toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

A more selective bugwatch?
by Chris Thompson 17 May '01

17 May '01

Does anoyone know if it is possible to watch a bug that affects both Data ONTAP and NetCache in such a way that one only gets alerted about fixes in one of the products, and not the other? The Netcache alerts tend to overwhelm one if one is interested only in the DOT ones, as they seem to be issued for each patch release - or so I assume from names like "5.0.1R2D8". 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

FYI: 220/330 NVRAM
by Bill Bradford 17 May '01

17 May '01

For those needing NVRAM for a 220, 330, etc - Dallas Semiconductor will give out 2 of any of its products as samples merely for filling out a form on their web site. Both myself and a friend did so and requested a DS2229-T (which is the NVRAM a 220/330 users), and got them about a week and a half later - boom, 4meg NVRAM. 8-) The page says that the "2 free" doesent apply to the "DS2229", but I sure have two DS2229-Ts sitting here in front of me.. Now to find some 2G narrow SE storageworks cannisters and disks.. Bill -- Bill Bradford mrbill(a)mrbill.net Austin, TX

1 0

Hardware Upgrade
by Honeycutt, Michael 16 May '01

16 May '01

Anyone upgraded to the new dual port fcal's yet? Looking for some info on what options/config changes would have to be made after the cards are installed. Should the filer just recognize that the cards are there and automatically set up the second loop? Anyone at NetApp with documentation that could be supplied would be appreciated. Thanks. Michael Honeycutt MCSE/A+ NT/Exchange Engineer IBM Global Services

1 0

RE: Migrating user directories from Server to Filer
by Edward Lee 16 May '01

16 May '01

Thanks for all your responses on this guys. -Eddie _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

1 0

F740 cluster takeover question
by brynay_cradle 16 May '01

16 May '01

Hello , now , I have F740 cluster , run dataontap 6.1 ( NFS ) before takeover , filer1 and filer2 access ok , but when filer1 takeover filer2 I try access filer2 , but get permission deny , even access /home via admin host of filer2 anyone have see this problem ? Regards Cradle Technology Corp. Infrastructure Integration Department Bryan Yuan Tel: (886) 2 87682688 Ex: 634 bryany(a)cradle.com.tw

1 0

[Fwd: Archive Help]
by Peter Gauthier 16 May '01

16 May '01

Could any one tell me if the teaparty port 1999 is a TCP or UDP port. Also when our firewall does open it up this port, where does this URL actually live.

2 1

RE: Migrating user directories from Server to Filer
by Nail, Larry 15 May '01

15 May '01

Sorry, my fingers went for the send key too fast... at any rate, we've migrated many servers by changing their names at the time of the swap without any problems. -----Original Message----- From: Nail, Larry Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 5:31 PM To: Edward Lee Cc: Toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Migrating user directories from Server to Filer Edward Lee wrote: Hello all, My company just got a 740. We want to move the user's home directories off of an NT server and move it to the filer. I was wondering... After migrating the data, is there any way to keep from having to go in and changing the home directory path in the users NT accounts. I was thinking that creating a share on the filer with the same server name should do the trick-so it will just use the same UNC path. But I'm not sure if that will work. Thanks all, -Eddie

1 0

RE: Migrating user directories from Server to Filer
by Nail, Larry 15 May '01

15 May '01

Edward Lee wrote: Hello all, My company just got a 740. We want to move the user's home directories off of an NT server and move it to the filer. I was wondering... After migrating the data, is there any way to keep from having to go in and changing the home directory path in the users NT accounts. I was thinking that creating a share on the filer with the same server name should do the trick-so it will just use the same UNC path. But I'm not sure if that will work. Thanks all, -Eddie

1 0

Migrating user directories from Server to Filer
by Edward Lee 15 May '01

15 May '01

Hello all, My company just got a 740. We want to move the user's home directories off of an NT server and move it to the filer. I was wondering... After migrating the data, is there any way to keep from having to go in and changing the home directory path in the users NT accounts. I was thinking that creating a share on the filer with the same server name should do the trick-so it will just use the same UNC path. But I'm not sure if that will work. Thanks all, -Eddie _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

