toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

RE: Oracle DBs on a filer
by Yarmas, Tom 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

I would agree that Filers work well for databases, but I would not limit that to DSS workloads. In fact, I would say that Filers offer tremendous benefits to OLTP environments. Particularly performance and admin features. As for performance, everyone has an opinion, and every application will re-act differently. It is very difficult to make a blanket statement like "it only works for ...". I am with NetApp, and you were probably looking for shall we say, less biased input. However, I felt compelled to respond. I hope you will indulge me. I have used Filers with Oracle while working at Oracle, and had very good performance. I will let others attest to their own experiences, but I will point you to a document comparing perf. of locally attached FC disks with a Filer - http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3105.html I am not sure what you mean by NetApp comes right out and says that they don't recommend using their box in OLTP configurations. I don't know of any recommendation like that. > The biggest reason is that OLTP database tend to be lots of little transactions and since you are using NFS (relatively big transactions) you won't get the performance gains as you would with a DSS config. Relative to what? Databases usually deal in block sizes of 4K, 8K or larger. Since the database block is the smallest amount of data that would be read or written, I don't think that NFS would cause an undue burden. In fact the NFS frame size can be set to match the database block size if that were necessary. But in fact, most databases will do read ahead (like the multi-block read ahead in Oracle) so that larger read sizes could benefit the database even in an OLTP environment. -tom

1 0

RE: MS Exchange on Netapps
by Morgan, Joshua 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

We actually run multiple Databases per Volume beacuse of the way we do snap shots -----Original Message----- From: Martin Hughes [mailto:Martin.Hughes@Halliburton.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 3:02 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: MS Exchange on Netapps We have a Win2K server running Exchange 5.5, using the NAS as local disk though a non-routed Gb ethernet fibre connection. Works like a charm. We're using Snapbackup for Exchange and have live mailboxes working without problems. We're starting to go with this solution for all of our major property locations, having been assured by our local NetApp guys that the Snapmanager programs for Exchange 2K are going to be available within our timeframe (Apr/May 01). We don't have huge numbers of mailboxes on the filer as yet but we're aiming to have a 100Gb information store/volume as soon as we can migrate the users across. Only issues I have with it is the requirement to have a volume 2.1xExchange database size to allow for restores (there has to be space to restore the full database back to the same volume) but this is being addressed in the E2K release as well. The one database/volume restriction also adds some overhead but not a huge amount. Regards Martin Enterprise Storage/Enterprise Server Group <mailto:martin.hughes@halliburton.com> cellphone: +1 713 303 9214 office: +1 281 871 4124 -----Original Message----- From: Morgan, Joshua [mailto:JMorgan@nuvox.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 1:42 PM To: 'Jennifer Armenta'; 'Mike Sphar'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: MS Exchange on Netapps We are currently running Exchange with our Databases located on an F760 we also use Snapshots to do backups -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 2:30 PM To: 'Mike Sphar'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: MS Exchange on Netapps Yes my point exactly, MS is protecting themselves. Is anyone running Exchange with/without issues. As for Oracle on NetApp I heard it doesn't like high transaction dbases. What is the ideal place for Exchange dbase ?(my bet EMC since that pretty close to have local disk) -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@Remedy.COM] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 11:21 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: MS Exchange on Netapps My thoughts are that any article that refers to gigabit Ethernet as an "emerging technology" is highly suspect. I wonder if Microsoft is trying to insinuate that Oracle databases (which can run over NAS) are less "robust" and "high-performance" than their jet-based exchange DB, which allegedly can't. Having said that, I probably wouldn't put my Exchange DBs on a filer. Too much risk of something going wrong and MS saying "Sorry, we told you not to. You're on your own." -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD "We all agree that your theory is crazy, but is it crazy enough?" - Niels Bohr "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands and hoist the black flag." - H.L. Mencken (paraphrased) -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 10:32 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: MS Exchange on Netapps Any thoughts on this from anyone one... why is NetApps saying they are working with MS on this issue? doesn't sound like it from this KB article... http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q288/2/12.asp

1 0

RE: ASP caching
by Lyons, Jim 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

This is a setting on the IIS server. In IIS 4.0, you set this in the application configuration for apps that are set to run in a separate memory space. This is under the 'Process Options' tab. You can set it to cache ASP or not. We run some apps that cache and some that don't on the same IIS servers with the virtual directories located on netapps. I'm not sure where this is in 5.0, but look around, I am pretty sure this is not a netapp problem. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Christophe Smith [mailto:jsmith@publichost.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 1:37 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com ' Subject: ASP caching We have a cluster of Windows 2000 servers running IIS 5.0, content lives on a NetApp F720 running OnTap Release 5.3.7R2. Our customers use FTP to upload their web pages. IIS is caching ASP(active server pages), customers will make changes to their ASP files and try to view them(view IIS) and they see the older pages. I read about this issue entitled "5.3 Active Server Page Caching" in the NetApp document "Integrating a NetApp Filer with Microsoft IIS". I understand it is an issue with CIFS change/notify events and the way IIS was designed. Does anybody know a way of fixing this? or maybe way to increase the change/notify events, or... For now, we have to restart IIS when changes are made. Maybe I could write a program to manually induce change/notify events? Thanks, Jean-Christophe Smith jsmith(a)publichost.com VitalStream.com

1 0

RE: MS Exchange on Netapps
by Brian Hostetter 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

