toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

RE: Upgrading to Ontap 6.1R1 and Quotas
by Heller, Jeffrey 11 May '01

11 May '01

The quota problem was fixed with 6.1R1. The workaround is no longer needed for upgrades. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffrey Krueger [mailto:jkrueger@qualcomm.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 5:43 PM > To: Malek Hamdan > Cc: 'Toasters (E-mail) ' > Subject: Re: Upgrading to Ontap 6.1R1 and Quotas > > > Malek: > > NetApp support is the authoritative word on this, but it is my > understanding that the quota bug is only present in 6.1 and fixed in > 6.1R1. Anyone else care to confirm or deny? > > -- Jeff > > > > On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 10:07:09AM +1000, Malek Hamdan wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I know that quota's should be turned off before upgrading > to 6.1 - though > > the NOW site says: > > > > <snip for NOW> > > Add the following entry to the /etc/quotas file for each > volume on the > > filer. > > Replace volname with the name of the volume. > > 0 user@/vol/volname - - > > </snip> > > > > Does this mean that I should keep existing entries in the > /etc/quotas file > > and just add the specified entry?? Also, does this need to > be done for all > > volumes or just volumes that had quotas turned on?? > > > > You help is appreciated. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Malek > > >

1 0

RE: filer head compatibility with older shelf hardware question
by Toal, Dave 11 May '01

11 May '01

The 330 was... um, _is_ running 5.2.1, and so is the 520. The 740, 5.3.6 . -----Original Message----- From: Toal, Dave To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Sent: 5/11/01 12:27 AM Subject: filer head compatibility with older shelf hardware question Folks, The thing at the top of my list right now is an F330 which is having hardware problems. The scsi cards in it are the 50-pin narrow variety, with dec- style disk enclosures. A 740 and a 520 are available. Is there any possibility of bringing up the F330 disk as a vol on either of these heads? -- Dave Toal Systems Optimist T&T, NQ, MA

1 0

filer head compatibility with older shelf hardware question
by Toal, Dave 11 May '01

11 May '01

Folks, The thing at the top of my list right now is an F330 which is having hardware problems. The scsi cards in it are the 50-pin narrow variety, with dec- style disk enclosures. A 740 and a 520 are available. Is there any possibility of bringing up the F330 disk as a vol on either of these heads? -- Dave Toal Systems Optimist T&T, NQ, MA

1 0

AS/400s and filers
by Ambrose_Earle＠shamrockfoods.com 11 May '01

11 May '01

Does anyone have any experience with connecting AS/400s to filers via NFS?

1 0

Upgrading to Ontap 6.1R1 and Quotas
by Malek Hamdan 11 May '01

11 May '01

Hi all, I know that quota's should be turned off before upgrading to 6.1 - though the NOW site says: <snip for NOW> Add the following entry to the /etc/quotas file for each volume on the filer. Replace volname with the name of the volume. 0 user@/vol/volname - - </snip> Does this mean that I should keep existing entries in the /etc/quotas file and just add the specified entry?? Also, does this need to be done for all volumes or just volumes that had quotas turned on?? You help is appreciated. Kind Regards, Malek

3 2

RE: ndmpd errors
by Toal, Dave 10 May '01

10 May '01

-----Original Message----- From: Conner, Neil To: 'Toal, Dave' Sent: 5/10/01 7:12 PM Subject: RE: ndmpd errors Deleted all my snapshots (didn't have to reboot the filer) and same thing happened... Neil

1 0

Re: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740
by Chris_Van_Genderen＠NexFlash.com 10 May '01

10 May '01

Barry, I just re-read my message, and I meant to say that the performance figures for the EMC were pretty dreadful in your experiment. Sorry about the confusion. Regarding EMC's response with running multiple threads. That seems to imply that they are running a significant amount of overhead/operation, and that their system needs to run parallel processes internally to overcome that overhead. To apply this statement to our situation, it sounds like the bandwidth to any one machine may be limited to 40-50Mbits/s read and 20-25Mbits/s write. However, when multiple machines are using the network, the EMC box will probably scale quite nicely. Chris Van Genderen Software Engineer & Applications Manager NexFlash Technologies, Inc. chris_van_genderen(a)nexflash.com 408-969-4714 Barry Lustig <barry(a)lustig.com> To: Chris_Van_Genderen(a)NexFlash.com Sent by: cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com, (bcc: Chris Van Genderen/Santa barry(a)proxy.internal.i Clara/ISSIHQ) ssiusa.com Subject: Re: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740 05/10/01 12:02 PM Chris_Van_Genderen(a)NexFlash.com wrote: > > When did you perform your evaluation of the IP4700? Last week. > > On the F85 performance figures, the performance you are quoting seems > pretty bad. Is there an unusually small block size in your application, or > another reason you can account for such a difference? 95Mbits/sec throughput on a 100Mbits/sec connection is extremely good. It is running near the max rate of the connection. The 95Mbits was the data rate. That excludes the packet's header overhead. I'll have to check with the engineer who did the actual testing to find out what block sizes he was using. > > What was EMC's response regarding performance when you showed them your > data? They said that we should run multiple threads. The aggregate bandwidth abilities of the box could keep the links saturated, but the single threaded reads and writes ran into the limitations that I've mentioned. In our application, we need for the single thread to be able to read and write and high speed. We have a single data stream coming in off of a device that has to be written to the filer. barry > > Chris Van Genderen > Software Engineer & Applications Manager > NexFlash Technologies, Inc. > chris_van_genderen(a)nexflash.com > 408-969-4714

