vol1 > vol create /vol/vol1 2 > > export /vol/vol1 > > copy /etc from vol0 to vol1 > > make vol1 the root volume > vol options /vol/vo11 root > > reboot > > if vol1 shows as the root volume then > vol offline /vol/vol0 > reboot > vol destroy /vol/vol0 > > rename back to default root vol name > vol rename /vol/vol1 /vol/vol0 > > add some disks back to the new vol0 > vol add /vol/vol0 3 > > > am i missing anything? > > thanks. > > > > -- > > > regards >

1 0

RE: ndmpcopy - dir size changes
by Link, Bill (OTS-EDH) 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

Over time as files are deleted directories get more and more deleted entries which are essentially holes in the directory file. NDMPCOPY or even extracting a tar archive will compress the directory files by deleting the unused dirents. Bill -----Original Message----- From: Manny Kaiser [mailto:mkaiser@mmcnet.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 9:38 AM To: toasters Subject: ndmpcopy - dir size changes Hi, I just performed a ndmpcopy on my filer. I ran an ls -lR on the original location and on the new location. The files and sizes were identical, the directory sizes differed. Anyone have any ideas why? Thanks Manny 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.

2 1

RE: boot volume with no data
by Fox, Adam 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

Okay, I've heard lots of debates on this, here's my opinion and I'm sure others will disagree. I'm not a big fan of root-only volumes. I think that overall they are a big waste of space for very little gain. However, there are some good reasons to do it depending on your scenario. 1. SnapMirror. If you are SnapMirroring all of your data then it is a good idea to have your root volume on a separate volume. This allows you to offline your data volumes at will which is good for initial transfers or resynching back to a source. 2. SnapRestore. If your application or dataset makes regular use of SnapRestore..yes I've seen this in a case where customers like to snapshot a known good dataset, have their users mess with it, then SnapRestore back to the known good dataset afterwards. If this is your scenario, then yes, a root volume is a good idea. 3. Lots of vol copy'ing. If you do lots of vol copy commands in your dataset, then for the same reason as SnapMirror, the offline ability is a good one. There may be others out there in the world, but these are the most common. But in my opinion, for the 50-60MB that /etc typically takes up, is it worth dedicating 2 36GB or 72GB drives? Maybe so, but most of my customers don't think so. Just one geek's opinion. There isn't really a single right or wrong answer on this one. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:56 AM > To: toasters > Subject: boot volume with no data > > > are there any particular advantages or disadvantages to just > having ontap on > vol0 and data on other volumes? > -- > > > regards >

6 5

Re: boot volume with no data
by ScottUCE＠aol.com 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

We have NetApp 9gb FC or SCSI shelves/drives available -- cheap! 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: boot volume with no data
by Joe Luchtenberg 14 Aug '01