I use Oracle 8.1.7 on a netapp with a very high transactional rate. That is what netapp does best. Netapp is not the best place to store a data warehouse, but is a great place to store a transactional based oracle DB. We do almost 10 transactions a second running 8.1.7 under Tru64Unix, with a 760. --Brian -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 1:30 PM To: 'Mike Sphar'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: MS Exchange on Netapps Yes my point exactly, MS is protecting themselves. Is anyone running Exchange with/without issues. As for Oracle on NetApp I heard it doesn't like high transaction dbases. What is the ideal place for Exchange dbase ?(my bet EMC since that pretty close to have local disk) -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@Remedy.COM] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 11:21 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: MS Exchange on Netapps My thoughts are that any article that refers to gigabit Ethernet as an "emerging technology" is highly suspect. I wonder if Microsoft is trying to insinuate that Oracle databases (which can run over NAS) are less "robust" and "high-performance" than their jet-based exchange DB, which allegedly can't. Having said that, I probably wouldn't put my Exchange DBs on a filer. Too much risk of something going wrong and MS saying "Sorry, we told you not to. You're on your own." -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD "We all agree that your theory is crazy, but is it crazy enough?" - Niels Bohr "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands and hoist the black flag." - H.L. Mencken (paraphrased) -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 10:32 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: MS Exchange on Netapps Any thoughts on this from anyone one... why is NetApps saying they are working with MS on this issue? doesn't sound like it from this KB article... http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q288/2/12.asp

1 0

RE: MS Exchange on Netapps
by Martin Hughes 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

We have a Win2K server running Exchange 5.5, using the NAS as local disk though a non-routed Gb ethernet fibre connection. Works like a charm. We're using Snapbackup for Exchange and have live mailboxes working without problems. We're starting to go with this solution for all of our major property locations, having been assured by our local NetApp guys that the Snapmanager programs for Exchange 2K are going to be available within our timeframe (Apr/May 01). We don't have huge numbers of mailboxes on the filer as yet but we're aiming to have a 100Gb information store/volume as soon as we can migrate the users across. Only issues I have with it is the requirement to have a volume 2.1xExchange database size to allow for restores (there has to be space to restore the full database back to the same volume) but this is being addressed in the E2K release as well. The one database/volume restriction also adds some overhead but not a huge amount. Regards Martin Enterprise Storage/Enterprise Server Group <mailto:martin.hughes@halliburton.com> cellphone: +1 713 303 9214 office: +1 281 871 4124 -----Original Message----- From: Morgan, Joshua [mailto:JMorgan@nuvox.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 1:42 PM To: 'Jennifer Armenta'; 'Mike Sphar'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: MS Exchange on Netapps We are currently running Exchange with our Databases located on an F760 we also use Snapshots to do backups -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 2:30 PM To: 'Mike Sphar'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: MS Exchange on Netapps Yes my point exactly, MS is protecting themselves. Is anyone running Exchange with/without issues. As for Oracle on NetApp I heard it doesn't like high transaction dbases. What is the ideal place for Exchange dbase ?(my bet EMC since that pretty close to have local disk) -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@Remedy.COM] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 11:21 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: MS Exchange on Netapps My thoughts are that any article that refers to gigabit Ethernet as an "emerging technology" is highly suspect. I wonder if Microsoft is trying to insinuate that Oracle databases (which can run over NAS) are less "robust" and "high-performance" than their jet-based exchange DB, which allegedly can't. Having said that, I probably wouldn't put my Exchange DBs on a filer. Too much risk of something going wrong and MS saying "Sorry, we told you not to. You're on your own." -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD "We all agree that your theory is crazy, but is it crazy enough?" - Niels Bohr "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands and hoist the black flag." - H.L. Mencken (paraphrased) -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 10:32 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: MS Exchange on Netapps Any thoughts on this from anyone one... why is NetApps saying they are working with MS on this issue? doesn't sound like it from this KB article... http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q288/2/12.asp

1 0

RE: MS Exchange on Netapps
by Jennifer Armenta 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Yes my point exactly, MS is protecting themselves. Is anyone running Exchange with/without issues. As for Oracle on NetApp I heard it doesn't like high transaction dbases. What is the ideal place for Exchange dbase ?(my bet EMC since that pretty close to have local disk) -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@Remedy.COM] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 11:21 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: MS Exchange on Netapps My thoughts are that any article that refers to gigabit Ethernet as an "emerging technology" is highly suspect. I wonder if Microsoft is trying to insinuate that Oracle databases (which can run over NAS) are less "robust" and "high-performance" than their jet-based exchange DB, which allegedly can't. Having said that, I probably wouldn't put my Exchange DBs on a filer. Too much risk of something going wrong and MS saying "Sorry, we told you not to. You're on your own." -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD "We all agree that your theory is crazy, but is it crazy enough?" - Niels Bohr "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands and hoist the black flag." - H.L. Mencken (paraphrased) -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 10:32 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: MS Exchange on Netapps Any thoughts on this from anyone one... why is NetApps saying they are working with MS on this issue? doesn't sound like it from this KB article... http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q288/2/12.asp

2 1

RE: MS Exchange on Netapps
by Mike Sphar 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Personally, if I were adminning an Exchange system (which--I thank all the deities I can name--I'm not) I would most likely put the Exchange DBs on a locally attached hardware RAID array. You can get good-quality hardware RAID cards for most servers these days. And in this situation I don't see a great enough performance or reliability benefit to offset the higher cost and supportability risks. As for SAN, I don't trust it yet. It's a little too bleeding edge for my tastes to use it for something really mission critical unless I absolutely had to. It also seems to be prohibitively expensive based on my limited exposure to it. (I just about fell out of my chair when a co-worker quoted me the cost of a Brocade switch.) -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 11:30 AM To: 'Mike Sphar'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: MS Exchange on Netapps Yes my point exactly, MS is protecting themselves. Is anyone running Exchange with/without issues. As for Oracle on NetApp I heard it doesn't like high transaction dbases. What is the ideal place for Exchange dbase ?(my bet EMC since that pretty close to have local disk) -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@Remedy.COM] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 11:21 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: MS Exchange on Netapps My thoughts are that any article that refers to gigabit Ethernet as an "emerging technology" is highly suspect. I wonder if Microsoft is trying to insinuate that Oracle databases (which can run over NAS) are less "robust" and "high-performance" than their jet-based exchange DB, which allegedly can't. Having said that, I probably wouldn't put my Exchange DBs on a filer. Too much risk of something going wrong and MS saying "Sorry, we told you not to. You're on your own." -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD "We all agree that your theory is crazy, but is it crazy enough?" - Niels Bohr "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands and hoist the black flag." - H.L. Mencken (paraphrased) -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 10:32 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: MS Exchange on Netapps Any thoughts on this from anyone one... why is NetApps saying they are working with MS on this issue? doesn't sound like it from this KB article... http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q288/2/12.asp