1 0

RE: ndmpd errors
by Toal, Dave 10 May '01

10 May '01

Neil, Any busy snapshots? -----Original Message----- From: Conner, Neil To: Toasters (E-mail) Sent: 5/10/01 6:26 PM Subject: ndmpd errors We just installed a second F740 and configured it for clustering. Both filers are running 6.0.1.R3. The original F740 has a tape library attached via SCSI and backups run fine on it using Veritas netbackup 3.4 patch 559 on Solaris 8. I'm trying to do a three-way backup of the new filer. On the master server, I set up authentication with "set_ndmp_auth" and I've verified that the master can connect to the new filer. When I run a backup of /vol/vol0, Veritas aborts with Error 99. The All Logs entry shows: 5/10/2001 3:05:33 PM squid tempest Warning WRN - Cannot backup filepath /vol/vol0, NDMP_HALT_INTERNAL_ERROR occurred (path may not exist), skipping The filer reports the following messages in syslog: Thu May 10 15:06:04 PDT [tempest: Java Thread:warning]: Ndmpd10: Top level IOException Thu May 10 15:06:04 PDT [tempest: Java Thread:warning]: Ndmpd10: IO exception: Socket closed. This is the output from ndmpd probe session: ndmpd ON. Session: 10 isActive: TRUE protocol version: 2 effHost: Local authorized: TRUE client addr: 134.89.10.149:41047 spt.device_id: none spt.ha: -1 spt.scsi_id: -1 spt.scsi_lun: -1 tape.device: not open tape.mode: Read only mover.state: Idle mover.mode: Read mover.pauseReason N/A mover.haltReason N/A mover.recordSize: 0 mover.recordNum: 0 mover.dataWritten: 0 mover.seekPosition: 0 mover.bytesLeftToRead: 0 mover.windowOffset: -1 mover.windowLength: -1 mover.position: 0 mover.connect.addr_type:LOCAL data.operation: None data.state: Idle data.haltReason: N/A data.connect.addr_type: LOCAL data.bytesProcessed: 0 Anybody see the problem? Neil

1 0

ndmpd errors
by Conner, Neil 10 May '01

10 May '01

We just installed a second F740 and configured it for clustering. Both filers are running 6.0.1.R3. The original F740 has a tape library attached via SCSI and backups run fine on it using Veritas netbackup 3.4 patch 559 on Solaris 8. I'm trying to do a three-way backup of the new filer. On the master server, I set up authentication with "set_ndmp_auth" and I've verified that the master can connect to the new filer. When I run a backup of /vol/vol0, Veritas aborts with Error 99. The All Logs entry shows: 5/10/2001 3:05:33 PM squid tempest Warning WRN - Cannot backup filepath /vol/vol0, NDMP_HALT_INTERNAL_ERROR occurred (path may not exist), skipping The filer reports the following messages in syslog: Thu May 10 15:06:04 PDT [tempest: Java Thread:warning]: Ndmpd10: Top level IOException Thu May 10 15:06:04 PDT [tempest: Java Thread:warning]: Ndmpd10: IO exception: Socket closed. This is the output from ndmpd probe session: ndmpd ON. Session: 10 isActive: TRUE protocol version: 2 effHost: Local authorized: TRUE client addr: 134.89.10.149:41047 spt.device_id: none spt.ha: -1 spt.scsi_id: -1 spt.scsi_lun: -1 tape.device: not open tape.mode: Read only mover.state: Idle mover.mode: Read mover.pauseReason N/A mover.haltReason N/A mover.recordSize: 0 mover.recordNum: 0 mover.dataWritten: 0 mover.seekPosition: 0 mover.bytesLeftToRead: 0 mover.windowOffset: -1 mover.windowLength: -1 mover.position: 0 mover.connect.addr_type:LOCAL data.operation: None data.state: Idle data.haltReason: N/A data.connect.addr_type: LOCAL data.bytesProcessed: 0 Anybody see the problem? Neil

1 0

RE: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740
by Traitel, Eyal 10 May '01

