toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

Vif and Cluster setup questions
by Art Hebert 20 Apr '01

20 Apr '01

> I've read all the posts and I am having some success and some failures. > > > 2 F760 filers clustered together, onboard ethernet (e0), 10/100 nic > (e6) > Cisco 6509 switch trunked together > > I'm trying to get the e0 and e6 ports to work failover for each > other and ideally > load balance to get better performance. > > I've been able to get the virtual interface running and fail the > cluster and everything is > fine but I can't get it to load balance (I even tried 4 clients > hitting it copying 500mb files) > and it seems to always want to use e0, even if I do a "vif favor e6" > > Here is my rc lines: > > ifconfig e6 mediatype 100tx-fd > ifconfig e0 mediatype 100tx-fd > vif create multi vif01 e6 e0 > vif favor e6 > ifconfig vif01 `hostname`-e6 mediatype 100tx-fd partner vif01 > > Now I added the vif favor e6 even though its multi (shouldn't have > to it should load balance), right? > Does it matter what order the e6 and e0 commands come in, seems that > it affects how vif stat reports? > Can I even use e0 and e6 together or should I have another card? its > on the 32 bit bus > and performance is half of e6. > Are the nic cards in the netapps anything special or can I use a > well known brand ? > > > Thanks > > Art Hebert Email: art(a)arzoon.com <mailto:art@arzoon.com> > Arzoon IT Dept. Phone: 650 522-6125 > Mobile: 650 444-8667 >

1 0

RE: Can you not recover a NetApp NDMP backup to another NetApp?
by Traitel, Eyal 20 Apr '01

20 Apr '01

Jan, I am sure this trick is not supported officially by Legato/Veritas/others, but this has been used successfully, and is VERY easy to do: Just edit /etc/hosts file on your Legato host to point the need-to-be-recovered filer to the IP of the one that's replacement. As NDMP doesn't really care about that, as long as the restore path is fine... Eyal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- eTraitel - I'm the new eBuzzword around !!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Eyal Traitel - Filer Escalation Engineer CNA, MCSE, CSA, LCA, NetApp CA Network Appliance BV Holland Office Center Kruisweg 799b 2132 NG, Hoofddorp The Netherlands Office: +31 23 567 9685 Cellular: +31 6 5497 2568 Email: eyal(a)netapp.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Get answers NOW! - NetApp On the Web - http://now.netapp.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Schepers, Jan [mailto:Jan.Schepers@nl.origin-it.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 11:45 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Can you not recover a NetApp NDMP backup to another NetApp? Hello list, possibly you read the following line in the Legato's Networker 6 SysAdminGuide The Networker Administrator Guide (6.0) shows in chapter 12 , the section on NDMP limitations the following : NetApp Computers and NDMP Keep in mind the following limitations when you use NDMP and NetApp: * You cannot recover a NetApp NDMP backup to another NetApp. You can only recover data to the original host. Does this mean that my faith fully daily made backups are worthless in case of a disaster? rgds, Yann

1 0

Can you not recover a NetApp NDMP backup to another NetApp?
by Schepers, Jan 20 Apr '01

20 Apr '01

Hello list, possibly you read the following line in the Legato's Networker 6 SysAdminGuide The Networker Administrator Guide (6.0) shows in chapter 12 , the section on NDMP limitations the following : NetApp Computers and NDMP Keep in mind the following limitations when you use NDMP and NetApp: * You cannot recover a NetApp NDMP backup to another NetApp. You can only recover data to the original host. Does this mean that my faith fully daily made backups are worthless in case of a disaster? rgds, Yann