1 0

RE: MS Exchange on Netapps
by Morgan, Joshua 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

We are currently running Exchange with our Databases located on an F760 we also use Snapshots to do backups -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 2:30 PM To: 'Mike Sphar'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: MS Exchange on Netapps Yes my point exactly, MS is protecting themselves. Is anyone running Exchange with/without issues. As for Oracle on NetApp I heard it doesn't like high transaction dbases. What is the ideal place for Exchange dbase ?(my bet EMC since that pretty close to have local disk) -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@Remedy.COM] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 11:21 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: MS Exchange on Netapps My thoughts are that any article that refers to gigabit Ethernet as an "emerging technology" is highly suspect. I wonder if Microsoft is trying to insinuate that Oracle databases (which can run over NAS) are less "robust" and "high-performance" than their jet-based exchange DB, which allegedly can't. Having said that, I probably wouldn't put my Exchange DBs on a filer. Too much risk of something going wrong and MS saying "Sorry, we told you not to. You're on your own." -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD "We all agree that your theory is crazy, but is it crazy enough?" - Niels Bohr "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands and hoist the black flag." - H.L. Mencken (paraphrased) -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 10:32 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: MS Exchange on Netapps Any thoughts on this from anyone one... why is NetApps saying they are working with MS on this issue? doesn't sound like it from this KB article... http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q288/2/12.asp

1 0

RE: MS Exchange on Netapps
by Mike Sphar 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

My thoughts are that any article that refers to gigabit Ethernet as an "emerging technology" is highly suspect. I wonder if Microsoft is trying to insinuate that Oracle databases (which can run over NAS) are less "robust" and "high-performance" than their jet-based exchange DB, which allegedly can't. Having said that, I probably wouldn't put my Exchange DBs on a filer. Too much risk of something going wrong and MS saying "Sorry, we told you not to. You're on your own." -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD "We all agree that your theory is crazy, but is it crazy enough?" - Niels Bohr "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands and hoist the black flag." - H.L. Mencken (paraphrased) -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 10:32 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: MS Exchange on Netapps Any thoughts on this from anyone one... why is NetApps saying they are working with MS on this issue? doesn't sound like it from this KB article... http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q288/2/12.asp

1 0

MS Exchange on Netapps
by Jennifer Armenta 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Any thoughts on this from anyone one... why is NetApps saying they are working with MS on this issue? doesn't sound like it from this KB article... http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q288/2/12.asp

1 0

Oracle DBs on a filer
by Jennifer Armenta 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

I was told recently from some who has worked with Netapp & Oracle implementations - it works real well for NON-transaction oriented databases. So things like Decision support, data warehouses, or reporting databases - it works well. In fact NetApp comes right out and says that they don't recommend using their box in OLTP configurations. The biggest reason is that OLTP database tend to be lots of little transactions and since you are using NFS (relatively big transactions) you won't get the performance gains as you would with a DSS config. Does anyone have experience with running Oracle with mass transactions that could help me (EMC vs' NetApps)

1 0

F630 and C630
by max chan 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Anybody know whether C630 and F630 hardware is identical? or any different? I would like to purchase a F630 as a spare for our C630. or any recommendation? Max __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

1 0

RE: Permanent Visible Drive Mapping From NT
by Witham, John 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

Hi Martin: We use autoexec.nt in a large amount of installed servers, and have had no problems. You might want to make sure the AutoExNT service is starting as a Domain account that has access to the share on the filer. If you want, I could share some of our documentation/scripts with you. Cheers! -john -----Original Message----- From: Martin Hughes [mailto:Martin.Hughes@Halliburton.com] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 8:54 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Permanent Visible Drive Mapping From NT Good morning, all, I have a small problem (ignoring the larger and more visible ones). We would like to use our F840C as straight disk for some webservers. In order for the programs to register .dlls etc correctly, we need to have a permanent mapping on the machine for both the service account that we boot the machine on and anyone attaching to the machine through terminal server (ie like the C:\ or D:\ drives). We have tried using Autoexec.nt to create a batch file that runs 'net use etc etc' but when we do this the drive mapped is not visible to anyone logging in and you can remap the drive letter without getting an error/warning message. Is anyone else using the filer in the same manner and how did you get around this? We're thinking of using an NT group and forcing a drive mapping every time someone logs into it but this seems a bit heavy handed. All hints and tips gratefully appreciated. Regards Martin Enterprise Storage/Enterprise Server Group <mailto:martin.hughes@halliburton.com> cellphone: +1 713 303 9214 office: +1 281 871 4124 <<Martin JV Hughes (E-mail).vcf>>

1 0

RE: Permanent Visible Drive Mapping From NT
by Traitel, Eyal 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