14 Aug '01

As far as I can tell, the only 9GB drives currently orderable from NetApp are ZCS drives for the FC9 shelf on the F740. I checked Quoter and NetApp Market on NOW. According to the SysConfig Guide on NOW, the non-checksum 9GB drive for the FC7 is also a supported config for F740/820/840 and the 9GB UltraSCSI drive for Dual Storage Shelf 2 is supported on F740, but none of these are orderable today (perhops Scott at UCE... no, I didn't really say that ;-). However, for new systems, if you want a separate root volume, you need at least 2x 18GB. Perhaps this is less of an issue with 14-disk shelves now (not so much additional incremental shelf $, although it does eat into available scalability). I liked John's suggestion about a flashdisk boot volume. Perhaps someone from NetApp can address futures? Joe Luchtenberg Dataline, Inc. 757-858-0600 757-285-1223 (mobile) 757-858-0606 (fax) joe.luchtenberg(a)data-line.com www.data-line.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Marchand, Paul [mailto:Paul.Marchand@netapp.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 1:26 PM > To: Fox, Adam; 'neil lehrer'; toasters > Subject: RE: boot volume with no data > > > I agree with Adam except I do like a separate root volume as > it makes life much easier for all the reasons he mentioned. > It is a huge waste of space unless you can convince the > customer to purchase 3 9 gig drives, 2 for root 1 for parity > in addition to their other storage requirements. You don't > waste as much space that way and just maybe the customer may > buy an extra shelf with only 3 bays occupied which could > accommodate 4 more drives at a future point in time. > > -Paul > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Paul E. Marchand > Network Appliance ~ Systems Engineer > fast simple reliable > marchand(a)netapp.com > 408.822.3213 415.793.8881(cell) > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fox, Adam [mailto:Adam.Fox@netapp.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 9:54 AM > To: 'neil lehrer'; toasters > Subject: RE: boot volume with no data > > > Okay, I've heard lots of debates on this, here's my opinion > and I'm sure others will disagree. > > I'm not a big fan of root-only volumes. I think that overall > they are a big waste of space for very little gain. However, > there are some good reasons to do it depending on your scenario. > > 1. SnapMirror. If you are SnapMirroring all of your data then > it is a good idea to have your root volume on a separate volume. > This allows you to offline your data volumes at will which is good > for initial transfers or resynching back to a source. > > 2. SnapRestore. If your application or dataset makes regular use > of SnapRestore..yes I've seen this in a case where customers like > to snapshot a known good dataset, have their users mess with it, then > SnapRestore back to the known good dataset afterwards. If this is > your scenario, then yes, a root volume is a good idea. > > 3. Lots of vol copy'ing. If you do lots of vol copy commands in your > dataset, then for the same reason as SnapMirror, the offline ability > is a good one. > > There may be others out there in the world, but these are the most > common. But in my opinion, for the 50-60MB that /etc typically takes > up, is it worth dedicating 2 36GB or 72GB drives? Maybe so, but most > of my customers don't think so. > > Just one geek's opinion. There isn't really a single right or wrong > answer on this one. > > -- Adam Fox > NetApp Professional Services, NC > adamfox(a)netapp.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:56 AM > > To: toasters > > Subject: boot volume with no data > > > > > > are there any particular advantages or disadvantages to just > > having ontap on > > vol0 and data on other volumes? > > -- > > > > > > regards > > >

1 0

RE: What does Z for CP-type in sysstat -u output mean?
by Yee, Steven 14 Aug '01

14 Aug '01

The next revision of the man page states that Z means "CP caused by internal sync" steve. -----Original Message----- From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:10 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: What does Z for CP-type in sysstat -u output mean? I have just seen a "Z" in the "CP ty(pe)" column of some "sysstat -u" output (with ONTAP 6.1.1). Anyone know what this one means? It's not listed in the na_sysstat(1) man page. It occurred shortly before a scheduled snapshot that gave the expected "S". Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1(a)ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG, Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.