1 0

ndmpcopy patch -- "level i"
by Jeffrey Krueger 20 Apr '01

20 Apr '01

Thanks to Bruce for posting his patch to NDMPcopy! Here's the one that we've been using and all the information we've collected about it. I've uploaded the following patch for ndmpcopy to ftp.ndmp.org in addition to attaching it to this e-mail. Please read the entire mail before attempting to apply the patch or use the functionality it provides. ---------------- WHAT DOES IT DO? ---------------- This is a very small, straight-forward patch that will enable ndmpcopy to make an indefinite number of incremental copies of data. The ability to do this was not included in ndmpcopy, but was a part of jndmpcopy - the Java version of ndmpcopy. The feature is used by passing the command-line argument "-level i" to ndmpcopy once the patch is compiled in. The incremental feature is very useful for migrating a directory from one filer/volume to another. It allows you to make an initial copy and then perform periodical incremental updates of the changes until a cut-over period. During the cut-over period, you can make the source read-only or unaccessible and perform a final incremental copy while updating clients to point at the new location. Without "level i", you can only do 9 incremental copies (level 1-9). With this enhancement, you can do as many incremental copies as you need. ----------------- HOW DOES IT WORK? ----------------- Our analysis of jndmpcopy showed that this feature was driven by simply replacing the NDMP environment variable "LEVEL" which is normally set to a number 0-9, with the NDMP environment variable "REPLICATE" and a value of "y". Again, this action is triggered in the patch by specifying "-level i" on the command line. Normally, ndmpcopy gives the following output near the beginning of a copy: disposal: LOG: DUMP: disposal: LOG: Date of this level 0 dump: Tue Apr 17 14:22:43 2001. disposal: LOG: DUMP: disposal: LOG: Date of last level 0 dump: the epoch. When using the "-level i" option, that output will look like this: disposal: LOG: DUMP: disposal: LOG: Date of this replication dump: Tue Apr 17 14:24:45 2001. disposal: LOG: DUMP: disposal: LOG: Date of this last update : the epoch. It adds a line to /etc/dumpdates for the directory you copied which contains "i" for the level. Presumably this shouldn't be messed with as it keeps track of what the next level "i" for that directory needs to copy. I also assume that this means you can't do a level "i" of /qtree from filerA to filerB, then do another one from filerA to filerC, then back to filerB again. This works like a dandy for us running Data ONTAP 5.3.4R3P2 and 5.3.7R3. ------- CAVEATS ------- o USE THIS PATCH AT YOUR OWN RISK! The patch isn't supported by myself, my company, or NetApp. Before using this feature, you should have a fair understanding of C programming and a good understanding of how NetApp filers work, especially with NDMP. o I'm unsure what versions of ONTAP support the "REPLICATE" NDMP environment variable. So far I can't find any documentation of this, although jndmpcopy eludes to it working with ONTAP 5.3 and higher. Maybe someone from NetApp can chime in here? o Level i copies will *not* work with level 0-9 copies of the same source and destination. That is, you cannot do a "-level 0" ndmpcopy to move data initially, then use "-level i" to make updates. For that matter, you can't use any other method to do the initial copy such as "vol copy", dump/restore, rsync, etc. If you want to use "-level i" at all, you must use it to do the initial copy and all updates. o Don't modify the destination until you're done updating it. Once the destination is modified, another "level i" will likely *not* be able to update that destination. o Be aware of "level i" entries in /etc/dumpdates! Don't delete a "level i" entry for a source if you still want to be able to do further updates to the same destination. Conversely, if you're done using this method to move a directory, and want to use it again on the same source (or a source which eventually has the same name) to a different (new, blank) destination, you'll have to remove the "level i" entry out of /etc/dumpdates for the source directory. Also, don't try to perform "level i" copies of the same source to multiple destinations. -------------------- HOW DO I INSTALL IT? -------------------- There are two separate patches attached, one for version 1.1 and one for 1.2 of ndmpcopy (they vary only slightly because of the usage statement). If you are new to patching the following instructions may help you. 1) Copy the patch into the base directory of ndmpcopy. ex. % cp ndmpcopy-level_i.patch ~/ndmpcopy-1.1 2) Enter the base directory of ndmpcopy. ex. % cd ~/ndmpcopy-1.1 3) Patch the source (example uses GNU patch) ex. % patch -p 1 -b -z .orig -i ndmpcopy_1.1-level_i.patch 4) Build the package ex. % make clean; make -------------------------------- ANYTHING ELSE, JEFF-THE-WINDBAG? -------------------------------- The contribution of this patch to the NetApp/NDMP community is intended to help folks out with administering their filers. This feature is pretty handy for migrating data between filers and/or volumes. Although I'm not offering any support of this patch, I am interested in any feedback regarding it so that it can be improved for everyone's benefit. In particular, I'm looking for: o NetApp/NDMP official information about the REPLICATE variable - versions of ONTAP it can be used with, confirmation of the identified caveats, etc. o User's experiences with the feature - does it work, does it fail, under what circumstances, etc. o Programming tips - suggestions for improving the patch. Also, I will be posting this along with this information in this e-mail and any feedback I get to my personal website. The URL will be posted in a follow-up mail in a few weeks. Good luck! -- Jeff -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Krueger, NetApp CA E-Mail: jeff(a)qualcomm.com Senior Engineer Phone: 858-651-6709 NetApp Filers / UNIX Infrastructure Fax: 858-651-6627 QUALCOMM, Inc. IT Engineering Web: www.qualcomm.com