Let's do it in a Fast, Simple and Reliable way :) This can be done like described in: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3054.html#Config Look for the Additional Configuration Topics, Using and Configuring AutoExNT part. I can send you the utility itself as well, Eyal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- eTraitel - I'm the new eBuzzword around !!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Eyal Traitel - Filer Escalation Engineer CNA, MCSE, CSA, 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: Martin Hughes [mailto:Martin.Hughes@Halliburton.com] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 3:54 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Permanent Visible Drive Mapping From NT Good morning, all, I have a small problem (ignoring the larger and more visible ones). We would like to use our F840C as straight disk for some webservers. In order for the programs to register .dlls etc correctly, we need to have a permanent mapping on the machine for both the service account that we boot the machine on and anyone attaching to the machine through terminal server (ie like the C:\ or D:\ drives). We have tried using Autoexec.nt to create a batch file that runs 'net use etc etc' but when we do this the drive mapped is not visible to anyone logging in and you can remap the drive letter without getting an error/warning message. Is anyone else using the filer in the same manner and how did you get around this? We're thinking of using an NT group and forcing a drive mapping every time someone logs into it but this seems a bit heavy handed. All hints and tips gratefully appreciated. Regards Martin Enterprise Storage/Enterprise Server Group <mailto:martin.hughes@halliburton.com> cellphone: +1 713 303 9214 office: +1 281 871 4124 <<Martin JV Hughes (E-mail).vcf>>

1 0

Permanent Visible Drive Mapping From NT
by Martin Hughes 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

Good morning, all, I have a small problem (ignoring the larger and more visible ones). We would like to use our F840C as straight disk for some webservers. In order for the programs to register .dlls etc correctly, we need to have a permanent mapping on the machine for both the service account that we boot the machine on and anyone attaching to the machine through terminal server (ie like the C:\ or D:\ drives). We have tried using Autoexec.nt to create a batch file that runs 'net use etc etc' but when we do this the drive mapped is not visible to anyone logging in and you can remap the drive letter without getting an error/warning message. Is anyone else using the filer in the same manner and how did you get around this? We're thinking of using an NT group and forcing a drive mapping every time someone logs into it but this seems a bit heavy handed. All hints and tips gratefully appreciated. Regards Martin Enterprise Storage/Enterprise Server Group <mailto:martin.hughes@halliburton.com> cellphone: +1 713 303 9214 office: +1 281 871 4124 <<Martin JV Hughes (E-mail).vcf>>

1 0

SSH (Secure Admin)
by Hubbard, Dan 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

I was wondering if anyone here is using the "Secure Admin" on the NetApp boxes ? If so, could you let me know if it is a "standard SSH server" that support scp also ? Thanks

2 1

HP-UX K-Class Gigabit Ethernet issues?
by Witham, John 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

Hi All: This may be slightly off subject, but we're migrating a large amount of data on an HP K580 (800GB) from an EMC Symmetrix 3930 to (2) F840s using Gigabit Ethernet. Initial Oracle testing is putting the 840 at 4x slower than the Sym we migrated from. We're 95% sure it's Gig-E related. We've been going through patch Hell, and I don't want to reinvent the wheel here. Is anyone on this list successfully using a K580 on HP-UX 11.0 with Gig-E? If so, can I PLEASE ask you to share your patch levels/parameter tweaks? TIA! John Witham Sr. Data Networking Engineer Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc. V://847.383.3304 F://847.383.3205 mailto://jwitham@takedapharm.com <mailto://jwitham@takedapharm.com>

1 0

Re: NFS version 4
by Darrell Fuhriman 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

Chris Thompson <cet1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk> writes: > Of course, we are probably still years away from usable client > implementations. I actually doubt that. There's enough interest in NFSv4 that it's likely to take off pretty quickly. Netapp has already done a preliminary implementation (according a paper I found somewhere, written by one of their engineers). Connectathon 2001 was just last weekend, but I don't know what the results of it were... http://www.connectathon.org/ As to RFC 3010, you'll note the work place of the authors? That might give some clue as to Netapp's plans. And anyway, it's still "standards track" which means it could still change. Darrell

2 1

RE: LTO support?
by glennm＠latticesemi.com 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

So judging from the two NetApp emails below, the company posistion on LTO drivers for NetApp customers is this: 1) We can't get a free drive to make drivers with, so we won't. 2) And NetApp is going to wait a long time (as much as "2 years") to worry about LTO as there is no market for it. The conclusion is that NetApp is to cheap to buy a drive and NetApp customers will have to buy LTO drives first before NetApp makes a driver (and there will have to be a lot of customers owning a drive before NetApp can justify making a driver). Well thanks NetApp! But times have changed! Get with it! In the past tape drives have been ahead of the curve for storage as a whole. But now with the big disk drives in huge arrays, the tape drive is way behind. So when a new drive like the LTO comes out, customers want (need?) to ramp up to the technology as soon as possible. And the OEM people like NetApp that supply drivers need to be aware of this. I, like many people, have a LTO drive now. And I am using it because I have a SUN driver for it. The driver was available when I bought the drive in January. On the other hand NetApp wants to wait? Why? To what advantage? The cost of a LTO drive is small change compared to your customer support issues. And waiting is only going to create problems between NetApp and it's customers. Help us please! Just my two cents worth. *************************************************************************** Glenn Marsh Lattice Semiconductor Corporation Unix Systems Administrator 5555 NE Moore Court CAD Engineering Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 glenn.marsh(a)latticesemi.com 503-268-8000 503-268-8136 phone - 503-268-8459 fax *************************************************************************** From: "Alvarado, Michael" <michael.alvarado(a)netapp.com> To: "'David A. Chapa'" <david(a)datastaff.com>, Moshe Linzer <Moshe.Linzer(a)nsc.com> Cc: "Collie, Michael" <Michael.Collie(a)netapp.com>, Steve Vawter <svawter(a)c-cube.com>, ryanb(a)enteract.com, toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: LTO support? Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:37:51 -0800 Yes LTO has been discussed extensively but all of the potential LTO suppliers have been unable to supply NetApp with any LTO devices and the SCSI device driver cannot be written without a drive. IBM prioritized other vendors ahead of NetApp. Here is where it is helpful to the end use customers make clear to suppliers that NetApp support is strategic and important. =========================================================================== From: "Stringer, Douglas" <Douglas.Stringer(a)netapp.com> To: "'David A. Chapa'" <david(a)datastaff.com> Cc: "Collie, Michael" <Michael.Collie(a)netapp.com>, "'toasters(a)mathworks.com'" <toasters(a)mathworks.com>, "'ryanb(a)enteract.com'" <ryanb(a)enteract.com> Subject: RE: LTO support? Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:38:25 -0800 David: Yes, we've heard of it, and LTO as a supported tape format is on our roadmap. Please bear with me on this as I want to weed through the 'talk' and the 'hype' that jumps out at me in the below messages. Data protection and restorability is very serious business, not glamorous, not sexy, but pretty darn important if a company's business depends on it. Our goal here is to bring to our installed and new customer base a standard of 'proven' reliability in maintaining data integrity so that operations in workgroups-to-enterprise level environments go on as expected. With that in mind, field reliability and data to prove it out are top on the list of priorities for our certified solutions. Coming from a tape drive manufacturing area myself, I know that introduction (i.e. shipping vs. development and marketing) of a new tape format follows a fairly slow curve during the first two years before market/customer acceptance kicks in. LTO, as well as SDLT, will get there probably sooner due to both coming from the 'linear tape format' world and all manufacturers have a wealth of tape experience with other formats. Regards, Doug Stringer ****************************************************************************** Glenn Marsh Lattice Semiconductor Corporation Unix Systems Administrator 5555 NE Moore Court CAD Engineering Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 glenn.marsh(a)latticesemi.com 503-268-8000 503-268-8136 phone - 503-268-8459 fax ******************************************************************************