1 0

RE: boot volume with no data
by Mike Sphar 14 Aug '01

14 Aug '01

I agree that using 9Gb drives is *better* than using larger drives for a separate root volume, but even then you're still using 27Gb of disk space for what is generally an under 100Mb set of data, and it reduces the max capacity of the filer by (what I feel is) a significant amount. Like others have mentioned, I think I great future enhancement to the product line would be a separate set of media for the root volume, whether that's flash disks, microdrives, whatever. -----Original Message----- From: Marchand, Paul [mailto:Paul.Marchand@netapp.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:26 AM To: Fox, Adam; 'neil lehrer'; toasters Subject: RE: boot volume with no data I agree with Adam except I do like a separate root volume as it makes life much easier for all the reasons he mentioned. It is a huge waste of space unless you can convince the customer to purchase 3 9 gig drives, 2 for root 1 for parity in addition to their other storage requirements. You don't waste as much space that way and just maybe the customer may buy an extra shelf with only 3 bays occupied which could accommodate 4 more drives at a future point in time. -Paul ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paul E. Marchand Network Appliance ~ Systems Engineer fast simple reliable marchand(a)netapp.com 408.822.3213 415.793.8881(cell) -----Original Message----- From: Fox, Adam [mailto:Adam.Fox@netapp.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 9:54 AM To: 'neil lehrer'; toasters Subject: RE: boot volume with no data Okay, I've heard lots of debates on this, here's my opinion and I'm sure others will disagree. I'm not a big fan of root-only volumes. I think that overall they are a big waste of space for very little gain. However, there are some good reasons to do it depending on your scenario. 1. SnapMirror. If you are SnapMirroring all of your data then it is a good idea to have your root volume on a separate volume. This allows you to offline your data volumes at will which is good for initial transfers or resynching back to a source. 2. SnapRestore. If your application or dataset makes regular use of SnapRestore..yes I've seen this in a case where customers like to snapshot a known good dataset, have their users mess with it, then SnapRestore back to the known good dataset afterwards. If this is your scenario, then yes, a root volume is a good idea. 3. Lots of vol copy'ing. If you do lots of vol copy commands in your dataset, then for the same reason as SnapMirror, the offline ability is a good one. There may be others out there in the world, but these are the most common. But in my opinion, for the 50-60MB that /etc typically takes up, is it worth dedicating 2 36GB or 72GB drives? Maybe so, but most of my customers don't think so. Just one geek's opinion. There isn't really a single right or wrong answer on this one. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:56 AM > To: toasters > Subject: boot volume with no data > > > are there any particular advantages or disadvantages to just > having ontap on > vol0 and data on other volumes? > -- > > > regards >

2 1

RE: boot volume with no data
by Honeycutt, Michael 14 Aug '01

14 Aug '01

Here's a good one for keeping the data seperate. Not long after my first data migration to the filer, I accidentally added a disk to the root volume. Luckly you can copy the /etc to another volume and change the target root volume. If I would have had that 100GB of data on the root volume as well, it wouldnt had been so much fun to fix. Can anyone say oops? -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@Remedy.COM] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 1:58 PM To: toasters Subject: RE: boot volume with no data I agree that using 9Gb drives is *better* than using larger drives for a separate root volume, but even then you're still using 27Gb of disk space for what is generally an under 100Mb set of data, and it reduces the max capacity of the filer by (what I feel is) a significant amount. Like others have mentioned, I think I great future enhancement to the product line would be a separate set of media for the root volume, whether that's flash disks, microdrives, whatever. -----Original Message----- From: Marchand, Paul [mailto:Paul.Marchand@netapp.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:26 AM To: Fox, Adam; 'neil lehrer'; toasters Subject: RE: boot volume with no data I agree with Adam except I do like a separate root volume as it makes life much easier for all the reasons he mentioned. It is a huge waste of space unless you can convince the customer to purchase 3 9 gig drives, 2 for root 1 for parity in addition to their other storage requirements. You don't waste as much space that way and just maybe the customer may buy an extra shelf with only 3 bays occupied which could accommodate 4 more drives at a future point in time. -Paul ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paul E. Marchand Network Appliance ~ Systems Engineer fast simple reliable marchand(a)netapp.com 408.822.3213 415.793.8881(cell) -----Original Message----- From: Fox, Adam [mailto:Adam.Fox@netapp.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 9:54 AM To: 'neil lehrer'; toasters Subject: RE: boot volume with no data Okay, I've heard lots of debates on this, here's my opinion and I'm sure others will disagree. I'm not a big fan of root-only volumes. I think that overall they are a big waste of space for very little gain. However, there are some good reasons to do it depending on your scenario. 1. SnapMirror. If you are SnapMirroring all of your data then it is a good idea to have your root volume on a separate volume. This allows you to offline your data volumes at will which is good for initial transfers or resynching back to a source. 2. SnapRestore. If your application or dataset makes regular use of SnapRestore..yes I've seen this in a case where customers like to snapshot a known good dataset, have their users mess with it, then SnapRestore back to the known good dataset afterwards. If this is your scenario, then yes, a root volume is a good idea. 3. Lots of vol copy'ing. If you do lots of vol copy commands in your dataset, then for the same reason as SnapMirror, the offline ability is a good one. There may be others out there in the world, but these are the most common. But in my opinion, for the 50-60MB that /etc typically takes up, is it worth dedicating 2 36GB or 72GB drives? Maybe so, but most of my customers don't think so. Just one geek's opinion. There isn't really a single right or wrong answer on this one. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:56 AM > To: toasters > Subject: boot volume with no data > > > are there any particular advantages or disadvantages to just > having ontap on > vol0 and data on other volumes? > -- > > > regards >

