toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

RE: backup via ndmp
by Traitel, Eyal 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

Can you check if you have enough free swap space on the HP ? Eyal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- eTraitel - I'm the new eBuzzword around !!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Eyal Traitel - Filer Escalation Engineer CNA, MCSE, CSA, NACA 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: Jean-Francois Aupee [mailto:aupee@caen.sc.philips.com] Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 11:20 AM To: toasters Subject: backup via ndmp Hello, I have a problem to backup my netapps via ndmp : My server is a HP9000 serie K420 , 2Go RAM, 2Go swap, with networker 6.0.1 ( patch 1 ). The jukebox is attached directly to one netapp. I run the backup and I receive the following message : It's a part of the message: * netapp3:/vol/ApplCAD/.snapshot/netapp3_backup NDMP Service Log: DUMP IS DONE * netapp3:/vol/ApplCAD/.snapshot/netapp3_backup nsrdmpix: error, out of memory * netapp3:/vol/ApplCAD/.snapshot/netapp3_backup ****************************************************************** * netapp3:/vol/ApplCAD/.snapshot/netapp3_backup ------ E R R O R ------- * netapp3:/vol/ApplCAD/.snapshot/netapp3_backup Failed to store index entries * netapp3:/vol/ApplCAD/.snapshot/netapp3_backup ****************************************************************** netapp3: /vol/ApplCAD/.snapshot/netapp3_backup level=full, 1969 GB 07:38:47 7935328 files bckserv1: index:netapp3 level=full, 1 KB 00:00:04 2 files The backup of data is done, but networker don't save the index !!! Caould you help me ? -- _____________________________________________________________________ Jean-Francois AUPEE AtosOrigin - Philips Semiconductors Caen 2, rue de la girafe - B.P. 5120 14079 Caen Cedex, France Tel: (+33) 2 31 45 22 77 Fax: (+33) 2 31 45 22 60 SERI: aupee@rtccnh1 E-MAIL: mailto:Jean-Francois.Aupee@atosorigin.com aupee(a)caen.sc.philips.com _____________________________________________________________________

1 0

backup via ndmp
by Jean-Francois Aupee 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

Hello, I have a problem to backup my netapps via ndmp : My server is a HP9000 serie K420 , 2Go RAM, 2Go swap, with networker 6.0.1 ( patch 1 ). The jukebox is attached directly to one netapp. I run the backup and I receive the following message : It's a part of the message: * netapp3:/vol/ApplCAD/.snapshot/netapp3_backup NDMP Service Log: DUMP IS DONE * netapp3:/vol/ApplCAD/.snapshot/netapp3_backup nsrdmpix: error, out of memory * netapp3:/vol/ApplCAD/.snapshot/netapp3_backup ****************************************************************** * netapp3:/vol/ApplCAD/.snapshot/netapp3_backup ------ E R R O R ------- * netapp3:/vol/ApplCAD/.snapshot/netapp3_backup Failed to store index entries * netapp3:/vol/ApplCAD/.snapshot/netapp3_backup ****************************************************************** netapp3: /vol/ApplCAD/.snapshot/netapp3_backup level=full, 1969 GB 07:38:47 7935328 files bckserv1: index:netapp3 level=full, 1 KB 00:00:04 2 files The backup of data is done, but networker don't save the index !!! Caould you help me ? -- _____________________________________________________________________ Jean-Francois AUPEE AtosOrigin - Philips Semiconductors Caen 2, rue de la girafe - B.P. 5120 14079 Caen Cedex, France Tel: (+33) 2 31 45 22 77 Fax: (+33) 2 31 45 22 60 SERI: aupee@rtccnh1 E-MAIL: mailto:Jean-Francois.Aupee@atosorigin.com aupee(a)caen.sc.philips.com _____________________________________________________________________

1 0

Re: Disk usage recomendations...
by Rick Hulsey 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