10 May '01

Yes, you can play on a filer with snap reserve value without any interference with the snapshot creations and/or performance. Eyal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Ferd Berfl [mailto:ferd_berfl@yahoo.com] Sent: Thu, May 10, 2001 18:09 To: Paul Brosseau; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740 that's a fixed or semi fixed, non-flexible disk space allocation for "copy on write" changed blocks, right? On the Network Appliance filer, isn't' that "reserve" more of an accounting mechanism than a physical disk space allocation? I thought you could use snapshots on the network appliance system without setting any reserve if you wanted. > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Brosseau [mailto:paulb@netapp.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 9:01 AM > To: ferdberfl(a)netzero.net; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740 > > > Chris, > > Your description of how the IP4700's Snapshot copy-on-write > mechanism works > is right on. The original data is copied to a new location and > the new data > is written to the original block. Yes this compromises performance. Yes > you have to allocate physical disk space to accomplish this. No > you cannot > shrink the amount of disk space you have allocated for this process if you > find that it is too much. > > Paul Brosseau - Netapp SE > Former EMC SE > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dl-toasters(a)netapp.com > [mailto:owner-dl-toasters@netapp.com]On Behalf Of Ferd Berfl > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 10:02 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740 > > > 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. (their WAFL filesystem > intellectual property and patents). If you can't take advantage of the > method of writing modified blocks as new blocks and not touching the > original block pointed to by the snapshot, doesn't that mean that you have > to reserve some amount of storage, that is free blocks, for > holding the copy > on write changed blocks to maintain the snapshots? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-dl-toasters(a)netapp.com > > [mailto:owner-dl-toasters@netapp.com]On Behalf Of Barry Lustig > > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 5:30 PM > > To: Chris_Van_Genderen(a)NexFlash.com > > Cc: sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: Re: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740 > > > > > > Chris, > > > > I'm the person that started the F85 vs. IP4700 thread. Here is one > > data point. When we benchmarked the F85 it was able to do a single > > threaded read at 90-95 Mbits/sec and writes at 85-90 Mbits/sec. This > > was on a 100BaseT full-duplex connection to a linux box. When we tried > > the same benchmark with the IP4700 it showed 40-50 Mbits/sec read and > > 20-25 Mbits/sec write. This clinched the deal for the F85's for us. > > EMC compares the IP4700 to the F8xx line. If the system cannot even > > keep up with an F85, I think that EMC needs to take a look at what is > > going on. Also, you should check with EMC regarding their snapshot > > implementation. Netapp's snapshots don't have to copy old data when a > > data block is updated. A new block is allocated and then written. I've > > heard, but haven't verified that the IP4700's filesystem acts more like > > a copy on write system. First the old data block has to be copied to a > > new location then the modified data is written. If this is actually the > > case then the performance of the filesystem will be compromised. I know > > that there are EMC folks on this list. Maybe one of them can respond. > > > > barry > > > > > > Chris_Van_Genderen(a)NexFlash.com wrote: > > > > > > Bruce, > > > > > > One of the items that I did not mention was that > > > we are a start up company that is using the back-end > > > infrastructure of our parent company. I have been given > > > the task of not only buying a NAS device for company wide > > > storage, but also to build the entire network infrastructure and > > > server infrastructure for our new location. So, what ever we > > > purchase will need to go online immediately and support the > > > company in a new location. I don't have the "test-bed" to test > > anything. > > > > > > As you can also guess, via my title, I am not a MIS person either. So, > > > I've been going through a fairly steep learning curve in many areas. I > > > am weary about compatibility issues with NFS and our engineering/CAD > > > Sun machines. In this area, I feel because of their industry > > experience, > > > NetApp has the edge. I've talked with EMC on this issue, and they > > > re-assure me that the IP4700 will not have compatibility problems. > > > However, > > > this is much different than having users of the product claim > that their > > > are no compatibility problems. > > > > > > My gut feeling is to go with the F740 because of the existing > > installation > > > base, > > > and the maturity of the product. I'm just a little miffed that > > NetApp has > > > been > > > trying to use my inexperience and limited knowledgebase against > > me during > > > the sales process; it doesn't give me the feeling that I can > trust them. > > > > > > Chris Van Genderen > > > Software Engineer & Applications Manager > > > NexFlash Technologies, Inc. > > > chris_van_genderen(a)nexflash.com > > > > > > > > > "Bruce > > > Sterling To: > > <toasters(a)mathworks.com>, <Chris_Van_Genderen(a)NexFlash.com> > > > Woodcock" cc: (bcc: Chris > > Van Genderen/Santa Clara/ISSIHQ) > > > <sirbruce(a)ix.n Subject: Re: EMC > > IP4700 vs NetApp F740 > > > etcom.com> > > > > > > 05/09/01 03:45 > > > PM > > > > > > > > > > > > Most of what you seem to be weighing are nebulous > > > issues of who says what. Why don't you just find out > > > for yourself? > > > > > > Ask Netapp for an F760 to try out for 2 weeks. > > > > > > Ask EMC for an IP4700 *at the equivalent price > > > and disk capacity, with RAID* to try out for 2 weeks. > > > > > > See which has better performance for your users and > > > which you can administer easier. Build large RAID > > > groups, test simultaneous file sharing from NFS and > > > CIFS, fail drives, do rebuilds, etc. > > > > > > Bruce > > > > > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

4 3

Galaxy and NDMP
by Jordan Share 10 May '01

10 May '01

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

1 0

NOW surveys
by Timothy Cook 10 May '01

10 May '01

Folks, I am one of those people who more often than not completes the NOW surveys, though I often wondered why I bothered. Earlier we had a rather lively thread discussing these surveys and ways to get more responses. ConGrats to Netapp for listening! I just received a $5 gift certificate for Amazon.com from NOW in appreciation for my response to the latest survey. It's good to see a company respond to their customers in such a manner.

1 0

Re: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740
by Chris_Van_Genderen＠NexFlash.com 10 May '01

10 May '01

Barry, I appreciate you sharing your experiences. When did you perform your evaluation of the IP4700? On the F85 performance figures, the performance you are quoting seems pretty bad. Is there an unusually small block size in your application, or another reason you can account for such a difference? What was EMC's response regarding performance when you showed them your data? Chris Van Genderen Software Engineer & Applications Manager NexFlash Technologies, Inc. chris_van_genderen(a)nexflash.com 408-969-4714

2 1

RE: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740
by Joe Luchtenberg 10 May '01