2 1

RE: Migrating user directories from Server to Filer
by Fox, Adam 15 May '01

15 May '01

Just a couple of ideas. What is the path on the current NT server? If it's \\server_name\user_name, then you can use the cifs.home_dir option to make the filer automagically make that share work for everyone. If it is some other path like \\server_name\Users\user, then you can create a share called 'user' just like on your NT server. OR, if you don't want to alter the server_name part and you can take that NT server name out of production, you can make the name of the NT server a NETBIOS alias on the filer (look under options cifs, you'll find it) and then the filer will answer for the old server name as well as it's own. But again, this means that your old NT box will have to go out of production or have its name changed. Just a few ideas..hope this helps. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Edward Lee [mailto:edwardlee60@hotmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 2:43 PM > To: Toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Migrating user directories from Server to Filer > > > Hello all, My company just got a 740. We want to move the > user's home > directories off of an NT server and move it to the filer. I was > wondering... After migrating the data, is there any way to > keep from having > to go in and changing the home directory path in the users NT > accounts. I > was thinking that creating a share on the filer with the same > server name > should do the trick-so it will just use the same UNC path. > But I'm not sure > if that will work. > > Thanks all, > > -Eddie > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com >

1 0

RE: Migrating user directories from Server to Filer
by Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau 15 May '01

15 May '01

You can script the change for your users using the command net user <username> /domain /homedir:\\filer\username A key trick to using the cifs.homedirs feature is to make sure that the user's home directory matches the username exactly, and also the folder has to be all lowercase regardless of how the user's name actually looks. Tom -----Original Message----- From: Edward Lee [mailto:edwardlee60@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 2:43 PM To: Toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Migrating user directories from Server to Filer Hello all, My company just got a 740. We want to move the user's home directories off of an NT server and move it to the filer. I was wondering... After migrating the data, is there any way to keep from having to go in and changing the home directory path in the users NT accounts. I was thinking that creating a share on the filer with the same server name should do the trick-so it will just use the same UNC path. But I'm not sure if that will work. Thanks all, -Eddie _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

1 0

Origin of F330
by Bill Bradford 15 May '01

15 May '01

Can one of you internal geeks @ NetApp contact me off-list? I'd like to look up the history / origin of this F330, as it appears to possibly have been an engineering/internal/development unit (cards with revision / ECN #s, etc, tied to each major internal component, etc) and I'd like to see where it was before I got my hands on it.. Also - I thought the F330 faceplates were blue? This one is off-grey; almost like an older DEC machine... Need to find the floppy drive "cover" as well... Anyway, contact me off-list. Thanks. Bill -- Bill Bradford mrbill(a)mrbill.net Austin, TX

1 0

snapmirror
by Leonard, Roger 15 May '01

15 May '01

i am snapmirroring between a 740 with 5.3 and a 840 with 6.0. the initial snapmirror went ok and i set up for it to refresh again tonight. my question is, will the target volume automatically go offline or do i need to manually offline it? i manually offlined it before and it onlined it by itself when it was done mirroring. thanks roger leonard

3 2

RE: snapmirror
by Fox, Adam 15 May '01

15 May '01

Incremental snapmirror targets do not need to be offline. They are read-only by default until snapmirror is turned off. Hope this helps. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Leonard, Roger [mailto:Roger.Leonard@marconi.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 1:57 PM > To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: snapmirror > > > i am snapmirroring between a 740 with 5.3 and a 840 with 6.0. > the initial > snapmirror went ok and i set up for it to refresh again tonight. my > question is, will the target volume automatically go offline > or do i need to > manually offline it? i manually offlined it before and it > onlined it by > itself when it was done mirroring. > > thanks > > roger leonard >