There is probably not a short answer to this one. We use Q-trees to manage all of our data so that we get some virtualization of our storage, but we break up data into volumes based on how the data is used. For instance we have our Oracle databases on our filers. In that environment, we have a separate volume for each of the following: tables, logs, and archives. The reason for this is that we use snapshots for backups and data replication. If we have table, logs, and archives in the same volume, a snapshot would take a point in time image of all of the data at the same time, but we actually need to snapshot the archives separately for recoverability. Additionally, we can lose any one entire volume and still recover our data without risking corruption. If you are just using this for plain ol' files, you probably can get away with putting everything into one volume. If it is critical data you may want to snap mirror the critical data so that the critical data is not at risk. >>> Steve Vawter <svawter(a)c-cube.com> 02/21/01 05:50PM >>> Having a set of Filers that have been poorly planned and poorly configured, I would ask for a hand from fellow admins about how to proceed. (okay, I know the best way, buy a new cluster of 840's and migrate it all!) Given that I have 12 "36GB" disks (plus a hot spare) that have been added to one of my filers, should I: a) Build one large volume and control it's space via qtrees? a1) If so, should I lower the raidgroup size or leave it at 14? b) Build multiple (2? 3? 4?) volumes of smaller size Pro's & Con's for each approach would be greatly appreciated! Steve Vawter voice: 408-490-5310 fax: 408-490-8615 Staff UNIX Systems Administrator Steve.Vawter(a)C-Cube.COM

1 0

Re: Disk usage recomendations...
by svawter＠c-cube.com 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

I understand that smaller raidgroup sizes and/or more volumes waste space for parity disks. I know that some of the political considerations are for just that in order to lessen the odds of the dreaded double disk failure (DDDF). What other considerations should I be looking at? Backups? Large number of qtrees? Large number of inodes? What other Pro's does a large volume with a large (or at least default of 14) raidgroup size give me? --Steve --> --> From svawter(a)c-cube.com Wed Feb 21 16:00:44 2001 --> From: svawter(a)c-cube.com (Steve Vawter) --> To: toasters(a)mathworks.com --> Subject: Disk usage recomendations... --> --> Having a set of Filers that have been poorly planned and poorly configured, --> I would ask for a hand from fellow admins about how to proceed. --> (okay, I know the best way, buy a new cluster of 840's and migrate it all!) --> --> Given that I have 12 "36GB" disks (plus a hot spare) that have been --> added to one of my filers, should I: --> --> a) Build one large volume and control it's space via qtrees? --> a1) If so, should I lower the raidgroup size or leave it at 14? --> b) Build multiple (2? 3? 4?) volumes of smaller size --> --> Pro's & Con's for each approach would be greatly appreciated! --> --> Steve Vawter voice: 408-490-5310 fax: 408-490-8615 --> Staff UNIX Systems Administrator Steve.Vawter(a)C-Cube.COM --> -->

1 0

RE: F85 series
by White, Lance 21 Feb '01

21 Feb '01

Reason we/I quote raw is that you can carve up the volumes in a myriad of ways, and depending on how you do so, it will impact useable space. Probably a more accurate measurement (but not necessarily meaningful) is "What is LARGEST useable storage configuration for the storage system?" i.e. in this situation, you COULD use 36GB drives, set aside 1 disk for parity, factor in WAFL/OnTap overhead, set snap reserve to zero, and come up with a single data drive value x 17 disks (of course, in reality, you would LIKELY have a SR of 10-20% and set aside 1 disk as hot spare, but you get the idea). Would you increase Max RG Size to 18? Hmm, that's another topic for discussion...one might go with small RG's and hence, increase overhead, decrease likelihood of double disk failure, and decrease SOME performance...so, I ask again (hypothetically, that is), realistically, how SHOULD a vendor quote storage capacity?!? I, personally, explain this to ALL of my customers so that they can understand the correlation of max storage to useable...NetApp employees are HIGHLY encouraged to do so when they are hired, particularly SE's. Lance -----Original Message----- From: Luke Mewburn [mailto:lukem@wasabisystems.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 9:29 AM To: White, Lance Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: F85 series On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:16:55AM -0800, White, Lance wrote: > No, it uses FW Ultra SCSI-3 disks, not FC. Yes, NDMP backup is supported. > Limitations? Well, as it's positioned to be the NEW entry level Netapp (at > 3300 NFS ops/sec, it actually about 30% faster than the old low end F720, > and about 30% less expensive), it IS limited to 648GB MAX storage (6 > internal plus 12 external in 18GB & 36GB flavors), as opposed to the F720's > limit of ~500GB. Still doin' hot swap, RAID4, snapshots, OnTap, WAFL, > everything that's cool about a Filer and more! :-D The box sounds cool. It's about time a box of this price point was available again :) I have a (long-time) gripe in the way it's advertised. It's a gripe I have with every vendor. I wish NetApp would advertise the *usable* diskspace of the machine (as seen by a client OS or df, for example), not the raw diskspace calculated by taking the disk vendor size and multiplying by the number of disks. I know this makes the boxes appear more expensive per usable megabyte, but it's being more honest to the client, and once you explain to the client to take into account all the overheads, and how to do the same math on competing options (e.g, h/w raid + vxfs on Solaris, EMC, etc), then you (NetApp) appear to be delivering accurate technical information. For example, there's no WAY an F720 has 500 GB of usable space. Out of the box, with default snap reserve, it barely has 300 GB, where GB == 2^30, which is what client based tools (such as df and the `Properties' box in Windows) use, not 10^9, which is what (overzealous) disk vendors use. The usuable capacity of an F720 is trivial to calculate: 14 x 36 GB disks, utilised as: 1 hot spare, 1 parity, 12 data disks Each data disk has 24840 MB usable, calculated as: 34500 megabytes (rightsized by OnTAP) - 10% wafl overhead (is this 8% in OnTAP 6.x?) - 20% snap reserve (default; but often reduced to 10%) = 24840 megabytes So, 12 x 24840 = 298080 MB = ~ 291 GB Tweaking the numbers to 8% wafl overhead (from OnTAP 6) and 10% snap reserve gives an F720 approximately 334 GB of space (from 500 GB `raw'). Based on the info Lance White gives above, an F85 with 36 GB drives, consisting of 15 data disks, 1 hot spare, 2 parity, 8% wafl overhead, 10% snap reserve would have a usuable capacity at the client of: 15 x (34500 - 8% - 10%) = 15 x 28556 = 428490 MB = 418 GB 418 GB is a bit less than the ``648 GB MAX storage'' that Lance quotes above. In general, take away approximately one third of the raw capacity that NetApp quote and that will give you an guestimate on the usuable capacity that will suit most client's needs. Luke. PS: I'm sure some people have seen or heard this rant before :) Disclaimer: I like NetApp. I worked at NetApp for a while as an SE. I just believe in being honest to the technical people you're selling to, especially those who have to justify to their management why the (not cheap) 500 GB box they bought ran out of space at 300 GB. -- Luke Mewburn <lukem(a)wasabisystems.com> http://www.wasabisystems.com Luke Mewburn <lukem(a)netbsd.org> http://www.netbsd.org Wasabi Systems - providing NetBSD sales, support and services.

3 2

Used equipment
by Knight, Jason 21 Feb '01

21 Feb '01

Does anyone who has purchased used Network Appliance equipment from 3rd parties have any suggestions on who I can call to ask about a few items I would like to purchase? Thanks in advance, Jason Knight

1 0

RE: ndmp and legato
by Traitel, Eyal 21 Feb '01

21 Feb '01

FYI, there is already an RFE for it - Bug 13327. As Tim described, you can push us by opening a case, refering to the burt, or keep track on this bug using the Bug Notifying tool in NOW... Hope it helps, a little... Eyal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- eTraitel - I'm the new eBuzzword around !!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Eyal Traitel - Filer Escalation Engineer CNA, MCSE, CSA, NACA 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: Timothy A. McCarthy [mailto:tmac@netapp.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 1:26 AM To: neil lehrer Cc: toasters; John Ederma Subject: Re: ndmp and legato No, it is not available right now. I would suggest pushing support if you really need it. --tmac neil lehrer wrote: > hey tim, > > that's what we thought. i used useradmin to set up ndmpuser as an acct. this > should work ok also - accts set up with useradmin are root equiv right? > > "Timothy A. McCarthy" wrote: > > > > That would be "root" and whatever the "root" password > > is on your filer. > > > > --tmac > > > > neil lehrer wrote: > > > > > hi, > > > > > > we are going to hook a spectralogic treefrog to our f760 and try using legato > > > 6.01[we already own it, so no point recommending something else] to do ndmp > > > backups. > > > > > > the legato doc refers to an ndmp userid and password. we don't know what that > > > is, does anyone out there know? > > > > > > thanks. > > > -- > > -- > > regards -- ******All New Numbers!!!****** ************* ************* Timothy A. McCarthy --> System Engineer, Eastern Region Network Appliance http://www.netapp.com 240-268-2034 Office \ / Page Me at: 240-268-2001 Fax \/ 888-971-4468

1 0

ndmp and legato
by neil lehrer 21 Feb '01

21 Feb '01

hi, we are going to hook a spectralogic treefrog to our f760 and try using legato 6.01[we already own it, so no point recommending something else] to do ndmp backups. the legato doc refers to an ndmp userid and password. we don't know what that is, does anyone out there know? thanks. --