1 0

What does Z for CP-type in sysstat -u output mean?
by Chris Thompson 14 Aug '01

14 Aug '01

I have just seen a "Z" in the "CP ty(pe)" column of some "sysstat -u" output (with ONTAP 6.1.1). Anyone know what this one means? It's not listed in the na_sysstat(1) man page. It occurred shortly before a scheduled snapshot that gave the expected "S". Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1(a)ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG, Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.

1 0

RE: boot volume with no data
by Marchand, Paul 14 Aug '01

14 Aug '01

I agree with Adam except I do like a separate root volume as it makes life much easier for all the reasons he mentioned. It is a huge waste of space unless you can convince the customer to purchase 3 9 gig drives, 2 for root 1 for parity in addition to their other storage requirements. You don't waste as much space that way and just maybe the customer may buy an extra shelf with only 3 bays occupied which could accommodate 4 more drives at a future point in time. -Paul ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paul E. Marchand Network Appliance ~ Systems Engineer fast simple reliable marchand(a)netapp.com 408.822.3213 415.793.8881(cell) -----Original Message----- From: Fox, Adam [mailto:Adam.Fox@netapp.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 9:54 AM To: 'neil lehrer'; toasters Subject: RE: boot volume with no data Okay, I've heard lots of debates on this, here's my opinion and I'm sure others will disagree. I'm not a big fan of root-only volumes. I think that overall they are a big waste of space for very little gain. However, there are some good reasons to do it depending on your scenario. 1. SnapMirror. If you are SnapMirroring all of your data then it is a good idea to have your root volume on a separate volume. This allows you to offline your data volumes at will which is good for initial transfers or resynching back to a source. 2. SnapRestore. If your application or dataset makes regular use of SnapRestore..yes I've seen this in a case where customers like to snapshot a known good dataset, have their users mess with it, then SnapRestore back to the known good dataset afterwards. If this is your scenario, then yes, a root volume is a good idea. 3. Lots of vol copy'ing. If you do lots of vol copy commands in your dataset, then for the same reason as SnapMirror, the offline ability is a good one. There may be others out there in the world, but these are the most common. But in my opinion, for the 50-60MB that /etc typically takes up, is it worth dedicating 2 36GB or 72GB drives? Maybe so, but most of my customers don't think so. Just one geek's opinion. There isn't really a single right or wrong answer on this one. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:56 AM > To: toasters > Subject: boot volume with no data > > > are there any particular advantages or disadvantages to just > having ontap on > vol0 and data on other volumes? > -- > > > regards >

1 0

RE: boot volume with no data
by Collins, Jim 14 Aug '01

14 Aug '01

On the negative side I assume you would still need a parity just for Vol0. This might be a waste if you are tight on storage. The plus side is you may have more flexibility moving (physically) volumes from one filer to the next in the event of a head crash. I am considering doing the same thing with vol0. I guess something like this should be considered if you have more than one filer and they are not clustered. In my case we have a F740 & F760. It would be nice if they could be clustered but I don't think they can. My thinking is that if the head crashed on either filer the volume/shelf could be moved to the other filer and would be recognized as a forerun volume. -----Original Message----- From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:56 AM To: toasters Subject: boot volume with no data are there any particular advantages or disadvantages to just having ontap on vol0 and data on other volumes? -- regards

1 0

RE: boot volume with no data
by Noll, Kevin 14 Aug '01

14 Aug '01

When using SnapMirror, you would not SnapMirror your root volume. -----Original Message----- From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] Sent: 14 August 2001 16:56 To: toasters Subject: boot volume with no data are there any particular advantages or disadvantages to just having ontap on vol0 and data on other volumes? -- regards ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ********************************************************************************************