1 0

AW: LTO support?
by Poellmann, Christoph ISY 1 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

Hello, i am following the toaster's LTO thread with great interest. It came up just in time when we were about to order a library with LTO drives for NDMP based filer backup. We are not fixed to LTO, but we need and want the capacity and the performance it promises. This leads to the next question: Does or when will Netapp support SDLT drives? Christoph -- Christoph Poellmann INA * Herzogenaurach * Germany fon: 09132 824691 * fax: 09132 824953 * email: Christoph.Poellmann(a)de.ina.com mobile fon: 0173 5768452 > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: David A. Chapa [mailto:david@datastaff.com] > Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 15. März 2001 15:53 > An: Stringer, Douglas > Cc: 'David A. Chapa'; Collie, Michael; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com'; > 'ryanb(a)enteract.com' > Betreff: RE: LTO support? > > Doug: > > I appreciate your comments and the position of your > company. Believe me I want to see NTAP deliver tested, > known, high quality solutions to their customer > base...more than you know. > > And I do understand data protection and restorability > having spent the last 10 years of my career doing just > that with various software companies, including > OpenVision. > > My point wasn't that you hadn't heard of the > technology, just how surprised that your company isn't > as far along today as others are with LTO support. > > My two line response wasn't intended as a shot to you > or your company. Just a fact, I was surprised. > > Kindest regards, > David Chapa > > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> > David A. Chapa > Consulting Manager > DataStaff, Inc. > 847 413 1144 > http://www.consulting.datastaff.com > --------------------------------------- > NBU-LSERV(a)datastaff.com - Adv. Scripting > > > Quoting "Stringer, Douglas" > <Douglas.Stringer(a)netapp.com>: > > > David: Yes, we've heard of it, and LTO as a > supported tape format is on > > our > > roadmap. > > Please bear with me on this as I want to weed through > the 'talk' and the > > 'hype' that jumps out at me in the below messages. > > Data protection and restorability is very serious > business, not glamorous, > > not sexy, but pretty darn important if a company's > business depends on it. > > Our goal here is to bring to our installed and new > customer base a standard > > of 'proven' reliability in maintaining data integrity > so that operations in > > workgroups-to-enterprise level environments go on as > expected. > > With that in mind, field reliability and data to > prove it out are top on > > the > > list of priorities for our certified solutions. > Coming from a tape drive > > manufacturing area myself, I know that introduction > (i.e. shipping vs. > > development and marketing) of a new tape format > follows a fairly slow curve > > during the first two years before market/customer > acceptance kicks in. > > LTO, > > as well as SDLT, will get there probably sooner due > to both coming from > > the > > 'linear tape format' world and all manufacturers have > a wealth of tape > > experience with other formats. > > > > Regards, > > Doug Stringer > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David A. Chapa [mailto:david@datastaff.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 1:05 PM > > To: Moshe Linzer > > Cc: Collie, Michael; Steve Vawter; ryanb(a)enteract.com; > > toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: Re: LTO support? > > > > > > LTO has been talked about for the last 18 months > rather > > aggressively, I'm surprised as well. > > > > Quoting Moshe Linzer <Moshe.Linzer(a)nsc.com>: > > > > > Actually, after a closer look it appears that the > IBM > > library is an OEM of > > > the > > > ADIC Scalar 100. There are quite a few vendors > > selling (& shipping?) LTO > > > gear, > > > and with all the hype, I find it hard to believe > that > > NetApp doesn't know > > > about > > > it! As is apparant from this list, NetApp users are > > hungry for more > > > powerful > > > backup solutions, and the fact that there won't be > an > > OnTap LTO driver > > > available until a year after the official release of > > the technology is > > > incredible! > > > > > > Moshe > > > > > > "Collie, Michael" wrote: > > > > > > > >From your mail, some library vendors are > > apparently advance in having > > > LTO > > > > solutions. We will raise this, as a question to > > some of the first tier > > > > library vendors that we are partnering with that > > doesn't yet have LTO > > > > solutions. > > > > > > > > Thanks for the information. > > > > > > > > Michael. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Moshe Linzer [mailto:Moshe.Linzer@nsc.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 11:40 PM > > > > To: Steve Vawter > > > > Cc: Michael.Collie(a)netapp.com; ryanb(a)enteract.com; > > toasters(a)mathworks.com > > > > Subject: Re: LTO support? > > > > > > > > IBM is offering 2 library models with up to 6 > > Ultrium drives. Qualstar > > > also > > > > has a > > > > few models available with LTO. > > > > > > > > Moshe > > > > > > > > Steve Vawter wrote: > > > > > > > > > I already have 1 vendor willing to admit that > > they have a library > > > > > that can either be pure LTO or else 1/2 LTO, 1/2 > > SDLT (heding their > > > > > bets). I believe that they are actually already > > taking orders and > > > > > supposedly shipping these units. > > > > > > > > > > In no way should you take this as a testimonial, > > but here is the info: > > > > > Overland Data > > > > > www.overlanddata.com > > > > > > > > > > Steve Vawter voice: 408-490-5310 fax: > 408- > > 490-8615 > > > > > Staff UNIX Systems Administrator > > Steve.Vawter(a)C-Cube.COM > > > > > > > > > > --> > > > > > --> From Michael.Collie(a)netapp.com Mon Mar 12 > > 15:06:31 2001 > > > > > --> From: "Collie, Michael" > > <Michael.Collie(a)netapp.com> > > > > > --> To: Moshe Linzer <Moshe.Linzer(a)nsc.com> > > > > > --> Cc: "'ryanb'" <ryanb(a)enteract.com>, > > toasters(a)mathworks.com > > > > > --> Subject: RE: LTO support? > > > > > --> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service > (5.5.2653.19) > > > > > --> > > > > > --> Moshe, > > > > > --> > > > > > --> The LTO technology promises performance of > up > > to 30Mb/s with 2:1 > > > > > --> compression. This performance far exceeds > > DLTs, SDLT, ATI-2 and > > > 9840s. > > > > The > > > > > --> form factor for LTO (Ultrium) is different > > for today's tape drives. > > > > > --> > > > > > --> It may be some time before library vendors > > integrate the LTO > > > > technology into > > > > > --> their products. NetApp support for LTO is > > slated for 4th quarter of > > > > 2001. > > > > > --> > > > > > --> > > > > > --> ---Original Message----- > > > > > --> From: ryanb [mailto:ryanb@enteract.com] > > > > > --> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 12:58 PM > > > > > --> To: Moshe Linzer > > > > > --> Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > > > > --> Subject: Re: LTO support? > > > > > --> > > > > > --> On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 09:17:57PM +0200, > > Moshe Linzer wrote: > > > > > --> > Does anyone know when LTO will be > supported > > on the filer? I have > > > > two > > > > > --> > 760's, and we are shopping around for a > > backup library. I am > > > > hesitant > > > > > --> > to go with LTO at this point, but > > management likes the numbers. > > > Can > > > > > --> > anyone share experience or opinions on LTO > > drives or libraries? > > > > > --> > > > > > --> Most LTO equipment is identical to DLT > > equipment, only with a > > > > different > > > > > --> tape drive. In this respect, the LTO drives > > will perform > > > identically, > > > > or > > > > > --> so I'd like to think. ;) Please let me > know > > if I'm wrong here. > > > > > --> > > > > > --> - ryan > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> > > David A. Chapa > > Consulting Manager > > DataStaff, Inc. > > 847 413 1144 > > http://www.consulting.datastaff.com > > --------------------------------------- > > NBU-LSERV(a)datastaff.com - Adv. Scripting > > > > >