2 3

RE: NDMP to legato
by Myren, Ben 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

Hi all, I have made Legato work sharing a library between a filer and a Solaris server. When you add the jukebox via jbconfig you will configure some of the tape drives as NDMP devices. Ben -----Original Message----- From: Marion Hakanson [mailto:hakanson@cse.ogi.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 2:49 PM To: Cormier, Darleen Cc: 'Peter D. Gray'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: NDMP to legato > Hi Peter, Legato 6.0.1 with Patch 1 is NDMP compliant. That package allows > backups to a library attached to a filer. To backup a filer to a library > attached to a SUN server, you must also add their Networker SnapImage > module. The info can be found on Legato's web site at > www.legato.com/support/documentation/compatibility What about "library sharing" between a Sun/Solaris backup server and a NetApp filer? By this I mean our situation: BudTool backup server on the Sun, which controls the library and 3 tape drives, with a 4th tape drive attached via SCSI to the filer. I haven't so far found the answer in the above compatibility guide(s). Thanks and regards, -- Marion Hakanson <hakanson(a)cse.ogi.edu> CSE Computing Facilities

1 0

RE: NDMP to legato
by Cormier, Darleen 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

Hi Marion, You have a couple of ways to go. If you have SnapImage, you can backup any client that Legato Networker supports, including the filers, by having the library attached to the Sun. If you don't have SnapImage, you can do the same thing you are doing now with Budtool, break up the library bus, by having the robotics and some drives directly attached to the Sun, and one or more tape drives attached directly to the filer. Then you send the filer jobs to those drives, and everything else to the drives on the Sun. Cheers. -----Original Message----- From: Marion Hakanson [mailto:hakanson@cse.ogi.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 1:49 PM To: Cormier, Darleen Cc: 'Peter D. Gray'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: NDMP to legato > Hi Peter, Legato 6.0.1 with Patch 1 is NDMP compliant. That package allows > backups to a library attached to a filer. To backup a filer to a library > attached to a SUN server, you must also add their Networker SnapImage > module. The info can be found on Legato's web site at > www.legato.com/support/documentation/compatibility What about "library sharing" between a Sun/Solaris backup server and a NetApp filer? By this I mean our situation: BudTool backup server on the Sun, which controls the library and 3 tape drives, with a 4th tape drive attached via SCSI to the filer. I haven't so far found the answer in the above compatibility guide(s). Thanks and regards, -- Marion Hakanson <hakanson(a)cse.ogi.edu> CSE Computing Facilities

1 0

RE: NDMP to legato
by Cormier, Darleen 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

Hi Peter, Legato 6.0.1 with Patch 1 is NDMP compliant. That package allows backups to a library attached to a filer. To backup a filer to a library attached to a SUN server, you must also add their Networker SnapImage module. The info can be found on Legato's web site at www.legato.com/support/documentation/compatibility -----Original Message----- From: Peter D. Gray [mailto:pdg@uow.edu.au] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 4:11 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: NDMP to legato Has anybody set up backups to an autochanger controlled by legato networker using NDMP. The legato docs are very vague, and talk about installing a product to make the tape devices in the autochanger NDMP devices, but I cannot even find that product. What I want is for the filer to run dump, with the data ending up on the tape silo which is connected to a SUN running legato networker with legato knowing the tape contents etc. Am I asking too much? Regards, pdg PS At the moment I am backing up to networker via NFS.

2 1

RE: vol copy from 5.3.6R2 to 6.0.1R1
by Moore, Duncan 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

When the revert process on the destination filer completes you should be able to repeat the vol copy operation with no problems. Duncan -----Original Message----- From: Brian L. Brush [mailto:brian@paradyne.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 10:22 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: vol copy from 5.3.6R2 to 6.0.1R1 I want to vol copy from an F230 running ONTAP 5.3.6R2 to an F760 running 6.0.1R1, but I encounter the following error: Filesystem version mismatch for destination volume vol1, reverting the version and aborting transfer. A console message will be displayed when this revert is complete. I can't upgrade the 230 to 6.0, and it's impractical for me to revert to 5.x on the 760. Is there any way for me to vol copy directly from the 230 to the 760? --Brian L. Brush Senior Systems Administrator Paradyne Corporation

1 0

RE: vol copy from 5.3.6R2 to 6.0.1R1
by Fox, Adam 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

You can still do the transfer. It just has to revert the target (F760) to the 5.3 filesystems first. After that revert is complete, you can do the vol copy. Then when all the 5.3 snapshots are gone, the volume will automatically upgrade the volume back to 6.0. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian L. Brush [mailto:brian@paradyne.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 1:22 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: vol copy from 5.3.6R2 to 6.0.1R1 > > > > I want to vol copy from an F230 running ONTAP 5.3.6R2 to an > F760 running > 6.0.1R1, but I encounter the following error: > > Filesystem version mismatch for destination volume vol1, reverting the > version and aborting transfer. A console message will be > displayed when > this revert is complete. > > I can't upgrade the 230 to 6.0, and it's impractical for me > to revert to > 5.x on the 760. Is there any way for me to vol copy directly from the > 230 to the 760? > > --Brian L. Brush > Senior Systems Administrator > Paradyne Corporation >

2 1

FW: F85 series
by Gregg Anderson 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

My local NetApp sales rep was at my office this morning and from what I understand, there is no upgrade path for this product. It is intended to be an entry level filer w/limited growth (648gb max storage). -Gregg Anderson -----Original Message----- From: Jordan Share [mailto:iso9@phantasticant.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 1:12 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: F85 series So, is there an upgrade path for this box? We (my work) are an ASP, and we are looking at using a NetApp for our colocation cage. Right now, we are pretty much going back and forth between the F720 and the F760. We really only need the 720 for the near future, but if the "upgrade" to the 760 turns out to be more like a replacement of the 720 (i.e. we get very little back from trading it in), then we might go that route. But this F85 piques my interest. Roughly, what is its price point, and can the head be swapped out when it is time to upgrade? I would guess (after a brief survey of the website) that there isn't an intended upgrade path from this model. Thanks, Jordan ----- Original Message ----- From: "White, Lance" <Lance.White(a)netapp.com> To: "'Clawson, Simon'" <simon_clawson(a)mentorg.com>; <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 8:16 AM Subject: RE: F85 series > No, it uses FW Ultra SCSI-3 disks, not FC. Yes, NDMP backup is supported. > Limitations? Well, as it's positioned to be the NEW entry level Netapp (at > 3300 NFS ops/sec, it actually about 30% faster than the old low end F720, > and about 30% less expensive), it IS limited to 648GB MAX storage (6 > internal plus 12 external in 18GB & 36GB flavors), as opposed to the F720's > limit of ~500GB. Still doin' hot swap, RAID4, snapshots, OnTap, WAFL, > everything that's cool about a Filer and more! :-D > > -----Original Message----- > From: Clawson, Simon [mailto:simon_clawson@mentorg.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 7:30 AM > To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: F85 series > > > Has anyone had any experince with the F85? Does it use the same disks as the > 700 & 800's? Is it possible to back it up via NDMP? What are its > limitations? > > Simon

1 0

RE: vol copy from 5.3.6R2 to 6.0.1R1
by Knight, Jason 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

If you are licensed for SnapMirror that should work for you. I believe you can mirror systems upstream (up to higher OS levels) but not downstream (Higher OS level to lower - at least involving 6.x). SnapMirror is pretty good for things like this. Jason Knight -----Original Message----- From: Brian L. Brush [mailto:brian@paradyne.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 12:22 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: vol copy from 5.3.6R2 to 6.0.1R1 I want to vol copy from an F230 running ONTAP 5.3.6R2 to an F760 running 6.0.1R1, but I encounter the following error: Filesystem version mismatch for destination volume vol1, reverting the version and aborting transfer. A console message will be displayed when this revert is complete. I can't upgrade the 230 to 6.0, and it's impractical for me to revert to 5.x on the 760. Is there any way for me to vol copy directly from the 230 to the 760? --Brian L. Brush Senior Systems Administrator Paradyne Corporation

1 0

vol copy from 5.3.6R2 to 6.0.1R1
by Brian L. Brush 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

I want to vol copy from an F230 running ONTAP 5.3.6R2 to an F760 running 6.0.1R1, but I encounter the following error: Filesystem version mismatch for destination volume vol1, reverting the version and aborting transfer. A console message will be displayed when this revert is complete. I can't upgrade the 230 to 6.0, and it's impractical for me to revert to 5.x on the 760. Is there any way for me to vol copy directly from the 230 to the 760? --Brian L. Brush Senior Systems Administrator Paradyne Corporation

1 0

RE: F85 series
by Lentz, Tim 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