2 2

Re: How would you respond to this
by Quentin Fennessy 20 Apr '01

20 Apr '01

Barry wrote> > This is an excerpt of an email that was sent to the management of a > company that I'm working with. They had spec'ed F85's for a fairly low > performance 10-20Mbits/sec. environment. The main requirement is > reliability and ease of use. How does one respond to blatant > misrepresentation of a competitors product? I've run into similar situations. I politely and strongly told the messenger who delivered such a message that this marketing tactic is unacceptable. In my most recent incident I told the salesperson that if I ever received such material from them again I would call the Sales VP and require that I work with someone else from their company. In that incident I never forced the salesperson to admit that he wrote the FUD document that I objected to. He indirectly admitted it, and I've seen nothing similar from him. The most powerful weapon you have to deal with this is your attention. If you ignore a salesperson and tell his/her management why, they will be dinged for it. Of course, your influence is factored by how much money you have spent in the past with them, and the likely purchase you could make. If all you have to spend is $20K then they can blow you off easily. (I'm not saying this is your case) Don't get upset over this sign of weakness on the vendors part. It's not worth it. Stupid, small and evil people will always be with us. -- Quentin Fennessy Quentin.Fennessy(a)amd.com Office: 512.602.3873 Cell: 512.694.7489

1 0

RE:
by Fox, Adam 20 Apr '01

20 Apr '01

It should. Read up on how symlinks affect CIFS if that affects you, but for NFS, it works just fine. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:PMAGLINGER@scvl.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 5:00 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: We're running a 740 with Ontap 5.3.7R2. Will it accept a UNIX LN command, specifically: ln -s source_path dest_path Thank you. Have a prosperous and profitable day! _____ Paul Maglinger, A+, CA, CET, MCSE PC Specialist Shoe Carnival Inc. (812)867-4674 pmaglinger(a)scvl.com <mailto:pmaglinger@scvl.com> _____

2 1

RE: How would you respond to this
by Mike Sphar 20 Apr '01

20 Apr '01

Ah, good. That's what I assumed since a RAID 0 solution didn't seem to make sense for what the F85 was designed for and, of course, I was far too lazy to look it up myself. You know, of all the things in that original email that were "subjective", stuff about expandability and the quality of support, etc. I could accept a salesperson being shifty about claims in those areas. Our support is better than theirs, we're faster, more reliable, yadda yadda yadda. But to make such a blatantly false claim about something that is a demonstrable fact. Like I said before, that would tick me off more than anything else, and I likely wouldn't deal with that company afterwards. At the very least, I would insist on a new sales rep. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Mohler, Jeff [mailto:jeff.mohler@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 4:15 PM To: 'Mike Sphar'; 'Barry Lustig'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: How would you respond to this Finally, does the F85 really use RAID 0? If so, it's true that it's not as failure proof, but then if the model was designed for RAID 0, then it's simply not targeted at the same market as a redundant RAID unit. If capacity and performance are far more important to you then redundancy, then RAID 0 is the way to go. (Though as I said, I'd be surprised if it really was RAID 0. If it's not, then a blatant lie like that would immediately turn me off to any vendor.) --- Since nobody else has responded..I'll step in. The F85 enjoys the FULL and complete feature set of WAFL and its engineering around RAID4 to do its work quickly, quietly, and with outstanding performance compared to any other filesystem or features the competition can throw at us.

2 1

RE: How would you respond to this
by Phillips, Steve 20 Apr '01

20 Apr '01

Just a quick note on the statement below: The F85 supports RAID-4 only, as do all other products running Data ONTAP. I/we consider this a good thing. :) ------------------------------------------------------- Finally, does the F85 really use RAID 0? If so, it's true that it's not as failure proof, but then if the model was designed for RAID 0, then it's simply not targeted at the same market as a redundant RAID unit. If capacity and performance are far more important to you then redundancy, then RAID 0 is the way to go. (Though as I said, I'd be surprised if it really was RAID 0. If it's not, then a blatant lie like that would immediately turn me off to any vendor.)

2 1

F85 RAID Level
by Clouthier,Ron 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

Let me set the story straight. I am the product manager for the F85 and as such I can tell you that the F85 utilizes RAID 4. Ron Clouthier Product Marketing Manager Network Appliance (408) 822 6485

1 0

RE: How would you respond to this
by Mohler, Jeff 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

Finally, does the F85 really use RAID 0? If so, it's true that it's not as failure proof, but then if the model was designed for RAID 0, then it's simply not targeted at the same market as a redundant RAID unit. If capacity and performance are far more important to you then redundancy, then RAID 0 is the way to go. (Though as I said, I'd be surprised if it really was RAID 0. If it's not, then a blatant lie like that would immediately turn me off to any vendor.) --- Since nobody else has responded..I'll step in. The F85 enjoys the FULL and complete feature set of WAFL and its engineering around RAID4 to do its work quickly, quietly, and with outstanding performance compared to any other filesystem or features the competition can throw at us.

1 0

RE: migrating data between filers
by Fox, Adam 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

Not too many. Maybe these are obvious, maybe not, but I'll list them anyway. 1. You'll need a 2-disk root volume on your F840 and migrate to another volume. Remember the destination volume must be offline. 2. If you're F840 is running 6.x, the filer may revert your volume before it starts the transfer. This happens with SnapMirror, and may with vol copy. No big deal..just wait it out. 3. Make sure you turn off user access to the source before you start. Or at least make it read only. You don't want to have changes not propogate. Otherwise, go for it. I've moved lots of stuff this way. It works pretty well. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Leonard, Roger [mailto:Roger.Leonard@marconi.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 4:38 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: migrating data between filers > > > i am getting ready to migrate some data from 330's to an 840 > using volcopy. > has anyone done this out there and do you have > any recomendations and/or gotchas? >

1 0

RE: How would you respond to this
by Clawson, Simon 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

That is rather unprofesional. I think the sales guy would be wrapped across the knuckles for that one. Coming from a software vendor support environment I have always been told never to rubbish a competitors product. It would have been frowned upon and I would have looked quite sily to boot! -----Original Message----- From: Barry Lustig [mailto:barry@lustig.com] Sent: 19 April 2001 21:41 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: How would you respond to this This is an excerpt of an email that was sent to the management of a company that I'm working with. They had spec'ed F85's for a fairly low performance 10-20Mbits/sec. environment. The main requirement is reliability and ease of use. How does one respond to blatant misrepresentation of a competitors product? barry A few highlights of the comparison: - The F85 is a stripped down, single CPU, low end device with multiple points of failure and a very poor data protection. NetApps service is rated very low by industry experts and they offer next day shipment of parts that the user must install themselves. - The IP4700 is fully redundant, multi-CPU, mid-range device with no single point of failure and hardware based RAID 5 data protection. EMC's world class customer service center has ranked #1 for 6 consecutive years by Gartner Group. Standard 2 year warranty guarantees 4 hours ON SITE w/Parts service by EMC technicians. Plus, our 'call home' proactive maintenance system monitors trends within the system and reports them automatically to our customer service center. Often, EMC technicians will repair a system BEFORE the component actually fails. The 4700 will be configured with 8 drives usable, plus 1 drive for RAID 5 parity and 1 drive for hot swap redundancy. It is scalable all the way to 7000GB (7TB) vs. only 648GB for the F85. The 4700 as configured above is 8RU. In general, the F85 does not scale sufficiently for growth, has poor customer service behind it, has no redundancy, has multiple points of failure, and utilizes a sub-par RAID 0 data protection scheme.

2 1

RE: How would you respond to this
by Mike Sphar 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

I would probably agree that the F85 is not as scalable as the other, but that's the whole point of the F85. It's a lower-end entry-point model. It's not meant to grow into a multi-terabyte enterprise environment. Now, some people might say "Well, if you have the option of growth, why not take it? Why get a system that you'll only have to replace in 3-5 years when you could have a system that will last you much longer?" My response to that is usually "Because in 3-5 years, technology will have changed so drastically that I'll probably want new hardware anyway." When I'm scoping hardware, I almost never spec out hardware to accommodate more than 3-5 years of growth. Trying to buy a system meant to last longer than that is usually overkill in my experience. Plus, after 3 years it's fully depreciated. I certainly disagree with the statements about Netapp support. I'm sure you'll hear horror stories now and then from any support organization, but I've always had great support from Netapp. I've several times had a replacement component arrive on my desk before I knew it was needed. Finally, does the F85 really use RAID 0? If so, it's true that it's not as failure proof, but then if the model was designed for RAID 0, then it's simply not targeted at the same market as a redundant RAID unit. If capacity and performance are far more important to you then redundancy, then RAID 0 is the way to go. (Though as I said, I'd be surprised if it really was RAID 0. If it's not, then a blatant lie like that would immediately turn me off to any vendor.) None of this is to say that the IP4700 is a bad machine. I don't know it well enough to say. But it sounds to me that it isn't designed for the same target market as the F85. It's comparing apples to oranges. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Barry Lustig [mailto:barry@lustig.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 1:41 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: How would you respond to this This is an excerpt of an email that was sent to the management of a company that I'm working with. They had spec'ed F85's for a fairly low performance 10-20Mbits/sec. environment. The main requirement is reliability and ease of use. How does one respond to blatant misrepresentation of a competitors product? barry A few highlights of the comparison: - The F85 is a stripped down, single CPU, low end device with multiple points of failure and a very poor data protection. NetApps service is rated very low by industry experts and they offer next day shipment of parts that the user must install themselves. - The IP4700 is fully redundant, multi-CPU, mid-range device with no single point of failure and hardware based RAID 5 data protection. EMC's world class customer service center has ranked #1 for 6 consecutive years by Gartner Group. Standard 2 year warranty guarantees 4 hours ON SITE w/Parts service by EMC technicians. Plus, our 'call home' proactive maintenance system monitors trends within the system and reports them automatically to our customer service center. Often, EMC technicians will repair a system BEFORE the component actually fails. The 4700 will be configured with 8 drives usable, plus 1 drive for RAID 5 parity and 1 drive for hot swap redundancy. It is scalable all the way to 7000GB (7TB) vs. only 648GB for the F85. The 4700 as configured above is 8RU. In general, the F85 does not scale sufficiently for growth, has poor customer service behind it, has no redundancy, has multiple points of failure, and utilizes a sub-par RAID 0 data protection scheme.

1 0

RE: How would you respond to this
by Thomas.L.White＠chase.com 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

they usually do. this is a given in the game. They must attack in this manner because they know the truth behind the slander. tw "Golliher, Blake" <Blake.Golliher(a)netapp.com>@mathworks.com on 04/19/2001 05:41:52 PM Sent by: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com To: "'Barry Lustig'" <barry(a)lustig.com>, toasters(a)mathworks.com cc: Subject: RE: How would you respond to this why don't they just call us funny lookin', and say "mothers wear army boots!" while they're at it. sheesh! Blake! ~=) -----Original Message----- From: Barry Lustig [mailto:barry@lustig.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 1:41 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: How would you respond to this This is an excerpt of an email that was sent to the management of a company that I'm working with. They had spec'ed F85's for a fairly low performance 10-20Mbits/sec. environment. The main requirement is reliability and ease of use. How does one respond to blatant misrepresentation of a competitors product? barry A few highlights of the comparison: - The F85 is a stripped down, single CPU, low end device with multiple points of failure and a very poor data protection. NetApps service is rated very low by industry experts and they offer next day shipment of parts that the user must install themselves. - The IP4700 is fully redundant, multi-CPU, mid-range device with no single point of failure and hardware based RAID 5 data protection. EMC's world class customer service center has ranked #1 for 6 consecutive years by Gartner Group. Standard 2 year warranty guarantees 4 hours ON SITE w/Parts service by EMC technicians. Plus, our 'call home' proactive maintenance system monitors trends within the system and reports them automatically to our customer service center. Often, EMC technicians will repair a system BEFORE the component actually fails. The 4700 will be configured with 8 drives usable, plus 1 drive for RAID 5 parity and 1 drive for hot swap redundancy. It is scalable all the way to 7000GB (7TB) vs. only 648GB for the F85. The 4700 as configured above is 8RU. In general, the F85 does not scale sufficiently for growth, has poor customer service behind it, has no redundancy, has multiple points of failure, and utilizes a sub-par RAID 0 data protection scheme.

1 0

RE: How would you respond to this
by Golliher, Blake 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

why don't they just call us funny lookin', and say "mothers wear army boots!" while they're at it. sheesh! Blake! ~=) -----Original Message----- From: Barry Lustig [mailto:barry@lustig.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 1:41 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: How would you respond to this This is an excerpt of an email that was sent to the management of a company that I'm working with. They had spec'ed F85's for a fairly low performance 10-20Mbits/sec. environment. The main requirement is reliability and ease of use. How does one respond to blatant misrepresentation of a competitors product? barry A few highlights of the comparison: - The F85 is a stripped down, single CPU, low end device with multiple points of failure and a very poor data protection. NetApps service is rated very low by industry experts and they offer next day shipment of parts that the user must install themselves. - The IP4700 is fully redundant, multi-CPU, mid-range device with no single point of failure and hardware based RAID 5 data protection. EMC's world class customer service center has ranked #1 for 6 consecutive years by Gartner Group. Standard 2 year warranty guarantees 4 hours ON SITE w/Parts service by EMC technicians. Plus, our 'call home' proactive maintenance system monitors trends within the system and reports them automatically to our customer service center. Often, EMC technicians will repair a system BEFORE the component actually fails. The 4700 will be configured with 8 drives usable, plus 1 drive for RAID 5 parity and 1 drive for hot swap redundancy. It is scalable all the way to 7000GB (7TB) vs. only 648GB for the F85. The 4700 as configured above is 8RU. In general, the F85 does not scale sufficiently for growth, has poor customer service behind it, has no redundancy, has multiple points of failure, and utilizes a sub-par RAID 0 data protection scheme.

1 0

Fwd: FW: How would you respond to this
by mark C 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

Typical blatant lies from EMC trying to pass of that thing as a NAS box. We get on-site service with 2 hour response time from NTAP. We also had the IP4700 here for evaluation. We benched it against an F720, which was about the same in performance, but light years behind in EVERYTHING ELSE. Which EMC used to bate and switch us to the SYM/Cellera combo, and then the discounting!!!....... Why not give us the price the first or 2nd time we ask. If you want a chuckle ask for the IP4700 System Admin guide in .pdf, then scan for the phrase "lose data," that should come up about a dozen times. Bottom line- do you want to do business with a company that will lie to your face? Yes, they do have some good Nick's tickets! Do a side by side comparison, and tell EMC you'll publish the results- then watch them back pedal! Frank > > > >This is an excerpt of an email that was sent to the management of a >company that I'm working with. They had spec'ed F85's for a fairly low >performance 10-20Mbits/sec. environment. The main requirement is >reliability and ease of use. How does one respond to blatant >misrepresentation of a competitors product? > >barry > > > >A few highlights of the comparison: > >- The F85 is a stripped down, single CPU, low end device with multiple >points of >failure and a very poor data protection. NetApps service is rated very >low >by >industry experts and they offer next day shipment of parts that the user >must >install themselves. > >- The IP4700 is fully redundant, multi-CPU, mid-range device with no >single >point of failure and hardware based RAID 5 data protection. EMC's world >class >customer service center has ranked #1 for 6 consecutive years by Gartner >Group. >Standard 2 year warranty guarantees 4 hours ON SITE w/Parts service by >EMC >technicians. Plus, our 'call home' proactive maintenance system >monitors >trends >within the system and reports them automatically to our customer service >center. >Often, EMC technicians will repair a system BEFORE the component >actually >fails. > >The 4700 will be configured with 8 drives usable, plus 1 drive for RAID >5 >parity >and 1 drive for hot swap redundancy. It is scalable all the way to >7000GB >(7TB) >vs. only 648GB for the F85. The 4700 as configured above is 8RU. > >In general, the F85 does not scale sufficiently for growth, has poor >customer >service behind it, has no redundancy, has multiple points of failure, >and >utilizes a sub-par RAID 0 data protection scheme. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

1 0

(no subject)
by Maglinger, Paul 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

We're running a 740 with Ontap 5.3.7R2. Will it accept a UNIX LN command, specifically: ln -s source_path dest_path Thank you. Have a prosperous and profitable day! _____ Paul Maglinger, A+, CA, CET, MCSE PC Specialist Shoe Carnival Inc. (812)867-4674 pmaglinger(a)scvl.com <mailto:pmaglinger@scvl.com> _____

1 0

migrating data between filers
by Leonard, Roger 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

i am getting ready to migrate some data from 330's to an 840 using volcopy. has anyone done this out there and do you have any recomendations and/or gotchas?

1 0

qtrees & quotas & symlinks
by Matt Wise 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

Description: We have migrated from a linux file server providing access to linux, solaris & NT clients via NFS & samba to an F740 filer running Release 5.3.7R2 . Our goal is to replicate the environment on our old system while taking advantage of as many of the new features the NetApp as possible. We have run into a challange in the area of quotas: because of the way our old environment was set up, we have one qtree with several subdirectories, however we want to manage quotas at the level of the subdirectories. Currently, these type of quotas don't seem to be supported. Background: The old system provided file sharing of user home directories & a common files system through nfs & samba. On the unix side, the common file system consisted of a top-level directory (/common) containing symlinks pointing to several partitions with the actual files (e.g., /files1/common.build would be linked as /common/build). Clients acessed these files using amd & a symlink from /common to the exported directories path (/mnt/nfs/server/common), This provided the advantage of monitoring (with df) and limiting file system usage within projects and groups. On the NT side, samba managed symlinks & acess permissions in such a way that the server simply provided a share called "common" from /common. Users could, for example, access files from \\server\common\build although samba did not directly share out /files1/common.build - \\server\common\build was visible to users, but \\server\files1\common.build was not. This made the servers share list shorter & simpler for NT users to understand. Today on the NetApp, we have a qtree at /vol/vol0/common that contains all of the directories fromerly linked to /common on the linux server. Unix clients link from /common to this directory, replicating the experience on the old server. NT clients access these files as a share as before. There are two disadvanteage to this arrangement: (1) we cannot take advantage of the many features that would be provided if the directories under /common were qtrees. On the old system we were able to monitor & limit file system usage be keeping projects & departments within discrete partitions. qtrees would provide this advantage. (2) Future expansion is complicated because /common is isolated to one volume: if we were to add a second volume, we would need to provide two parallel shares to provide access to NT clients. We'd like to know: (1) what we could do differently to make this all work; and (2) what features of the filer we might be unaware of that would simplify this setup (e.g., qtrees within qtrees?. -- ............................................................................... Matthew Wise : 781/398-8883 : Gold Wire Technology Inc. mwise(a)goldwiretech.com : : 411 Waverley Oaks Road, Ste. 3-04 www.goldwiretech.com : fax> 781/398-8811 : Waltham, MA 02452 Recounting urban legends as though they happened to you directly can improve your social standing immensely and make people like you. - "Urban Myths About Urban Legends", Rick Larsen

1 0

Data Copy from Filer to Filer
by Jessica Fernandez 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

What are your recommendations of copying data from one filer to another? I have estimated time of 28 hours to transfer 70 GB via a copy command on the host machine. I have tried to copy via CIFS accessing from NT servers using drag and drop. Encountered errors which halted the copy process due to files that were linked to incorrect locations. Unix files in the users desktop were linked to other machines and the path was invalid. Did a grep to locate these linked files in the user folders, and found too many to change one by one. The vol copy command is only useful when copying from volume to volume on the same filer, correct? I am looking for the most efficient way to move data. Any suggestions would be great! Jessica JESSICA A. S. FERNANDEZ ESA-FM Facility Management E-mail: jasf(a)lanl.gov TA-16-661-101, MS-C933 Voice: 505-665-8051 Los Alamos National Laboratory Pager: 104-6707 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 FAX: 505-665-9490

9 15

administrators and users
by Ulrich Neumann 19 Apr '01

19 Apr '01

after working a while we recognised that the members of the local groups "builtin\administrators" and "builtin\users" on our filers (760 6.0.1R1) are now in the "user unknown" state. that means the usermanager from nt is not able to give us the "domainname\domain admins" and "domainname\domain users". in all other local groups the names are displayed correct. also the given permissions are ok, and we are able to administer the filers. but - how to fix this problem? is ther anybody out there ... who solved such problem? ulrich neumann brose fahrzeugteile gbmh&co kg coburg, bavaria, germany

1 0

RE: Another Q...
by Fox, Adam 18 Apr '01

18 Apr '01

How about after you connect to the filer, running a 'cifs sessions' to see what user is mapped to. Then check permissions of the /etc/directory. Also it would be good to know what qtree security type the root volume is set to. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: parker(a)redback.com [mailto:parker@redback.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 2:34 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Another Q... > > > Hi, > > Another question on the F85... > > We're trying to set it up with a win 2k administration host > (we've done > it with a UNIX host and all works fine there, NT or win2k is an > operational requirement)... > > Despite many attempts, we are unable to write to the /etc > directory. We > can mount \\netapp\C$ just fine, but cannot write. > > I've set it up in a number of different ways - with the administrative > host set using a hostname (with host defined in /etc/hosts on the > filer), IP address or set to 'all' ('return' at the prompt in setup). > > cifs access seems to be fine, we can access other directories on the > filer with no problem, and we can see stuff in /etc, we just can't > write. Writing to a different directory gives us files created by > 'nobody4:nogroup'. > > We've tried this as Administrator on the win 2k system, or as a > particular user (defined as a domain admin) with that user set up in > /etc/hosts.equiv. No luck. > > We do have a good (apparantly) connection to our domain > controller, and > we have a computer account in the NT domain for the filer. > > I'm pretty much stumped at this point... > > Any ideas? > > Cheers, > > Ross > -- > Ross Parker | > | "Lisp has all the visual appeal of > Diagnostic Engineer | oatmeal with fingernail clippings > Redback Networks Inc. | mixed in" - Larry Wall > parker(a)redback.com | >

1 0

RE: Another Q...
by Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau 18 Apr '01

18 Apr '01

To gain read/write acess to the etc directory via CIFS, make sure the account you are using to access the filer is in the filer's local Administrators group, and that "options wafl.nt_admin_priv_map_to_root on". It also might help to put the NT account you are using as mapping to root in /etc/usermap.cfg. If these all don't work, try calling 1-888-4-NETAPP for assistance. Tom -----Original Message----- From: parker(a)redback.com [mailto:parker@redback.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 2:34 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Another Q... Hi, Another question on the F85... We're trying to set it up with a win 2k administration host (we've done it with a UNIX host and all works fine there, NT or win2k is an operational requirement)... Despite many attempts, we are unable to write to the /etc directory. We can mount \\netapp\C$ just fine, but cannot write. I've set it up in a number of different ways - with the administrative host set using a hostname (with host defined in /etc/hosts on the filer), IP address or set to 'all' ('return' at the prompt in setup). cifs access seems to be fine, we can access other directories on the filer with no problem, and we can see stuff in /etc, we just can't write. Writing to a different directory gives us files created by 'nobody4:nogroup'. We've tried this as Administrator on the win 2k system, or as a particular user (defined as a domain admin) with that user set up in /etc/hosts.equiv. No luck. We do have a good (apparantly) connection to our domain controller, and we have a computer account in the NT domain for the filer. I'm pretty much stumped at this point... Any ideas? Cheers, Ross -- Ross Parker | | "Lisp has all the visual appeal of Diagnostic Engineer | oatmeal with fingernail clippings Redback Networks Inc. | mixed in" - Larry Wall parker(a)redback.com |

2 1

Another Q...
by parker＠redback.com 18 Apr '01

18 Apr '01

Hi, Another question on the F85... We're trying to set it up with a win 2k administration host (we've done it with a UNIX host and all works fine there, NT or win2k is an operational requirement)... Despite many attempts, we are unable to write to the /etc directory. We can mount \\netapp\C$ just fine, but cannot write. I've set it up in a number of different ways - with the administrative host set using a hostname (with host defined in /etc/hosts on the filer), IP address or set to 'all' ('return' at the prompt in setup). cifs access seems to be fine, we can access other directories on the filer with no problem, and we can see stuff in /etc, we just can't write. Writing to a different directory gives us files created by 'nobody4:nogroup'. We've tried this as Administrator on the win 2k system, or as a particular user (defined as a domain admin) with that user set up in /etc/hosts.equiv. No luck. We do have a good (apparantly) connection to our domain controller, and we have a computer account in the NT domain for the filer. I'm pretty much stumped at this point... Any ideas? Cheers, Ross -- Ross Parker | | "Lisp has all the visual appeal of Diagnostic Engineer | oatmeal with fingernail clippings Redback Networks Inc. | mixed in" - Larry Wall parker(a)redback.com |

1 0

Firmware upgrade, F85
by parker＠redback.com 18 Apr '01

18 Apr '01

Folks, I have an F85 on loan from Netapp, and I'm looking to upgrade OnTap. I gather I should verify I've got the latest firmware first. When I go to now.netapp.com to check the latest firmware rev, the firmware release table: (http://now.netapp.com/NOW/tools/releasetable.shtml) doesn't even mention the F85, just the F700 and F800 (and older filers). To top this off, 'sysconfig -v' does not show a firmware rev on this filer, so I'm not sure what I'm running... Any ideas? Thanks, Ross -- Ross Parker | | "Lisp has all the visual appeal of Diagnostic Engineer | oatmeal with fingernail clippings Redback Networks Inc. | mixed in" - Larry Wall parker(a)redback.com |

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

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