1 0

FS: F760's; F840
by ScottUCE＠aol.com 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

The ailing tech economy has created a buyers' market for lots of late model used computer hardware; as such, we have a number of F760's and an F840 available. In addition, we have: C720's F740's Netcache C1105 F330's, 520's, 540's and 630's All add-ons Please call or email scott(a)unioncomputer.com for pricing and availability. Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, MN 55436 Phone: 952 935 7282 scott(a)unioncomputer.com

1 0

RE: LTO support?
by Stringer, Douglas 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

David: Yes, we've heard of it, and LTO as a supported tape format is on our roadmap. Please bear with me on this as I want to weed through the 'talk' and the 'hype' that jumps out at me in the below messages. Data protection and restorability is very serious business, not glamorous, not sexy, but pretty darn important if a company's business depends on it. Our goal here is to bring to our installed and new customer base a standard of 'proven' reliability in maintaining data integrity so that operations in workgroups-to-enterprise level environments go on as expected. With that in mind, field reliability and data to prove it out are top on the list of priorities for our certified solutions. Coming from a tape drive manufacturing area myself, I know that introduction (i.e. shipping vs. development and marketing) of a new tape format follows a fairly slow curve during the first two years before market/customer acceptance kicks in. LTO, as well as SDLT, will get there probably sooner due to both coming from the 'linear tape format' world and all manufacturers have a wealth of tape experience with other formats. Regards, Doug Stringer -----Original Message----- From: David A. Chapa [mailto:david@datastaff.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 1:05 PM To: Moshe Linzer Cc: Collie, Michael; Steve Vawter; ryanb(a)enteract.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: LTO support? LTO has been talked about for the last 18 months rather aggressively, I'm surprised as well. Quoting Moshe Linzer <Moshe.Linzer(a)nsc.com>: > Actually, after a closer look it appears that the IBM library is an OEM of > the > ADIC Scalar 100. There are quite a few vendors selling (& shipping?) LTO > gear, > and with all the hype, I find it hard to believe that NetApp doesn't know > about > it! As is apparant from this list, NetApp users are hungry for more > powerful > backup solutions, and the fact that there won't be an OnTap LTO driver > available until a year after the official release of the technology is > incredible! > > Moshe > > "Collie, Michael" wrote: > > > >From your mail, some library vendors are apparently advance in having > LTO > > solutions. We will raise this, as a question to some of the first tier > > library vendors that we are partnering with that doesn't yet have LTO > > solutions. > > > > Thanks for the information. > > > > Michael. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Moshe Linzer [mailto:Moshe.Linzer@nsc.com] > > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 11:40 PM > > To: Steve Vawter > > Cc: Michael.Collie(a)netapp.com; ryanb(a)enteract.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: Re: LTO support? > > > > IBM is offering 2 library models with up to 6 Ultrium drives. Qualstar > also > > has a > > few models available with LTO. > > > > Moshe > > > > Steve Vawter wrote: > > > > > I already have 1 vendor willing to admit that they have a library > > > that can either be pure LTO or else 1/2 LTO, 1/2 SDLT (heding their > > > bets). I believe that they are actually already taking orders and > > > supposedly shipping these units. > > > > > > In no way should you take this as a testimonial, but here is the info: > > > Overland Data > > > www.overlanddata.com > > > > > > Steve Vawter voice: 408-490-5310 fax: 408- 490-8615 > > > Staff UNIX Systems Administrator Steve.Vawter(a)C-Cube.COM > > > > > > --> > > > --> From Michael.Collie(a)netapp.com Mon Mar 12 15:06:31 2001 > > > --> From: "Collie, Michael" <Michael.Collie(a)netapp.com> > > > --> To: Moshe Linzer <Moshe.Linzer(a)nsc.com> > > > --> Cc: "'ryanb'" <ryanb(a)enteract.com>, toasters(a)mathworks.com > > > --> Subject: RE: LTO support? > > > --> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) > > > --> > > > --> Moshe, > > > --> > > > --> The LTO technology promises performance of up to 30Mb/s with 2:1 > > > --> compression. This performance far exceeds DLTs, SDLT, ATI-2 and > 9840s. > > The > > > --> form factor for LTO (Ultrium) is different for today's tape drives. > > > --> > > > --> It may be some time before library vendors integrate the LTO > > technology into > > > --> their products. NetApp support for LTO is slated for 4th quarter of > > 2001. > > > --> > > > --> > > > --> ---Original Message----- > > > --> From: ryanb [mailto:ryanb@enteract.com] > > > --> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 12:58 PM > > > --> To: Moshe Linzer > > > --> Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > > --> Subject: Re: LTO support? > > > --> > > > --> On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 09:17:57PM +0200, Moshe Linzer wrote: > > > --> > Does anyone know when LTO will be supported on the filer? I have > > two > > > --> > 760's, and we are shopping around for a backup library. I am > > hesitant > > > --> > to go with LTO at this point, but management likes the numbers. > Can > > > --> > anyone share experience or opinions on LTO drives or libraries? > > > --> > > > --> Most LTO equipment is identical to DLT equipment, only with a > > different > > > --> tape drive. In this respect, the LTO drives will perform > identically, > > or > > > --> so I'd like to think. ;) Please let me know if I'm wrong here. > > > --> > > > --> - ryan > > > --> > > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> David A. Chapa Consulting Manager DataStaff, Inc. 847 413 1144 http://www.consulting.datastaff.com --------------------------------------- NBU-LSERV(a)datastaff.com - Adv. Scripting