Great info, thanks. Can I ask what the rough price point for the F85 (~400GB usable) is? We have a 230 that we need to upgrade and it sounds like the F85 would be a good fit. Thank you, Tim A. Lentz Staff Software Systems Engineer/Unix System Administrator for MCAD Ext. 8-3859 Direct: 303-702-3859 MS: 2120-1 -----Original Message----- From: Luke Mewburn [mailto:lukem@wasabisystems.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 10:29 AM To: White, Lance Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: F85 series On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:16:55AM -0800, White, Lance wrote: > No, it uses FW Ultra SCSI-3 disks, not FC. Yes, NDMP backup is supported. > Limitations? Well, as it's positioned to be the NEW entry level Netapp (at > 3300 NFS ops/sec, it actually about 30% faster than the old low end F720, > and about 30% less expensive), it IS limited to 648GB MAX storage (6 > internal plus 12 external in 18GB & 36GB flavors), as opposed to the F720's > limit of ~500GB. Still doin' hot swap, RAID4, snapshots, OnTap, WAFL, > everything that's cool about a Filer and more! :-D The box sounds cool. It's about time a box of this price point was available again :) I have a (long-time) gripe in the way it's advertised. It's a gripe I have with every vendor. I wish NetApp would advertise the *usable* diskspace of the machine (as seen by a client OS or df, for example), not the raw diskspace calculated by taking the disk vendor size and multiplying by the number of disks. I know this makes the boxes appear more expensive per usable megabyte, but it's being more honest to the client, and once you explain to the client to take into account all the overheads, and how to do the same math on competing options (e.g, h/w raid + vxfs on Solaris, EMC, etc), then you (NetApp) appear to be delivering accurate technical information. For example, there's no WAY an F720 has 500 GB of usable space. Out of the box, with default snap reserve, it barely has 300 GB, where GB == 2^30, which is what client based tools (such as df and the `Properties' box in Windows) use, not 10^9, which is what (overzealous) disk vendors use. The usuable capacity of an F720 is trivial to calculate: 14 x 36 GB disks, utilised as: 1 hot spare, 1 parity, 12 data disks Each data disk has 24840 MB usable, calculated as: 34500 megabytes (rightsized by OnTAP) - 10% wafl overhead (is this 8% in OnTAP 6.x?) - 20% snap reserve (default; but often reduced to 10%) = 24840 megabytes So, 12 x 24840 = 298080 MB = ~ 291 GB Tweaking the numbers to 8% wafl overhead (from OnTAP 6) and 10% snap reserve gives an F720 approximately 334 GB of space (from 500 GB `raw'). Based on the info Lance White gives above, an F85 with 36 GB drives, consisting of 15 data disks, 1 hot spare, 2 parity, 8% wafl overhead, 10% snap reserve would have a usuable capacity at the client of: 15 x (34500 - 8% - 10%) = 15 x 28556 = 428490 MB = 418 GB 418 GB is a bit less than the ``648 GB MAX storage'' that Lance quotes above. In general, take away approximately one third of the raw capacity that NetApp quote and that will give you an guestimate on the usuable capacity that will suit most client's needs. Luke. PS: I'm sure some people have seen or heard this rant before :) Disclaimer: I like NetApp. I worked at NetApp for a while as an SE. I just believe in being honest to the technical people you're selling to, especially those who have to justify to their management why the (not cheap) 500 GB box they bought ran out of space at 300 GB. -- Luke Mewburn <lukem(a)wasabisystems.com> http://www.wasabisystems.com Luke Mewburn <lukem(a)netbsd.org> http://www.netbsd.org Wasabi Systems - providing NetBSD sales, support and services.

1 0

F85 series
by Clawson, Simon 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

Has anyone had any experince with the F85? Does it use the same disks as the 700 & 800's? Is it possible to back it up via NDMP? What are its limitations? Simon Simon Clawson HDS Team Systems Administrator Mentor Graphics Uk Rivergate London Road Newbury Berkshire RG14 2QB <<Clawson, Simon.vcf>>