1 0

Re: NetApps and commodity drives
by Daniel Feenberg 11 Aug '01

11 Aug '01

Numerous persons have told me that 3rd party drives are forbidden in the NetApp support contract. But we want a lot of storage...and NetApp charges three times as much... and both drives are Seagate...and here is the text of the support contract at http://now.netapp.com/NOW/products/agreement/agree_2000.shtml: >2.8 Exclusions. >Our warranties and maintenance agreements do not apply to, nor do prices >include maintenance of, the repair or diagnosis of damage, malfunctions >or product failures caused by: (a) you or any third party; (b) accident, >misuse or abuse; (c) the installation, repair or alteration of our >product (including modification of software) by anyone other than us or a >NetApp Service Provider; (d) products not sold by NetApp that are >attached to or used with our products, even if those products are sold by >one of our authorized resellers... Which I take to mean that that they fix only the NetApp supplied part of the device, if something breaks. This same clause appears to regulate 3rd party drives and tape backup units, which are of course, very widespread. I also note that a large number of Seagate drives are listed as compatible in http://now.netapp.com/NOW/download/tools/diskfw/, although the model numbers use a slightly different format than the Seagate site uses. There is also the NOW page about disk qualification (http://now.netapp.com/NOW/download/tools/diskqual/) which includes the following text: >The Disk Qualification Requirement text file adds information about >second-source disk drives to the device qualification matrix in your >filer. The only 72 gigabyte FC Seagate that I can find has a slightly different part number from the one mentioned in the NetApp support documents, but I had been hoping the difference wasn't significant. Looks like it is, though. I suspect the difference is that NetApp wants to use 520 byte sectors, and Seagate defaults to 512, and I don't know how to switch. So I am surprised that everyone thinks that 3rd party drives are forbidden by the support agreement. I agree that they aren't supported, but that isn't the same thing as geing forbidden. Daniel Feenberg feenberg(a)nber.org

3 3

Re: Number of qtrees on a volume?
by Chris Thompson 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

I wrote: [...] > It does indeed, but I don't think I believe it: the limit should be > 254 per *volume*. I've confirmed this by creating 254 qtrees in a /vol/test when there are plenty in other volumes as well. On attempting to "qtree create" the 255th, you get the error qtree: cannot create more than 254 qtrees. Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1(a)ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG, Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.

1 0

RE: Number of qtrees on a volume?
by Bond, Andrew 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

This is correct. I just tested it to be sure. 254 per volume. Regards, Andrew PS. Chris, I think we both need to get a life - I'm off to do that now! :) > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] > Sent: 10 August 2001 21:58 > To: nlehrer(a)ibb.gov > Cc: drechsau(a)tiny.net; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Number of qtrees on a volume? > > > nlehrer(a)ibb.gov (neil lehrer) writes [top'n'tail'd]: > > > > Mike Horwath wrote: > > > > > > Anyone give me an ideas as to the maximum? > > > > > > > man page for 6.x says 254 per filer. > > It does indeed, but I don't think I believe it: the limit should be > 254 per *volume*. The TID values for qtrees in different volumes are > not disjoint. > > Chris Thompson University of Cambridge > Computing Service, > Email: cet1(a)ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG, > Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom. >

1 0

Number of qtrees on a volume?
by Mike Horwath 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

Anyone give me an ideas as to the maximum? -- Mike Horwath Admin & Manager @ VISI.com WORK: drechsau(a)visi.com IRC: Drechsau http://www.visi.com/ HOME: drechsau(a)geeks.org The only Minnesota ISP with public statistics: http://noc.visi.com/ Garbage In -- Gospel Out. - berkeley fortune(6)

3 3

RE: Number of qtrees on a volume?
by McCarthy, Tim 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

256 per volume -----Original Message----- From: Mike Horwath [mailto:drechsau@tiny.net] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 3:35 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Number of qtrees on a volume? Anyone give me an ideas as to the maximum? -- Mike Horwath Admin & Manager @ VISI.com WORK: drechsau(a)visi.com IRC: Drechsau http://www.visi.com/ HOME: drechsau(a)geeks.org The only Minnesota ISP with public statistics: http://noc.visi.com/ Garbage In -- Gospel Out. - berkeley fortune(6)

2 1

qtrees
by Deena Matarazzo 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

I have a qtree on a directory and would also like to set some limits on subdirectories within that directory. Is there anyway to do this?

2 1

RE: Direct attaching SCSI tape drives to 760's
by Parsons, Steve 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

Andrew, Network Appliance recommends against hot-plugging of SCSI tape and library devices. The 68-pin connector is not defined as a hot-plug connector and does not provide electrical safety for either the adapter or the device. Most of the time, a hot-plug won't hurt anything, but on occasion you'll blow a transceiver. The SCA connector used on disk drives is designed to assure a square connection with ground mating occurring first. The 68-pin connector on tape drives is not so designed. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Toon [mailto:andrew.toon@tracegroup.com] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 3:58 AM To: 'Paul Letta' Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: Direct attaching SCSI tape drives to 760's I have had to remove a d6irectly attached tape drive a few time on my F740. It hasn't caused any problems. However when I attach a new drive it will only recognise it if I do a reboot. I don't know if there's something similar to the Solaris "drvconfig" command but if not it would be a great feature to have. Andrew Toon Technical Services Manager Trace Computers Plc -----Original Message----- From: Paul Letta [ mailto:letta@jlab.org <mailto:letta@jlab.org> ] Sent: 07 August 2001 17:18 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Direct attaching SCSI tape drives to 760's Does anybody have any comments in regard to direct attaching SCSI drives 760's ? My concern is what happens when the drives fail ? I seem to have a drive failure rate of 3 or 4 a year. Currently I do not direct attach, so replacing them is no problem. But what happens to the filers when you remove a SCSI tape device hot ? Can you reattach a new one without rebooting the filer ? I do not think my environment would stand for a filer reboot each time a tape drive fails, but I really do not want to live with the 4MB/Sec I get for backups over the network now. Any thoughts? Thanks, Paul Disclaimer This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Trace Computers PLC. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this mail is strictly prohibited

1 0

jumbo frames
by Zekeriya Eskiocak 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

Hi All, Anybody has experience with using Jumbo Frames in Netapp F740-Oracle8.0&IBM AIX environment? Any recommendation is appreciated. Thanks Zekeriya Eskiocak System Engineer Prolink Services Kayisdagi Cad. No 105 Kucukbakkalkoy 81120 Istanbul-TURKIYE- Work:+90 216 573 73 00 (Ext.107) Mobile:+90 532 761 80 69

1 0

Re: vif's and failover
by mds＠gbnet.net 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

Sun's Cluster and the non-clustered IPMP use simple ICMP echo between the active and back-up interfaces to evaluate their health and decide when it's appropriate to fail over. In fact I believe they send an ICMP echo to the appropriate network broadcast address, so that, as long as the switch, a router or a client machine responds failover doesn't take place, and as soon as the network goes suspiciously quiet a failover is undertaken whether the ethernet link is still detected or not. As has been said, it's a fairly basic precaution in a clustered environment to trust as little as possible and to examine the actual service you care about as closely as possible. I also don't believe this is patented, or rocket science. On Thu 9 Aug, 2001, Sam Cramer <cramer(a)netapp.com> wrote: > > Does anyone have any experience with this? Can someone confirm or deny > > the failover in the event of loss of dataflow, but not loss of link? > > The vif code detects the loss of link status, not the loss of dataflow. > Only the loss of link status will cause a failover. > > Sam > >-- End of excerpt from Sam Cramer -- -Mark ... an Englishman in London ...

1 0

Re: vif's and failover
by Sam Cramer 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

> Does anyone have any experience with this? Can someone confirm or deny > the failover in the event of loss of dataflow, but not loss of link? The vif code detects the loss of link status, not the loss of dataflow. Only the loss of link status will cause a failover. Sam

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