10 May '01

Giving the benefit of the doubt, perhaps the EMC reps were talking only about when the SnapView is initially created. However, they certainly utilize a "copy-on-first-write" procedure for subsequent changes to the active file system. For more details: http://www.emc.com/pdf/products/clariion/SnapView_DS.pdf The impact on performance, of course, depends entirely on your environment. In many cases it may be indistinguishable from NetApp because the rate of data change in the filesystem is relatively small. To conduct another fishing expedition for the EMC lurkers among us, I assume that with SnapView/IP (like TimeFinder) you can "split-off" a SnapView (like a BCV) for various purposes. True? This creates a capacity planning issue, but may be a valuable capability, depending on your requirements. Joe Joe Luchtenberg Dataline, Inc. 757.858.0600 757.285.1223 (cell) 757.858.0606 (fax) joe.luchtenberg(a)data-line.com www.data-line.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Hughes [mailto:Martin.Hughes@Halliburton.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 12:45 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740 > > > >Your description of how the IP4700's Snapshot copy-on-write > mechanism works > >is right on. The original data is copied to a new location > and the new > data > >is written to the original block. Yes this compromises > performance. Yes > >you have to allocate physical disk space to accomplish this. > No you cannot > >shrink the amount of disk space you have allocated for this > process if you > >find that it is too much. > > > Hmm, not according to a demo we had from EMC week before > last. I grilled > them pretty hard on that and they claimed that they updated > the inode file > only and did not copy blocks to another location. > > Well, we have an eval unit coming in next week and I'll do > some testing. > > Regards > > Martin > Enterprise Storage/Enterprise Server Group > <mailto:martin.hughes@halliburton.com> > cellphone: +1 713 303 9214 > office: +1 281 871 4124 > >

1 0

RE: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740
by Martin Hughes 10 May '01

10 May '01

>Your description of how the IP4700's Snapshot copy-on-write mechanism works >is right on. The original data is copied to a new location and the new data >is written to the original block. Yes this compromises performance. Yes >you have to allocate physical disk space to accomplish this. No you cannot >shrink the amount of disk space you have allocated for this process if you >find that it is too much. Hmm, not according to a demo we had from EMC week before last. I grilled them pretty hard on that and they claimed that they updated the inode file only and did not copy blocks to another location. Well, we have an eval unit coming in next week and I'll do some testing. Regards Martin Enterprise Storage/Enterprise Server Group <mailto:martin.hughes@halliburton.com> cellphone: +1 713 303 9214 office: +1 281 871 4124

2 1

RE: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740
by Fox, Adam 10 May '01

10 May '01

Clearly, I'm a NetApp advocate here, but I'll try to be non-partisan for this audience. Bruce's suggestion is good. Obviously a side-by-side comparison is a good idea. But if that isn't possible then you may want to ask both reps for references who run the same CAD application you plan to run. Or if it's an oddball app, then at least ask for Eng/CAD references in general, but the closer to your environment, the better. I've found that fellow customers tend to speak pretty open and honestly about it. Yes, you are getting hand-picked examples, but if you hear them from both sides, you can hear benefits from both sides, and if you can only get references from one side...well, that says something itself. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris_Van_Genderen(a)NexFlash.com > [mailto:Chris_Van_Genderen@NexFlash.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 7:52 PM > To: sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740 > > > > Bruce, > > One of the items that I did not mention was that > we are a start up company that is using the back-end > infrastructure of our parent company. I have been given > the task of not only buying a NAS device for company wide > storage, but also to build the entire network infrastructure and > server infrastructure for our new location. So, what ever we > purchase will need to go online immediately and support the > company in a new location. I don't have the "test-bed" to > test anything. > > As you can also guess, via my title, I am not a MIS person either. So, > I've been going through a fairly steep learning curve in many areas. I > am weary about compatibility issues with NFS and our engineering/CAD > Sun machines. In this area, I feel because of their industry > experience, > NetApp has the edge. I've talked with EMC on this issue, and they > re-assure me that the IP4700 will not have compatibility problems. > However, > this is much different than having users of the product claim > that their > are no compatibility problems. > > My gut feeling is to go with the F740 because of the existing > installation > base, > and the maturity of the product. I'm just a little miffed > that NetApp has > been > trying to use my inexperience and limited knowledgebase > against me during > the sales process; it doesn't give me the feeling that I can > trust them. > > Chris Van Genderen > Software Engineer & Applications Manager > NexFlash Technologies, Inc. > chris_van_genderen(a)nexflash.com > > > > > > > > "Bruce > > Sterling To: > <toasters(a)mathworks.com>, <Chris_Van_Genderen(a)NexFlash.com> > Woodcock" cc: (bcc: Chris > Van Genderen/Santa Clara/ISSIHQ) > <sirbruce(a)ix.n Subject: Re: > EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740 > etcom.com> > > > > 05/09/01 03:45 > > PM > > > > > > > > > > Most of what you seem to be weighing are nebulous > issues of who says what. Why don't you just find out > for yourself? > > Ask Netapp for an F760 to try out for 2 weeks. > > Ask EMC for an IP4700 *at the equivalent price > and disk capacity, with RAID* to try out for 2 weeks. > > See which has better performance for your users and > which you can administer easier. Build large RAID > groups, test simultaneous file sharing from NFS and > CIFS, fail drives, do rebuilds, etc. > > Bruce > > > > >

1 0

RE: Java-NDMPcopy
by Melvin, Grant 10 May '01

10 May '01

Hi Thomas, Yip, it should really be listed at: http://www.ndmp.org/download/ndmpcopy/index.shtml You can get to it via ftp at: ftp://ftp.ndmp.org/ndmpcopy for now. Cheers, Grant -----Original Message----- From: Thomas.L.White(a)chase.com [mailto:Thomas.L.White@chase.com] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 9:07 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Java-NDMPcopy ndmpcopy has given me ACL errors and as a test netapp suggests that I try the latest and greatest java-ndmpcopy... So - I went to ndmp.org I don't see any mentionof jndmpcopy is this indeed where I should find it ?? What have I done wrong here ??? (besides call honest hardworkers Whiners) tw

1 0

RE: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740
by White, Lance 10 May '01

10 May '01

>On the Network Appliance filer, isn't' that "reserve" more of an accounting mechanism than a physical disk space allocation? I thought you could use snapshots on the network appliance system without setting any reserve if you wanted. You are correct, Ferd. Setting a Snap Reserve of zero really has no effect on snapshots, other than for accounting purposes and potentially safety. It's advisable if you are using snapshots to set a reasonable reserve so that the data portion of the volume doesn't allocate all of the blocks in the event of the volume filling up. It's a hard wall for data, and a perforated wall for snapshots. -----Original Message----- From: Ferd Berfl [mailto:ferd_berfl@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 9:09 AM To: Paul Brosseau; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740 that's a fixed or semi fixed, non-flexible disk space allocation for "copy on write" changed blocks, right? On the Network Appliance filer, isn't' that "reserve" more of an accounting mechanism than a physical disk space allocation? I thought you could use snapshots on the network appliance system without setting any reserve if you wanted. > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Brosseau [mailto:paulb@netapp.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 9:01 AM > To: ferdberfl(a)netzero.net; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740 > > > Chris, > > Your description of how the IP4700's Snapshot copy-on-write > mechanism works > is right on. The original data is copied to a new location and > the new data > is written to the original block. Yes this compromises performance. Yes > you have to allocate physical disk space to accomplish this. No > you cannot > shrink the amount of disk space you have allocated for this process if you > find that it is too much. > > Paul Brosseau - Netapp SE > Former EMC SE > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dl-toasters(a)netapp.com > [mailto:owner-dl-toasters@netapp.com]On Behalf Of Ferd Berfl > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 10:02 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740 > > > 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. (their WAFL filesystem > intellectual property and patents). If you can't take advantage of the > method of writing modified blocks as new blocks and not touching the > original block pointed to by the snapshot, doesn't that mean that you have > to reserve some amount of storage, that is free blocks, for > holding the copy > on write changed blocks to maintain the snapshots? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-dl-toasters(a)netapp.com > > [mailto:owner-dl-toasters@netapp.com]On Behalf Of Barry Lustig > > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 5:30 PM > > To: Chris_Van_Genderen(a)NexFlash.com > > Cc: sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: Re: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740 > > > > > > Chris, > > > > I'm the person that started the F85 vs. IP4700 thread. Here is one > > data point. When we benchmarked the F85 it was able to do a single > > threaded read at 90-95 Mbits/sec and writes at 85-90 Mbits/sec. This > > was on a 100BaseT full-duplex connection to a linux box. When we tried > > the same benchmark with the IP4700 it showed 40-50 Mbits/sec read and > > 20-25 Mbits/sec write. This clinched the deal for the F85's for us. > > EMC compares the IP4700 to the F8xx line. If the system cannot even > > keep up with an F85, I think that EMC needs to take a look at what is > > going on. Also, you should check with EMC regarding their snapshot > > implementation. Netapp's snapshots don't have to copy old data when a > > data block is updated. A new block is allocated and then written. I've > > heard, but haven't verified that the IP4700's filesystem acts more like > > a copy on write system. First the old data block has to be copied to a > > new location then the modified data is written. If this is actually the > > case then the performance of the filesystem will be compromised. I know > > that there are EMC folks on this list. Maybe one of them can respond. > > > > barry > > > > > > Chris_Van_Genderen(a)NexFlash.com wrote: > > > > > > Bruce, > > > > > > One of the items that I did not mention was that > > > we are a start up company that is using the back-end > > > infrastructure of our parent company. I have been given > > > the task of not only buying a NAS device for company wide > > > storage, but also to build the entire network infrastructure and > > > server infrastructure for our new location. So, what ever we > > > purchase will need to go online immediately and support the > > > company in a new location. I don't have the "test-bed" to test > > anything. > > > > > > As you can also guess, via my title, I am not a MIS person either. So, > > > I've been going through a fairly steep learning curve in many areas. I > > > am weary about compatibility issues with NFS and our engineering/CAD > > > Sun machines. In this area, I feel because of their industry > > experience, > > > NetApp has the edge. I've talked with EMC on this issue, and they > > > re-assure me that the IP4700 will not have compatibility problems. > > > However, > > > this is much different than having users of the product claim > that their > > > are no compatibility problems. > > > > > > My gut feeling is to go with the F740 because of the existing > > installation > > > base, > > > and the maturity of the product. I'm just a little miffed that > > NetApp has > > > been > > > trying to use my inexperience and limited knowledgebase against > > me during > > > the sales process; it doesn't give me the feeling that I can > trust them. > > > > > > Chris Van Genderen > > > Software Engineer & Applications Manager > > > NexFlash Technologies, Inc. > > > chris_van_genderen(a)nexflash.com > > > > > > > > > "Bruce > > > Sterling To: > > <toasters(a)mathworks.com>, <Chris_Van_Genderen(a)NexFlash.com> > > > Woodcock" cc: (bcc: Chris > > Van Genderen/Santa Clara/ISSIHQ) > > > <sirbruce(a)ix.n Subject: Re: EMC > > IP4700 vs NetApp F740 > > > etcom.com> > > > > > > 05/09/01 03:45 > > > PM > > > > > > > > > > > > Most of what you seem to be weighing are nebulous > > > issues of who says what. Why don't you just find out > > > for yourself? > > > > > > Ask Netapp for an F760 to try out for 2 weeks. > > > > > > Ask EMC for an IP4700 *at the equivalent price > > > and disk capacity, with RAID* to try out for 2 weeks. > > > > > > See which has better performance for your users and > > > which you can administer easier. Build large RAID > > > groups, test simultaneous file sharing from NFS and > > > CIFS, fail drives, do rebuilds, etc. > > > > > > Bruce > > > > > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Java-NDMPcopy
by Thomas.L.White＠chase.com 10 May '01