1 0

Budtool 4.6.1Cannot Create File History
by Kenny Henderson 19 Feb '01

19 Feb '01

I have two Netapp 760s for which I use Budtool 4.6.1 to backup the filer's data. We have been running into a problem in which Budtool does not create a file history associated with a backup of the filers volumes. The backup reports that it completed successfully with the exception of not having created a file history. Without the backup file history the backup is more or less useless. Budtool reports the following error message after a scheduled backup of the filer has completed: "Error writing to file history command: Error code = -1" I have attempted to correct this problem by increasing the file history timeout as suggested by Legato's TechDialog support web site but the problem still exists. While examining the goserver diag log I found the following error message which is repeated throughout the diag log until the backup finishes: "L01 (:logfilter.c:310) 01/17/01 02:22:48> Unknown type 4d2 in dump image " The following associated error message was found throughout the goserver filer log: ****************************************************************** filter~header 2fh 2540 ------ E R R O R ------- filter~header 2fh 2541 Unknown type 4d2 in dump image filter~header 2fh 2542 ****************************************************************** It looks as though budtool receives a data type that it does not recognize and goes south as far as creating a file history log. I attempted to pull the file history off of one of the backup tapes put received the same "unknown type 4d2" error message. Any assistance with this problem would be greatly appreciated. Kenny Henderson henderka(a)risc.sps.mot.com

1 0

Budtool 4.6.1 Cannot Create File History
by Kenny Henderson 19 Feb '01

19 Feb '01

1 0

What backup products to use?
by Schepers, Jan 19 Feb '01

19 Feb '01

Hello gang, what exact backup products do I need to use to backup a NetApp filer. I'm interested in either : - Veritas's netbackup - Workstation Solutions Quick Restore - Legato's Netbackup rgds, Yann

1 0

RE: F720 vs. F520?
by White, Lance 19 Feb '01

19 Feb '01

To add to this, the F520 has single-ended disks, while the current supported SCSI adapters (for disk) is differential. The F520's SE card is not officially supported in an F720. Might work, but not supported. Lance -----Original Message----- From: Bond, Andrew [mailto:abond@netapp.com] Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 4:10 AM To: Jim Davis Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: F720 vs. F520? Jim, The numbers are available on the SPEC website www.spec.org. However, there are no directly comparable figures since the F520 was tested using SFS93 and the F720 using SFS97. I did some analysis of the relationship for another customer, and concluded that the F720 should have about 50% faster response time, and slightly higher maximum throughput. It also supports more storage capacity, at 500GB versus 250GB (raw capacity). You should talk to your local NetApp Sales Engineer regarding carrying the shelves over; it is possible, but has some restrictions. Regards, Andrew > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Davis [mailto:jdavis@cs.arizona.edu] > Sent: 12 February 2001 22:06 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: F720 vs. F520? > > > We're looking to replace a couple of F520s with something newer (ie, > something we can get a support contract with). Neither F520 > system seems > stressed for CPU or NVRAM or physical memory, and we'd like > to have the > option of carrying over the current disk shelves if at all > possible. The > F700 spec sheet lists a "Relative Performance" number ("NFS > Ops per sec. > under 10 msec.) for the F720; is there a figure for the F520 somewhere > too? >

1 0

RE: F720 vs. F520?
by Bond, Andrew 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

Jim, The numbers are available on the SPEC website www.spec.org. However, there are no directly comparable figures since the F520 was tested using SFS93 and the F720 using SFS97. I did some analysis of the relationship for another customer, and concluded that the F720 should have about 50% faster response time, and slightly higher maximum throughput. It also supports more storage capacity, at 500GB versus 250GB (raw capacity). You should talk to your local NetApp Sales Engineer regarding carrying the shelves over; it is possible, but has some restrictions. Regards, Andrew > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Davis [mailto:jdavis@cs.arizona.edu] > Sent: 12 February 2001 22:06 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: F720 vs. F520? > > > We're looking to replace a couple of F520s with something newer (ie, > something we can get a support contract with). Neither F520 > system seems > stressed for CPU or NVRAM or physical memory, and we'd like > to have the > option of carrying over the current disk shelves if at all > possible. The > F700 spec sheet lists a "Relative Performance" number ("NFS > Ops per sec. > under 10 msec.) for the F720; is there a figure for the F520 somewhere > too? >

1 0

RE: Replicating to filer
by Witham, John 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

When consolidating about 80G of group directories to a couple 760s, I used the NT ResKit's ROBOCOPY command. It was free, quick, and painless. Of course, it worked only because Administrators had full access to all the data. If you have locked yourself out of the directories, you may want to look at different software or doing a backup/restore. If you want to use RoboCopy, here's a sample command-line command-line: robocopy F:\Groups\IT Y:\ /V /S /E /SEC /NP /R:2 /W:2 /LOG:U:\IT.txt Description: The commmand is being run at the console of the NT File Server. F:\Groups\IT is the sourcedir, and Y:\ is mapped to the appropriate share on the filer. /V is Verbose /S is Subdirectories /E is Copy Empty Subdirectories /SEC is Copy NTFS permissions /NP is Don't Show Progress (Messes up when used with logging) /R:2 and /W:2 is retry twice and wait 2 seconds between retries /LOG:U:\IT.txt is dump logging to this location I manually had to stop and recreate shares. Not a big deal for ~15 group drives, but for ~1500 user shares, I'll be doomed. I'm looking at using the options cifs.homedirs but have had no time lately to play. Best of luck! -john John Witham Senior Data Networking Engineer Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc. V://847.383.3304 F://847.383.3205 mailto://jwitham@takedapharm.com -----Original Message----- From: Saklikar, Raj [mailto:Raj.Saklikar@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 1:05 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Cc: 'dmatarazzo(a)ftc.gov' Subject: Replicating to filer I'm attending a class and am sending this from the instructor's email--please reply to this account or dmatarazzo(a)ftc.gov We are going to consolidate 4 NT servers to the filer and are looking for something that will replicate and then synchronize the shares, user directories and permissions. We have tested Fastlane's DM/Consolidator and I'm wondering if anyone has successfully used this or knows of another product that will enable us to accomplish this. Thanks.

1 0

RE: Virus scans on NetApps and backups
by Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau 17 Feb '01

17 Feb '01

<< So, by turning ctime checking off you will "only" lose the changed permissions, uid/gid of a file. It's up to the user to decide how comfortable they are with that setup. >> Does this apply to CIFS permissions as well as unix permissions? Or does changing CIFS permissions change the mtime? (btw, for us windoze folks, could someone explain what mtime and ctime are?) Thanks, MD -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Manley [mailto:stephen@netapp.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 11:44 AM To: scl(a)sasha.acc.virginia.edu Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Virus scans on NetApps and backups > 8) Netapp's NDMP dump has an option to ignore ctime. I don't think this > is a good idea because this causes dump to skip files that really > should be dumped. If you rename a file, change its owner/group, > or change its permissions, you probably want that change > reflected in a dump. But these operations only trip ctime, not > mtime. Also, if you read files from a tar or zip archive, the > old mtimes are preserved, so dump may skip these files. Steve -- One quick note. Starting in the 6.0 version of Ontap, incremental dumps will detect when new files are added to a tree and back those up as well -- even if the mtime is set back to an old date. Furthermore, renaming a file actually changes the directory. You have to remove an entry and add an entry. This changes the mtime on the directory (or directories if you move from one dir to another). Thus, dump has always captured the changed names. So, by turning ctime checking off you will "only" lose the changed permissions, uid/gid of a file. It's up to the user to decide how comfortable they are with that setup. Stephen Manley DAM and NDMP Groundhog P.S. As an example of what I mean by the renames, check out the examples below cherryhill:/u/stephen/foobar(22) ls -lm total 8 drwxrwxr-x 2 stephen 4096 Jan 31 08:35 testdir drwxrwxr-x 2 stephen 4096 Jan 31 08:35 testdir2 cherryhill:/u/stephen/foobar(23) ls -lm testdir total 0 -rw-rw-r-- 1 stephen 0 Jan 31 08:35 old_name cherryhill:/u/stephen/foobar(24) mv testdir/old_name testdir2/new_name cherryhill:/u/stephen/foobar(25) ls -lm total 8 drwxrwxr-x 2 stephen 4096 Jan 31 08:37 testdir drwxrwxr-x 2 stephen 4096 Jan 31 08:37 testdir2 cherryhill:/u/stephen/foobar(26) ls -lm testdir2/ total 0 -rw-rw-r-- 1 stephen 0 Jan 31 08:35 new_name As you can see - the file mtime hasn't changed, but the DIRECTORIES' mtimes HAVE changed. Thus, dump will capture the remove from testdir and the add to testdir2 cherryhill:/u/stephen/foobar(27) mv testdir2/new_name testdir2/really_new_name cherryhill:/u/stephen/foobar(28) ls -lm total 8 drwxrwxr-x 2 stephen 4096 Jan 31 08:37 testdir drwxrwxr-x 2 stephen 4096 Jan 31 08:39 testdir2 cherryhill:/u/stephen/foobar(29) ls -lm testdir2/ total 0 -rw-rw-r-- 1 stephen 0 Jan 31 08:35 really_new_name Once again, by renaming the file within the directory, the file's mtime stays unchanged, but the DIRECTORY'S mtime is updated.

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