1 0

RE: ClearCase "certified" filers
by Koepnick, Victoria 15 May '01

15 May '01

Todd, As of March 28, 2001 NetApp filers are certified for the complete storage of the VOB and View databases in a Unix, Interop or Windows only Rational ClearCase environment. It is no longer necessary to have the databases reside on local disk and Rational supports placing the databases on filers. My guess is the last time you spoke to Rational folks was prior to March 28, in which case they gave you the correct information. As you well know, filers natively support both CIFS and NFS making the use of Syntax TAS unnecessary. During our ClearCase certification testing there was no performance degradation when using a filer. In fact, we typically found the performance to be better than when using direct attached storage in ClearCase environments. We are currently working on performance benchmarks in order to document the performance gains achieved. Your read of the statement in the brochure is correct. It is true that both restrictions have now been removed. Using a filer with ClearCase also makes back-up and restore much easier due to NetApp SnapShots (not to be confused with the snapshot function in ClearCase). With SnapShots, the VOB database is locked for typically only a matter of seconds (exact time will depend on the size of the VOB). The March 28th certification includes use of filers with ClearCase Multisite as well. Hope this helps clear up any questions or concerns. Victoria J. Koepnick Network Appliance Manager, Technical Markets 408-822-6465 -----Original Message----- From: Todd C. Merrill [mailto:tmerrill@mathworks.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 10:04 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: ClearCase "certified" filers I just received in the mail a notice that NetApp filers are "certified" for use with Rational's ClearCase product. In particular, it says: "Network Appliance delivers network-attached storage solutions *certified for ClearCase 4.x* for complete VOB and View storage in UNIX, Windows, and multiprotocol environments. You get true single-copy data sharing between UNIX and Windows clients, without emulation software." Last time we asked the Rational folks if they had customers using NetApps, the answer was yes. But, Rational still recommended the VOB and View *databases* reside on local disk on the VOB or View servers. Is that recommended restriction now gone? Also, when we delved into it some more, it turns out we would still have needed Syntax TAS servers to serve the data to the CIFS clients, even though the various pools were stored on a NetApp. That is, clients would still have to request data via the ClearCase daemons on the various ClearCase servers. In other words, to fetch a file from the cleartext pool, for example, the client could NOT directly fetch it from the filer. Needless to say, performance via the ClearCase daemons was "sub-optimal." My read of the statement in the brochure is that both restrictions have now been removed (database storage and TAS servers). Is this true? Until next time... The Mathworks, Inc. 508-647-7000 x7792 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick, MA 01760-2098 508-647-7001 FAX tmerrill(a)mathworks.com http://www.mathworks.com ---

1 0

RE: Summary Cleanup
by Jankowski Ted-CTJ012 15 May '01

15 May '01

You may also want to verify what snapshots you have lying around. We had a couple of old one that weren't going to go away naturally. After I deleted them, the WAFL upgrade finished soon afterwards. -Ted -----Original Message----- From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 6:33 AM To: MadDog(a)fool.com Cc: Toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Summary Cleanup "Tom \"Mad Dog\" Yergeau" <MadDog(a)fool.com> writes > > Since upgrading a filer to OT6.1, I've noticed a lot of these messages in > the log file: > > Sat May 12 23:24:02 EDT [wafl_CP_proc:info]: Starting summary cleanup on > volume vol1. > Sat May 12 23:24:04 EDT [wafl_lopri:info]: Volume vol1, summary cleanup > complete. > > They only occur for vol1, not vol0, an although they generally occur at 4 > hour intervals I've also seem them occur 1/2 dozen times in 10 minutes. > > Can anyone explain what a "summary cleanup" is, why it was added in 6.1, and > how come there's no real pattern to when they happen?

1 0

RE: ClearCase "certified" filers
by Clawson, Simon 15 May '01

15 May '01

We met with NetApps reps in the USA a month agoa nad they told us about this too. Apparently it has been completely certified for storage of VOBs.. > -----Original Message----- > From: Todd C. Merrill [mailto:tmerrill@mathworks.com] > Sent: Tuesday May 2001 18:04 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: ClearCase "certified" filers > > > > I just received in the mail a notice that NetApp filers are > "certified" > for use with Rational's ClearCase product. In particular, it says: > > "Network Appliance delivers network-attached storage solutions > *certified for ClearCase 4.x* for complete VOB and View > storage in UNIX, > Windows, and multiprotocol environments. You get true > single-copy data > sharing between UNIX and Windows clients, without emulation software." > > Last time we asked the Rational folks if they had customers using > NetApps, the answer was yes. But, Rational still recommended the VOB > and View *databases* reside on local disk on the VOB or View servers. > Is that recommended restriction now gone? > > Also, when we delved into it some more, it turns out we would still > have needed Syntax TAS servers to serve the data to the CIFS clients, > even though the various pools were stored on a NetApp. That is, > clients would still have to request data via the ClearCase daemons > on the various ClearCase servers. In other words, to fetch a > file from > the cleartext pool, for example, the client could NOT > directly fetch it > from the filer. Needless to say, performance via the > ClearCase daemons > was "sub-optimal." > > My read of the statement in the brochure is that both > restrictions have > now been removed (database storage and TAS servers). Is this true? > > Until next time... > > The Mathworks, Inc. 508-647-7000 x7792 > 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick, MA 01760-2098 508-647-7001 FAX > tmerrill(a)mathworks.com http://www.mathworks.com ---

1 0

ClearCase "certified" filers
by Todd C. Merrill 15 May '01

15 May '01

I just received in the mail a notice that NetApp filers are "certified" for use with Rational's ClearCase product. In particular, it says: "Network Appliance delivers network-attached storage solutions *certified for ClearCase 4.x* for complete VOB and View storage in UNIX, Windows, and multiprotocol environments. You get true single-copy data sharing between UNIX and Windows clients, without emulation software." Last time we asked the Rational folks if they had customers using NetApps, the answer was yes. But, Rational still recommended the VOB and View *databases* reside on local disk on the VOB or View servers. Is that recommended restriction now gone? Also, when we delved into it some more, it turns out we would still have needed Syntax TAS servers to serve the data to the CIFS clients, even though the various pools were stored on a NetApp. That is, clients would still have to request data via the ClearCase daemons on the various ClearCase servers. In other words, to fetch a file from the cleartext pool, for example, the client could NOT directly fetch it from the filer. Needless to say, performance via the ClearCase daemons was "sub-optimal." My read of the statement in the brochure is that both restrictions have now been removed (database storage and TAS servers). Is this true? Until next time... The Mathworks, Inc. 508-647-7000 x7792 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick, MA 01760-2098 508-647-7001 FAX tmerrill(a)mathworks.com http://www.mathworks.com ---

1 0

Summary Cleanup
by Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau 15 May '01

15 May '01

Since upgrading a filer to OT6.1, I've noticed a lot of these messages in the log file: Sat May 12 23:24:02 EDT [wafl_CP_proc:info]: Starting summary cleanup on volume vol1. Sat May 12 23:24:04 EDT [wafl_lopri:info]: Volume vol1, summary cleanup complete. They only occur for vol1, not vol0, an although they generally occur at 4 hour intervals I've also seem them occur 1/2 dozen times in 10 minutes. Can anyone explain what a "summary cleanup" is, why it was added in 6.1, and how come there's no real pattern to when they happen? Thanks, MD

2 1

RE: Summary Cleanup
by Traitel, Eyal 15 May '01

15 May '01

This is from the WAFL upgrade. Can you post your vol status -c ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- eTraitel - I'm the new eBuzzword around !!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Filer Escalation Engineer CNA, MCSE, CSA, LCA, NetApp CA Network Appliance BV Hoofddorp, The Netherlands Office: +31 23 567 9685 Cellular: +31 6 5497 2568 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Get answers NOW! - NetApp On the Web - http://now.netapp.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau [mailto:MadDog@fool.com] Sent: Mon, May 14, 2001 23:19 To: 'Toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Summary Cleanup Since upgrading a filer to OT6.1, I've noticed a lot of these messages in the log file: Sat May 12 23:24:02 EDT [wafl_CP_proc:info]: Starting summary cleanup on volume vol1. Sat May 12 23:24:04 EDT [wafl_lopri:info]: Volume vol1, summary cleanup complete. They only occur for vol1, not vol0, an although they generally occur at 4 hour intervals I've also seem them occur 1/2 dozen times in 10 minutes. Can anyone explain what a "summary cleanup" is, why it was added in 6.1, and how come there's no real pattern to when they happen? Thanks, MD

1 0

RE: Copy on write - Netapp vs. others
by Paul Timmins 14 May '01

14 May '01

Not to nit-pick... but what being described is the behavior of a log-structured file system (of which WAFL is one). There are many other implementations of log-structured file systems. IMO, calling that copy-on-write is dead-wrong, not merely confusing. There's no copy going on. The inode file is copied (checkpointed) when a snapshot is initiated, not when a write occurs. Just my two cents... Paul -----Original Message----- From: Eli Lopez [mailto:elopez@netapp.com] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 4:38 AM To: Jay Soffian; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Copy on write - Netapp vs. others Hi Jay, You are right that the terminology is confusing. One way to look at it is to think of two ways of copy-on-write: when you are updating a block of a file you can: 1) Either write the NEW UPDATED block to a new location 2) Or move the OLD block to a new location AND THEN write the new updated block in place of the old one. Taking a snapshot with both methods involves copying the inode file BUT obviously there could be serious performance impact using the second method (for each update, the write request needs to 'wait' until the old block gets copied to a new location). Network Appliance's WAFL uses the first method which does not have any impact on performance and is (IMVHO) much more elegant. Thanks, Eli ______________________ Eli Lopez Systems Engineer Manager Network Appliance, Israel (+972) - 50 - 304 - 733 Eli.Lopez(a)Netapp.com ______________________ ----- Original Message ----- From: Jay Soffian <jay(a)loudcloud.com> To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 7:00 PM Subject: Re: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740 > "Ferd" == Ferd Berfl <ferd_berfl(a)yahoo.com> writes: > > > re: snapshots, I thought that everyone else's snapshot > > functionality other than Netapp's must be based on a "copy on > > write" method because Netapp has a patent on continuously > > writing new blocks. > > WAFL uses copy-on-write. Here, straight from the horse's mouth: > > WAFL uses a copy-on-write technique to minimize the disk space that > Snapshots consume. > > http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3002.html > > Now, Netapp's implementation may be unique, but to say that WAFL > doesn't use copy-on-write and to make a claim like "copy-on-write is > slow, Netapp doesn't use it" is bogus. > > j. > -- > Jay Soffian <jay(a)loudcloud.com> System Administrator > 408 744 7584 Loudcloud, Inc.

4 3

RE: Galaxy and NDMP
by Melvin, Grant 14 May '01

14 May '01

Hi Jordan, With a (directly attached to the NetApp) tape device you will need to run an NDMP-compliant application such as CommVault's Galaxy (or use rsh scripts) to run dump on the filer. Anyway the resulting format written to tape is in the BSD dump format which is compatible with Solaris' ufsrestore. To restore them to a non-NetApp target location you can perform a native (to Solaris) ufsrestore of the backup, but there will be a few hoops to jump through, such as, knowing where the backup images are on each tape and running the tapes through dd prior to ufsrestore. The reason for this last point is that NDMP backups even though they may cross tape boundaries are actually written as one very large (usually) data stream and therefore have to be read back that way which an NDMP restore on a filer achieves. If the data in the backup has mixed (Unix & NT) permissions then the NT permissions will be lost during a ufsrestore backup, but the data & unix permissions will be intact. Alternatively you can perform non-NDMP backups over CIFS which will capture the data + Unix & CIFS permissions. If you then restore on a filer it will restore the data + Unix & CIFS permissions. If you restore on an NT server you will get the data + CIFS permissions, but no Unix permissions. I'd go this way if you only have CIFS data or mixed data and I'd perform NFS backups if you only have NFS data. However, it really looks like the dependency is on the equipment at your disaster recovery location and in this case I'd go for filers! ;-D Hope this helps and I hope CommVault are listening. Cheers, Grant -----Original Message----- From: Jordan Share [mailto:iso9@phantasticant.com] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 2:11 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Galaxy and NDMP We're currently planning to purchase a NetApp 720 in the next few weeks. Thus, we are evaluating our backup options for this product. Basically, what I want to know is if anyone has experience with CommVault's Galaxy product and using it with a (directly attached to the NetApp) Treefrog tape library. What we want to be able to do is take the tapes produced by backing up (the NetApp) via NDMP, and restore them to a non-NetApp target location. We want to do this so we can restore our data (in event of disaster) without having to have a NetApp to restore it onto. Anyone have any experience with this, or know if it is possible? I'm having little luck getting assistance from CommVault. :( Thanks, Jordan

2 1

RE: REMOVE
by Gregg Anderson 14 May '01

14 May '01

If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, you can send mail to <lists(a)mathworks.com> with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe toasters or, if from another email account unsubscribe toasters <your_subscribed_email_address_here> ________________________________________________ Gregg Anderson Sales Engineer - Network Management Services - Internet Ops S1 Community and Regional eFinance Solutions Group <http://www.s1.com/> Work 512.336.3156 Mobile 512.751.0779 Fax 512.615.1275 Delivering the Compelling eFinance Experience This electronic message transmission contains information from S1 Community and Regional eFinance Solutions Group that may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for use solely by the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephone 512.336.3000 or by electronic mail immediately. -----Original Message----- From: Eicher, Scott [mailto:scotte@netperceptions.com] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 2:49 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: REMOVE PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM THE MAILING

1 0

REMOVE
by Eicher, Scott 14 May '01

14 May '01

PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM THE MAILING

1 0

remove
by Omar Fabián García 14 May '01

14 May '01

remove -- Ing. Omar Fabián García Ejecutivo de Cuentas LighTech mailto:ogarcia@lightech.com.ar Reconquista 1034. Piso 1 Tel:(54-11) 4311-4960 Capital Federal Fax:(54-11) 4311-3132 Buenos Aires - Argentina C1003ABV http://www.lightech.com.ar

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