2 1

RE: LTO support?
by Alvarado, Michael 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

Yes LTO has been discussed extensively but all of the potential LTO suppliers have been unable to supply NetApp with any LTO devices and the SCSI device driver cannot be written without a drive. IBM prioritized other vendors ahead of NetApp. Here is where it is helpful to the end use customers make clear to suppliers that NetApp support is strategic and important. -----Original Message----- From: David A. Chapa [mailto:david@datastaff.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 1:05 PM To: Moshe Linzer Cc: Collie, Michael; Steve Vawter; ryanb(a)enteract.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: LTO support? LTO has been talked about for the last 18 months rather aggressively, I'm surprised as well. Quoting Moshe Linzer <Moshe.Linzer(a)nsc.com>: > Actually, after a closer look it appears that the IBM library is an OEM of > the > ADIC Scalar 100. There are quite a few vendors selling (& shipping?) LTO > gear, > and with all the hype, I find it hard to believe that NetApp doesn't know > about > it! As is apparant from this list, NetApp users are hungry for more > powerful > backup solutions, and the fact that there won't be an OnTap LTO driver > available until a year after the official release of the technology is > incredible! > > Moshe > > "Collie, Michael" wrote: > > > >From your mail, some library vendors are apparently advance in having > LTO > > solutions. We will raise this, as a question to some of the first tier > > library vendors that we are partnering with that doesn't yet have LTO > > solutions. > > > > Thanks for the information. > > > > Michael. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Moshe Linzer [mailto:Moshe.Linzer@nsc.com] > > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 11:40 PM > > To: Steve Vawter > > Cc: Michael.Collie(a)netapp.com; ryanb(a)enteract.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: Re: LTO support? > > > > IBM is offering 2 library models with up to 6 Ultrium drives. Qualstar > also > > has a > > few models available with LTO. > > > > Moshe > > > > Steve Vawter wrote: > > > > > I already have 1 vendor willing to admit that they have a library > > > that can either be pure LTO or else 1/2 LTO, 1/2 SDLT (heding their > > > bets). I believe that they are actually already taking orders and > > > supposedly shipping these units. > > > > > > In no way should you take this as a testimonial, but here is the info: > > > Overland Data > > > www.overlanddata.com > > > > > > Steve Vawter voice: 408-490-5310 fax: 408- 490-8615 > > > Staff UNIX Systems Administrator Steve.Vawter(a)C-Cube.COM > > > > > > --> > > > --> From Michael.Collie(a)netapp.com Mon Mar 12 15:06:31 2001 > > > --> From: "Collie, Michael" <Michael.Collie(a)netapp.com> > > > --> To: Moshe Linzer <Moshe.Linzer(a)nsc.com> > > > --> Cc: "'ryanb'" <ryanb(a)enteract.com>, toasters(a)mathworks.com > > > --> Subject: RE: LTO support? > > > --> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) > > > --> > > > --> Moshe, > > > --> > > > --> The LTO technology promises performance of up to 30Mb/s with 2:1 > > > --> compression. This performance far exceeds DLTs, SDLT, ATI-2 and > 9840s. > > The > > > --> form factor for LTO (Ultrium) is different for today's tape drives. > > > --> > > > --> It may be some time before library vendors integrate the LTO > > technology into > > > --> their products. NetApp support for LTO is slated for 4th quarter of > > 2001. > > > --> > > > --> > > > --> ---Original Message----- > > > --> From: ryanb [mailto:ryanb@enteract.com] > > > --> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 12:58 PM > > > --> To: Moshe Linzer > > > --> Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > > --> Subject: Re: LTO support? > > > --> > > > --> On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 09:17:57PM +0200, Moshe Linzer wrote: > > > --> > Does anyone know when LTO will be supported on the filer? I have > > two > > > --> > 760's, and we are shopping around for a backup library. I am > > hesitant > > > --> > to go with LTO at this point, but management likes the numbers. > Can > > > --> > anyone share experience or opinions on LTO drives or libraries? > > > --> > > > --> Most LTO equipment is identical to DLT equipment, only with a > > different > > > --> tape drive. In this respect, the LTO drives will perform > identically, > > or > > > --> so I'd like to think. ;) Please let me know if I'm wrong here. > > > --> > > > --> - ryan > > > --> > > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> David A. Chapa Consulting Manager DataStaff, Inc. 847 413 1144 http://www.consulting.datastaff.com --------------------------------------- NBU-LSERV(a)datastaff.com - Adv. Scripting