10 May '01

ndmpcopy has given me ACL errors and as a test netapp suggests that I try the latest and greatest java-ndmpcopy... So - I went to ndmp.org I don't see any mentionof jndmpcopy is this indeed where I should find it ?? What have I done wrong here ??? (besides call honest hardworkers Whiners) tw

1 0

Disk Scrubbing
by Honeycutt, Michael 10 May '01

10 May '01

Does anyone allow disk scrubbing to happen while backups are being performed? If so, have you had any problems with the performace of the filer or corruption/missing data on the tapes? Thanks. Michael Honeycutt MCSE/A+ NT/Exchange Engineer IBM Global Services

2 1

RE: Unable to delete folder
by Mike Sphar 10 May '01

10 May '01

I run into this pretty often. Try running "lock_dump -f" (after running rc_toggle_basic if necessary) and look for the directory that you can't remove. If you see the directory you're having trouble with, just try terminating the CIFS connection of the machine holding the lock. That usually clears it up for me. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Matt Graham [mailto:mgraham@resgen.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 2:54 PM To: toasters Subject: Unable to delete folder For some reason my filer won't let me delete a couple of folders. I have run into this problem before. It says access denied or folder in use, but I have administrative rights and I don't believe the folders to be in use (They are empty). If the directories are somehow open or locked, how do I determine what client has them open? How can I force the filer to relinquish the folders. The directories are located within a NTFS style qtree. Thanks, Matt Graham

2 1

ONTAP 6.x snapshots
by Todd C. Merrill 10 May '01

10 May '01

To balance my karma on this list, after yesterday's "floppy shuffle" thread.... # time rsh F840-filer-running-6.1 'snap create vol0 test' creating snapshot... 0.01u 0.02s 0:00.28 10.7% 28-hundredths of a second wall-clock time, including loading and executing rsh and building and taking down the TCP/IP connection?! Whose soul had to be sold to make the new snapshot work so fast? 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 ---

2 1

Re: floppy shuffle
by Thomas.L.White＠chase.com 10 May '01

10 May '01

where will you mount your CD rom drive ? or did you just want to buy a new filer with a CD drive installed. Maybe I forgot to mention that I found a fresh box of floppies at the local QwikEMart. I have alphas and intels as well. I keep my current OS and the previous - just in case. Maybe I would complain as well if I ever used them after the upgrade. sorrrrrry tw "Mr. G. D. Geen" <geen(a)ti.com>@mathworks.com on 05/09/2001 04:57:14 PM Sent by: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com To: toasters(a)mathworks.com cc: Subject: Re: floppy shuffle I have talked to my PSE about this before. When we went to two floppies, this wasn't so bad. Now we are three floppies and I suggested a bootable CD-ROM drive. Maybe in the next generation shelf. I would rather burn a CD as I, too, have trouble coughing up enough floppies for this operation. Consider, also, that the F700 series is Alpha based and the F800 series is Intel based. This means two sets of floppies for me. Fortunately my F520s are going back on lease and I do not have any more F330s. I could not even imagine an NAFS1400 today -- Yow! Personally, I do not see this as whining but a request to the Lords of NetApp. For OS upgrades, one only need transfer the system files and perform an "download" then reboot from HDD after that. No biggie there. When running diagnostics on the mother board and having to run across the data centre becomes a pain, though I do get my exercise in for the day. The Victoria Bitters Physical Fitness operating system. :-) My $.02. Who get's the change? -gdg Rob Windsor wrote: > On Wed, 09 May 2001 15:54:20 EDT, Thomas.L.White(a)chase.com wrote: > > > Wodda bunch O'Whiners! > > how often do you actually boot from floppies! > > oh- maybe once at upgrade. > > yeah, big "maybe" there. :> > > I don't think I've ever booted from floppy during an upgrade (except for > that one time the upgrade triggered a filesystem-related bug -- it went > corrupt and I had to run WAFL_check). > > More to the point, when I have to perform a WAFL_check under the gun, I'd > rather not have to dig around for a fistful of floppies required to boot > the filer for maint. Now we are FOUR TIMES more likely to encounter an > aborted boot due to a floppy infected with bitrot. It is time to whine. > > (How many folks keep a box of fresh, new diskettes around specifically for > new revisions of ONTAP? How many just grab the first N unassigned > floppies they see laying around their desk? How many use one floppy and > re-image it on-the-fly as the filer asks for it? :) > > Rob++ > ---------------------------------------- > Rob Windsor E-Mail - mailto:rob_windsor@adc.com > Senior Unix Systems Administrator Voice - phone:972-680-6919 > Computer Services Fax - phone:972-680-0370 > Broadband Access and Transport Group __o > ADC Telecommunications _`\<,_ > Richardson, TX 75082 (_)/ (_) (See attached file: geen.vcf)

2 1

RE: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740
by Traitel, Eyal 10 May '01

10 May '01

I will just comment one thing without entering the discussion itself - When you look at SpecFS results you should not look at the number itself since it has no meaning alone. This numbers can come with a response time in parallel to it. Every product might be able to sustain X ops with no failure etc, but at what response time ? Products have degrading performance over load, that's a science given. Only question will be what is the response time you're looking for. Also, SpecFS is running a specific operation mix, which might not fit yours exactly. It's generic by nature. Taking these into mind, I don't think you should just ignore a whole organization like Spec doing these tests. It is real. Yes, I am biased, but as many veterans on toasters know I was a customer before. I was running filers (F760s) in real life, getting numbers not far from those in SpecFS while in high load periods (http://www.spec.org/osg/sfs97/results/res99q2/sfs97-19990416-00046.html) with reasonable and expected response time. Eyal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Michael Owen [mailto:nssolutions@home.com] Sent: Thu, May 10, 2001 08:35 To: Chris_Van_Genderen(a)NexFlash.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com; mowen(a)nssolutions.com Subject: Re: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740 Chris, Since I work for a competitor I may be able to shed some light on the differences in the boxes. With the EMC box it may help to understand where it came from. The IP4700 is a marriage of the Clariion FC4700 with NAS software from a company called CrosStor. NAS software is extremely difficult to write so EMC took the shortcut of buying their way into the market. CrosStor was an OEM of NAS software to MTI, Connex, and many others. My understanding of the software is that it is VX based and can run on virtually any processor. This is great from an OEM standpoint because you can be flexible on who you sell it to. The disadvantage is that the "micro kernel" is not so micro. This slows the performance way down. The software is also somewhat unsorted. Beside being slow I have also heard from users that it is very difficult to manage. As for NetApp they have a very strong feature set. Their performance to cost ratio is extremely poor when compared to other competitors in the market. You are getting software RAID, Seagate drives with an extra chip installed, and a PC (with the 800 series) for hundreds of thousands of $$$. When looking at the hardware you get it becomes clear that this one of the most expensive software products on the market. The salesperson story does not surprise me except for I would expect similar stories about both companies. They are both extremely aggressive and very successful for exactly this reason. It is disappointing to hear the half truths and outright lies, but it is a fact of life in this market. You may want to request a different rep from NetApp. Maybe this will help you make a decision based on products rather than personality. It could also send a message to the rep to get a little more product knowledge and do a little less bashing. I have also inserted answers below your questions in your previous email. Good luck with your decision. Let us know how it turns out. Regards, Mike Chris_Van_Genderen(a)NexFlash.com wrote: > I'm looking for any people with experience using the EMC IP4700 who could > lend their advice and experiences with me. > > We are considering the IP4700 or the NetApp F740/F760. > > Our main storage need is to support an engineering/CAD department with 20 > active users. There will be an additional 30 light scale users performing > standard office tasks. I would like the system to scale to 100 users total > with 30-40 active engineering users. > > My take on the current situation follows: > > EMC Pros > Largest name in enterprise storage. Known for high quality and very > reliable storage systems. > Very aggressive on pricing to get into this business. > Best service in the industry. > Sales/Pre-Sales people have been very professional > > EMC Cons > NAS is a new business for EMC. > Very small installed base of IP4700. Limited user experience. Add: Very slow performance Very costly for an unproven product No Reference base Mediocre hardware behind mediocre Software. > > > Network Appliance Pros > Defined the NAS device as it exists today. > Large installed base. > WAFL seems to be unique and have advantages, although It's operation > isn't clear to me. Add: Good feature set > > > Network Appliance Cons > Sales/Pre-Sales engineers have consistently relied on FUD (Fear, > Uncertainty, Doubt) to sell their product. Add: Limited performance from the 740 Limited scalability Proprietary hardware > > > I have had all of the following items told to me by NetApp Sales: > > 1. IP4700 performance figures (SPECrfs97) will drop by 400% after RAID-5 > and snap-shot overhead is calculated. Repeatedly claimed that the F85 is a > superior solution in terms of performance and features. I suspect this is > their interpretation of an earlier thread in this group. EMC claims that > RAID-5 performance will be lower, but perhaps by 30%, and that snapshot > overhead is minimal. Since NetApp appeared to have solid performance > figures, I asked them to substantiate their performance claims. I have not > received anything from them after asking for this data twice. How does performance drop by 400%? Would the -300% performance mean that it is doing the opposite of what it is supposed to be doing very quickly. The EMC performance numbers are very slow, but the NetApp rep should have told you to ask for references. I have not had a customer yet who has been able to get this from EMC. When looking at SpecSFS97 it is important to read the notes. You will notice that the performance numbers on the IP4700 are with 100 disks, four processors, tens of file systems, and no RAID. You will also see much lower performance from the NetApp box than what is posted on SpecSFS. These are not realistic numbers. Their only useful value is as a sales tool. Real world you should expect 2500 to 3000 from EMC and 3500 to 4000 from NetApp. > > > 2. I ask NetApp. "Why would EMC introduce a product to market and compare > it to an F820, when it really compares to an F85?" So far, the only answer > I have from them is "They did."....Hmm...That's very convincing. EMC did not take the time to check the software in-depth before they moved forward with the product. CrosStor presented a very nice picture on the front of the book. Once opened up there was nothing in it. When MTI licensed the software they sent it to 30 of their best customers. Not a single system was purchased or kept by the end users. This is also the same software that Connex was using in its box. This was a low end work group solution. Having spoken with several SE's from Connex the reality was that they could not get the systems stable. The software is much better suited for smaller systems. I'm sure that EMC will get it straightened out over time, but do you want to wait? > > > 3. On the IP4700, the size of a file system can be no larger than a single > raid group. A single raid group is one shelf of drives plus a hot spare. > Therefore, you cannot construct very large file systems. EMC claims that > this is false, a file system can span over multiple raid groups. > > 4. NetApp claims that the IP4700 communicates at a block rather than file > level with clients. This is utterly laughable, but illustrative of the type > of BS that I've been putting up with from them. I would put this one in the same category as performance dropping by 400%. > > > 5. NetApp claims that if a processor fails on the IP4700, that the failover > will require a fsck type of process to bring the file system back on-line. > While this may be an issue compared to a clustered configuration, a single > head F740/F760 will be dead and service will be called to bring their > system up under our circumstance. I am not sure about the FSCK. I have heard this rumor also, but EMC claims that it is a Journaled FS. > > > 6. NetApp claims that when adding a disk to the array, that a formatting > process could take up to an hour before the drive is available. EMC claims > that this is false, the drive is available immediately. Would this make a difference? How often do you need a new disk immediately? Realistically it could take a little while for the disk to format, but so what. This is the penalty for hardware RAID vs software RAID. > > > 7. NetApp claims that the user interface to the IP4700 requires creating a > separate users list as well as creating and administering shares. In > essence, I would have to keep track of multiple users lists. Admittedly, > NetApp does have control of their device via SMC on the Windows side. > However, EMC states that the only administration required is to > create/delete/modify shares. No user lists are necessary. I have heard that the administration in the IP4700 is very difficult. There are two accounts that I know of that threw it out for exactly this reason. > > > I am looking for any advice I can get on the various items mentioned above, > or any user experience with the IP4700. > > When I look at the way that NetApp has responded to the IP4700, I can't > help thinking that they are afraid of something. The overall response from > them has been that the IP4700 wouldn't be suitable as a doorstop to a > building. This attitude makes me very leery of NetApp and curious about > the IP4700. > > I'm sure that the F740 is a good NAS box. On the same token however, I > believe that EMC is very serious about addressing the NAS market. The > IP4700 is an attempt to push into NetApp's market. > > Thank you in advance for any response, > > Chris Van Genderen > Software Engineer & Applications Manager > NexFlash Technologies, Inc. > chris_van_genderen(a)nexflash.com

1 0

EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740
by Chris_Van_Genderen＠NexFlash.com 10 May '01

10 May '01

I'm looking for any people with experience using the EMC IP4700 who could lend their advice and experiences with me. We are considering the IP4700 or the NetApp F740/F760. Our main storage need is to support an engineering/CAD department with 20 active users. There will be an additional 30 light scale users performing standard office tasks. I would like the system to scale to 100 users total with 30-40 active engineering users. My take on the current situation follows: EMC Pros Largest name in enterprise storage. Known for high quality and very reliable storage systems. Very aggressive on pricing to get into this business. Best service in the industry. Sales/Pre-Sales people have been very professional EMC Cons NAS is a new business for EMC. Very small installed base of IP4700. Limited user experience. Network Appliance Pros Defined the NAS device as it exists today. Large installed base. WAFL seems to be unique and have advantages, although It's operation isn't clear to me. Network Appliance Cons Sales/Pre-Sales engineers have consistently relied on FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) to sell their product. I have had all of the following items told to me by NetApp Sales: 1. IP4700 performance figures (SPECrfs97) will drop by 400% after RAID-5 and snap-shot overhead is calculated. Repeatedly claimed that the F85 is a superior solution in terms of performance and features. I suspect this is their interpretation of an earlier thread in this group. EMC claims that RAID-5 performance will be lower, but perhaps by 30%, and that snapshot overhead is minimal. Since NetApp appeared to have solid performance figures, I asked them to substantiate their performance claims. I have not received anything from them after asking for this data twice. 2. I ask NetApp. "Why would EMC introduce a product to market and compare it to an F820, when it really compares to an F85?" So far, the only answer I have from them is "They did."....Hmm...That's very convincing. 3. On the IP4700, the size of a file system can be no larger than a single raid group. A single raid group is one shelf of drives plus a hot spare. Therefore, you cannot construct very large file systems. EMC claims that this is false, a file system can span over multiple raid groups. 4. NetApp claims that the IP4700 communicates at a block rather than file level with clients. This is utterly laughable, but illustrative of the type of BS that I've been putting up with from them. 5. NetApp claims that if a processor fails on the IP4700, that the failover will require a fsck type of process to bring the file system back on-line. While this may be an issue compared to a clustered configuration, a single head F740/F760 will be dead and service will be called to bring their system up under our circumstance. 6. NetApp claims that when adding a disk to the array, that a formatting process could take up to an hour before the drive is available. EMC claims that this is false, the drive is available immediately. 7. NetApp claims that the user interface to the IP4700 requires creating a separate users list as well as creating and administering shares. In essence, I would have to keep track of multiple users lists. Admittedly, NetApp does have control of their device via SMC on the Windows side. However, EMC states that the only administration required is to create/delete/modify shares. No user lists are necessary. I am looking for any advice I can get on the various items mentioned above, or any user experience with the IP4700. When I look at the way that NetApp has responded to the IP4700, I can't help thinking that they are afraid of something. The overall response from them has been that the IP4700 wouldn't be suitable as a doorstop to a building. This attitude makes me very leery of NetApp and curious about the IP4700. I'm sure that the F740 is a good NAS box. On the same token however, I believe that EMC is very serious about addressing the NAS market. The IP4700 is an attempt to push into NetApp's market. Thank you in advance for any response, Chris Van Genderen Software Engineer & Applications Manager NexFlash Technologies, Inc. chris_van_genderen(a)nexflash.com

3 2

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