1 0

RE: LTO support?
by Alvarado, Michael 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

This device could be offered sooner if the library vendors selling LTO were to introduce libraries with a GbE interface and an embedded NDMP server like ATL Products has announced and which several other library vendors are planning to announce. http://www.atlp.com/products/osn/index.html -----Original Message----- From: Moshe Linzer [mailto:Moshe.Linzer@nsc.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 9:21 AM To: Collie, Michael Cc: Steve Vawter; ryanb(a)enteract.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: LTO support? Actually, after a closer look it appears that the IBM library is an OEM of the ADIC Scalar 100. There are quite a few vendors selling (& shipping?) LTO gear, and with all the hype, I find it hard to believe that NetApp doesn't know about it! As is apparant from this list, NetApp users are hungry for more powerful backup solutions, and the fact that there won't be an OnTap LTO driver available until a year after the official release of the technology is incredible! Moshe "Collie, Michael" wrote: > >From your mail, some library vendors are apparently advance in having LTO > solutions. We will raise this, as a question to some of the first tier > library vendors that we are partnering with that doesn't yet have LTO > solutions. > > Thanks for the information. > > Michael. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Moshe Linzer [mailto:Moshe.Linzer@nsc.com] > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 11:40 PM > To: Steve Vawter > Cc: Michael.Collie(a)netapp.com; ryanb(a)enteract.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: LTO support? > > IBM is offering 2 library models with up to 6 Ultrium drives. Qualstar also > has a > few models available with LTO. > > Moshe > > Steve Vawter wrote: > > > I already have 1 vendor willing to admit that they have a library > > that can either be pure LTO or else 1/2 LTO, 1/2 SDLT (heding their > > bets). I believe that they are actually already taking orders and > > supposedly shipping these units. > > > > In no way should you take this as a testimonial, but here is the info: > > Overland Data > > www.overlanddata.com > > > > Steve Vawter voice: 408-490-5310 fax: 408-490-8615 > > Staff UNIX Systems Administrator Steve.Vawter(a)C-Cube.COM > > > > --> > > --> From Michael.Collie(a)netapp.com Mon Mar 12 15:06:31 2001 > > --> From: "Collie, Michael" <Michael.Collie(a)netapp.com> > > --> To: Moshe Linzer <Moshe.Linzer(a)nsc.com> > > --> Cc: "'ryanb'" <ryanb(a)enteract.com>, toasters(a)mathworks.com > > --> Subject: RE: LTO support? > > --> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) > > --> > > --> Moshe, > > --> > > --> The LTO technology promises performance of up to 30Mb/s with 2:1 > > --> compression. This performance far exceeds DLTs, SDLT, ATI-2 and 9840s. > The > > --> form factor for LTO (Ultrium) is different for today's tape drives. > > --> > > --> It may be some time before library vendors integrate the LTO > technology into > > --> their products. NetApp support for LTO is slated for 4th quarter of > 2001. > > --> > > --> > > --> ---Original Message----- > > --> From: ryanb [mailto:ryanb@enteract.com] > > --> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 12:58 PM > > --> To: Moshe Linzer > > --> Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > --> Subject: Re: LTO support? > > --> > > --> On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 09:17:57PM +0200, Moshe Linzer wrote: > > --> > Does anyone know when LTO will be supported on the filer? I have > two > > --> > 760's, and we are shopping around for a backup library. I am > hesitant > > --> > to go with LTO at this point, but management likes the numbers. Can > > --> > anyone share experience or opinions on LTO drives or libraries? > > --> > > --> Most LTO equipment is identical to DLT equipment, only with a > different > > --> tape drive. In this respect, the LTO drives will perform identically, > or > > --> so I'd like to think. ;) Please let me know if I'm wrong here. > > --> > > --> - ryan > > -->

1 0

RE: getting dump messages into messages file
by Itzik Meirson D.Sc. 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters