toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

NetApp 36gb disks - $995.00; 18gb disks - $675.00
by ScottUCE＠aol.com 16 Feb '01

16 Feb '01

We have the following "individual" (not in shelves) NetApp drives in stock: Qty 13 36gb FC-AL disk 995.00@ Qty 7 18gb FC-AL disk 675.00@ We can also offer most other NetApp drives and shelves, as well as other used NetApp add-ons/upgrades and/or complete systems, at even greater savings; please call for pricing and availability. Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, MN 55436 Phone: 952 935 7282 www.unioncomputer.com

1 0

RE: LCD panel question / login prompt question
by Reger, Brad 16 Feb '01

16 Feb '01

I know it's not quite as good, but are you aware that you can slip a piece of paper into the clear plastic near the LCD panel? There's a piece of clear plastic on the bezel that covers the LCD, and also covers a small area of bezel plastic *under* the LCD. If you take the bezel off, you can then slip a piece of paper in the area from the back of the bezel. It's not as good as doing it through software, but it's probably better than a sticky label or something taped on the outside (that will invariably get knocked off or messed up in some other way). (on 700 and 800 series machines) Brad. -----Original Message----- From: Jay Soffian Is there any way to display the filer hostname on the LCD panel on the F700/F800 filers running DOT 5.3.5R2 and above? If not, is there any way I can force my own message via an rc_toggle_basic command? (I'm aware of the various led_FOO commands, but these all appear to be to manipulate the shelf LED's, not the head display LED).

1 0

NDMP to legato
by Peter D. Gray 16 Feb '01

16 Feb '01

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.

1 0

LCD panel question / login prompt question
by Jay Soffian 16 Feb '01

16 Feb '01

Is there any way to display the filer hostname on the LCD panel on the F700/F800 filers running DOT 5.3.5R2 and above? If not, is there any way I can force my own message via an rc_toggle_basic command? (I'm aware of the various led_FOO commands, but these all appear to be to manipulate the shelf LED's, not the head display LED). Also - is there anyway to manipulate the serial console login prompt? I'm looking for something more meaningful than - Password: Perhaps <filer_name> Password: Thanks. j.

1 0

RE: ntfs qtrees
by Muhlestein, Mark 15 Feb '01

15 Feb '01

This is described in the link I gave you. For example, at http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/conc epts.shtml there is a section titled "Display Permissions vs. Effective Permissions" which answers your question about the "fake" permissions. Also from the FAQ "How do I tell the security style of a file?": http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/faq. shtml#anchor1390093 Also you'll want to look at the next question "What are these weird Unix perms". If you have further questions please let us know. Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 3:08 PM > To: Muhlestein, Mark > Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com'; Curt Huyser > Subject: Re: ntfs qtrees > > > well, i have read every white paper and still have a couple > of questions. > > i copied the user hierarchy from our sun box to the filer > maintaining the unix > perms. > the target on the filer was a qtree with unix sec style. > > i just changed the sec style from unix to ntfs. when i look > at the ntfs perms > on the ntfs qtree they look okay. i used both nt explorer > and some cmd line > utils i have. > > my question at this point is are these permissions "fake." > is there any way to to tell? just the "has acl" box in > secureshare tool? > are they still unix perms and synthesized until i actually > create acls? > does it matter?? > should i run thru the structure and create acl's? or can it wait... > > also, i noted that user's sub directories have r-x for > everyone. that is being > picked up from the unix perms for other. which did not matter > in nfs because > access could not get past the home dir perms which only gave > rights to the > owner. > however, if i am in nt explorer as as normal [non-privileged] > user i can see all > the users directories, but cannot enter them by clicking in > [which is the way we > want it]. however, i can cd into the lower level directories > from a cmd line. > do i correct this by correcting the acls, or is there a > traverse restriction i > remember from somewhere? > > i'm sure there is something i'm forgetting to ask. > > thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > "Muhlestein, Mark" wrote: > > > > When an NTFS qtree is set up, the qtree directory gets an > ACL which grants > > the Everyone group Full Control. If the qtree had > previously been Unix or > > mixed, it might not have ACLs on every file/dir in it. Any > files that don't > > have ACLs will still use the Unix security when checking > access. This is > > explained fully in the security troubleshooter guide on NOW: > > > > > http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubl > eshooting/ > > > > Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] > > > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 9:07 AM > > > To: toasters > > > Subject: ntfs qtrees > > > > > > > > > hi, > > > > > > we are migrating our files from sun/NFS to filer/cifs. i > > > have clustered f760's > > > running ontap 5.36r2. for testing the data is copied over > > > using cpio and the > > > unix perms are maintained. > > > > > > i found the note shown below on page 421 of the Ontap SAG. > > > i find it confusing and a little contradictory -- every > > > windows user is given > > > full access, but if you don't set ntfs file sec then unix > > > perms are enforced? > > > > > > "Note > > > When you create an NTFS qtree or change a qtree to NTFS, by > > > default, every > > > Windows user is given full access. You must change the > > > permissions if you want > > > to restrict access to the qtree for some users. If you do not > > > set NTFS file > > > security > > > on a file, UNIX permissions are enforced." > > > > > > could someone please clear this up? what if the unix perms > > > say no?? is this > > > just written poorly? > > > > > > thanks. > > > -- > > > > > > > > > regards > > > > > -- > > > regards > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > + Neil Lehrer > + > + United States International Broadcasting Bureau > + System Development Division > + > + voice 202 619-2524 > + fax 202 619-3576 > + nlehrer(a)ibb.gov > + > + " is this crisis an opportunity or just > + another grab the fire extinguisher moment?" > + > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >

1 0

RE: ntfs qtrees
by Muhlestein, Mark 15 Feb '01

15 Feb '01

When an NTFS qtree is set up, the qtree directory gets an ACL which grants the Everyone group Full Control. If the qtree had previously been Unix or mixed, it might not have ACLs on every file/dir in it. Any files that don't have ACLs will still use the Unix security when checking access. This is explained fully in the security troubleshooter guide on NOW: http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 9:07 AM > To: toasters > Subject: ntfs qtrees > > > hi, > > we are migrating our files from sun/NFS to filer/cifs. i > have clustered f760's > running ontap 5.36r2. for testing the data is copied over > using cpio and the > unix perms are maintained. > > i found the note shown below on page 421 of the Ontap SAG. > i find it confusing and a little contradictory -- every > windows user is given > full access, but if you don't set ntfs file sec then unix > perms are enforced? > > "Note > When you create an NTFS qtree or change a qtree to NTFS, by > default, every > Windows user is given full access. You must change the > permissions if you want > to restrict access to the qtree for some users. If you do not > set NTFS file > security > on a file, UNIX permissions are enforced." > > could someone please clear this up? what if the unix perms > say no?? is this > just written poorly? > > thanks. > -- > > > regards >

2 1

Replicating to filer
by Saklikar, Raj 15 Feb '01

15 Feb '01

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: Mounting the root vol
by Yoder, Alan 14 Feb '01

14 Feb '01

> I want to take a look at the SecureShare Quota Manager. Problem is my > filer admin host is a UNIX box and I can't figure out how to mount the > root vol on my Win 2000 box. > > Is it possible? If so, how? > net use * \\filer\c$ See http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ if that doesn't work. If you still can't figure it out from there, please open a call with Customer Support. Alan =============================================================== Alan G. Yoder agy(a)netapp.com Network Appliance, Inc. Sunnyvale, CA 408-822-6919 ===============================================================

1 0

Mounting the root vol
by Chuck Ross 14 Feb '01

14 Feb '01

Hello, I want to take a look at the SecureShare Quota Manager. Problem is my filer admin host is a UNIX box and I can't figure out how to mount the root vol on my Win 2000 box. Is it possible? If so, how? Thanks Chuck Ross SIGNIANT - A Nortel Networks Venture 1550 Carling Avenue, Suite 101 Ottawa, ON K1Z 8S8 email: Chuck.Ross(a)signiant.com tel: (613) 761-3605 fax: (613) 761-3629

1 0

Man page for na_dump missing
by Chris Thompson 14 Feb '01

14 Feb '01

Has anyone else noticed that the man page for na_dump(1) is missing from the ONTAP 6.0.1R1 tar file (both in etc/man/man1 and in etc/http/man/man1)? It was still there in 6.0R1. I hope this is is just an oversight and not a surreptitious attempt to remove the command! :-) na_restore(1) and na_dumpdates(5) are still there and refer one to na_dump(1). Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1(a)ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG, Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.

1 0

Re: File deletion problem
by Rune Bakken 13 Feb '01

13 Feb '01

neil lehrer <nlehrer(a)ibb.gov> writes: > shouldn't rc_toggle_basic commands be documented on NOW? it is restricted > access and i don't remember discussing "lock_dump -f" in my netapp classes. It was discussed and used in the Ontap Advanced class, atleast the docs included the rc_toggle_basic commands >>>>>>>>>>.rune -- Rune Bakken "I feel sorry for people who don't drink. System Administrator When they wake up in the morning, that's as Nextra, good as they're going to feel all day." - Telenor Company - Frank Sinatra

1 0

Re: File deletion problem
by neil lehrer 13 Feb '01

13 Feb '01

shouldn't rc_toggle_basic commands be documented on NOW? it is restricted access and i don't remember discussing "lock_dump -f" in my netapp classes. "Clawson, Simon" wrote: > > Wow - easy as that.. > > Thanks Eyal, that did the trick and we sorted the issue. > > I can see why these commands are slightly mystical though. It would be all > to easy to pick up the manual and start hammering away in rc_toggle_basic, > and you can really play around with things in there. The few useful snipets > I have learned are just that - useful in one situation, but quite dangerous > in another. > > Thanks again Eyal > > Simon > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Traitel, Eyal [mailto:eyal@netapp.com] > > Sent: 13 February 2001 15:36 > > To: 'Chris Thompson'; Traitel, Eyal > > Cc: nlehrer(a)ibb.gov; simon_clawson > > Subject: RE: File deletion problem > > > > > > I agree. > > We do not publish all commands, but my answer was not kind of > > RTFM, but more > > a specific answer to the question... > > > > I hope it helps... > > > > You can always open support cases, so don't count on toasters > > answers if > > this is a must-be-answered issues. > > > > > > 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: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:14 PM > > To: eyal(a)netapp.com > > Cc: nlehrer(a)ibb.gov; simon_clawson(a)mentorg.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: Re: File deletion problem > > > > > > Eyal Traitel <eyal(a)netapp.com> writes: > > > > > > > From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] > > [...] > > > > what is lock_dump -f? > > > > > > From its man page: > > > > > > NAME > > > lock_dump - print lock records organized by client or by > > host (ADVANCED) > > > > > > SYNOPSIS > > > lock_dump [ -f | -h ] > > > > > > DESCRIPTION > > > lock_dump prints NLM lock records organized either by file, > > or by host. > > > > > > OPTIONS > > > -f Prints lock records organized by file. > > > -h Prints lock records organized by host. > > > > This might be read as a sotto voce form of "RTFM"... But, of > > course, few > > people outside NetApp will have seen these man pages for the commands > > hidden behind rc_toggle_basic. They aren't distributed with > > ONTAP, and > > they aren't visible at NOW. > > > > Chris Thompson University of Cambridge > > Computing Service, > > Email: cet1(a)ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG, > > Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom. > > -- regards +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Neil Lehrer + + United States International Broadcasting Bureau + System Development Division + + voice 202 619-2524 + fax 202 619-3576 + nlehrer(a)ibb.gov + + " is this crisis an opportunity or just + another grab the fire extinguisher moment?" + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 0

RE: File deletion problem
by Traitel, Eyal 13 Feb '01

13 Feb '01

>From its man page: NAME lock_dump - print lock records organized by client or by host (ADVANCED) SYNOPSIS lock_dump [ -f | -h ] DESCRIPTION lock_dump prints NLM lock records organized either by file, or by host. OPTIONS -f Prints lock records organized by file. -h Prints lock records organized by host. 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: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 1:02 AM To: Traitel, Eyal Cc: 'Clawson, Simon'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: File deletion problem what is lock_dump -f? "Traitel, Eyal" wrote: > > Short suggestions might be: > > 1. use lock_dump -f > 2. Check if file has CIFS ACL ?!? > > 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: Clawson, Simon [mailto:simon_clawson@mentorg.com] > Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 11:12 AM > To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: File deletion problem > > Hi! > > I have a file in a directory on the NetApps. I would like to delete it, but > get permission deined every time I attempt to. The file is visible on UNIX, > can be opened and modified. I have CHMOD'd it to 777, CHOWN'd it to root and > still cannot remove it. The directory is writable, as I can create and > delete files within it. Is there a way to check who is accesing a file on > the NetApps? Is it possible that there is a lock on this file, that I can > munually break? > > Simon > > Simon Clawson > HDS Team Systems Administrator > Mentor Graphics Uk > Rivergate > London Road > Newbury > Berkshire > RG14 2QB > <<Clawson, Simon.vcf>> --

3 2

RE: File deletion problem
by Traitel, Eyal 13 Feb '01

13 Feb '01

Short suggestions might be: 1. use lock_dump -f 2. Check if file has CIFS ACL ?!? 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: Clawson, Simon [mailto:simon_clawson@mentorg.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 11:12 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: File deletion problem Hi! I have a file in a directory on the NetApps. I would like to delete it, but get permission deined every time I attempt to. The file is visible on UNIX, can be opened and modified. I have CHMOD'd it to 777, CHOWN'd it to root and still cannot remove it. The directory is writable, as I can create and delete files within it. Is there a way to check who is accesing a file on the NetApps? Is it possible that there is a lock on this file, that I can munually break? Simon Simon Clawson HDS Team Systems Administrator Mentor Graphics Uk Rivergate London Road Newbury Berkshire RG14 2QB <<Clawson, Simon.vcf>>

3 2

remove
by Max Chan 13 Feb '01

13 Feb '01

Dear all, how can i remove from toaster list Max

1 0

RE: Recovered Error
by Maximus Moua 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

Sorry I left two pieces of information out. The error existed in Ontap 5.3.4r2 and still occurs after upgrading to Ontap 5.3.6r2. I regret not replacing the LRC the last down when I replaced the FCAL components. Max. -----Original Message----- From: Knight, Jason [mailto:Jason.Knight@citadelgroup.com] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 6:29 AM To: 'Levent Kaptanoglu'; Knight, Jason Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Recovered Error Levent, It is normal (or at least not unusual) to see disk errors during a RAID SCRUB, RAID SCRUB is looking for bad media. If you start seeing these errors occur several times a day and on the same disk when the system is not performing a RAID SCRUB then you might consider failing the disk at a convenient time and RMA'ing it if you have enough spares, but you should talk with NetApp support first. Jason Knight -----Original Message----- From: Levent Kaptanoglu [mailto:lkaptan@pro-link.net] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 7:35 AM To: Knight, Jason Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Recovered Error I have the same error Could you find any solution ? ===== MESSAGES ===== Sun Feb 11 00:00:04 EET [asup_main]: System Notification mail sent Sun Feb 11 01:00:00 EET [statd]: 1:00am up 17 days, 16:39 1421477327 NFS ops, 6827 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 01:00:00 EET [raid_scrub_admin]: Beginning disk scrubbing... Sun Feb 11 01:23:28 EET [CIFSAuthen]: CIFS - machine password changed on DC \\MYNETDC1 Sun Feb 11 02:00:00 EET [statd]: 2:00am up 17 days, 17:39 1423199759 NFS ops, 6829 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 03:00:00 EET [statd]: 3:00am up 17 days, 18:39 1424335238 NFS ops, 6829 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 03:05:12 EET [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.2(0xfffffc0000caa4c8): op 0x28:016cf560:0080 sector 23917993 recovered error - (1 17, 1) Sun Feb 11 04:00:00 EET [statd]: 4:00am up 17 days, 19:39 1424889672 NFS ops, 6829 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 05:00:00 EET [statd]: 5:00am up 17 days, 20:38 1425181655 NFS ops, 6829 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 05:45:45 EET [consumer]: Scrub found 0 parity inconsistencies Sun Feb 11 05:45:45 EET [consumer]: Scrub found 0 media errors Sun Feb 11 05:45:45 EET [consumer]: Disk scrubbing finished... -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]On Behalf Of Knight, Jason Sent: 10 Þubat 2001 Cumartesi 18:27 To: 'Eff Norwood'; Maximus Moua; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Recovered Error Have you replaced the LRC? An LRC going bad can show up as disk errors. Jason Knight -----Original Message----- From: Eff Norwood [mailto:eff@cynaptic.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 8:15 PM To: Maximus Moua; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Recovered Error What release of ONTAP are you running? Effrem Norwood ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maximus Moua" <maximus(a)saba.com> To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 10:14 AM Subject: Recovered Error > Hi All, > > I recently acquired a filer F720 with 36 G shelf which exibited a sector > error in the Message log. I have tried swapping drives, replacing FCAL > controller, cable and terminator. The problem occurs on all the data > drives, except the spare, during heavy disk activity such as disk scrubbing > but less frequently and randomly even when disk activity should be minimal. > NetApp tells me this is a soft error and does not warrant concern but I > wonder if any of you have experience this and can assure me to leave this > one alone. > > Thanks, > > -Max > > Wed Feb 7 19:26:45 PST [raid_disk_admin]: Spare disk 1.4 (S/N > 680A845B1K) has been added to the system. > Wed Feb 7 19:33:46 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cbbcb8): op > 0x28:00529380:0080 sector 5411723 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 19:41:51 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cbb978): op > 0x28:00a79900:0080 sector 10983747 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:00:00 PST [statd]: 8:00pm up 12 days, 29 mins, 3 NFS ops, > 48398305 CIFS ops, 810 HTTP ops > Wed Feb 7 20:16:35 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.0(0xfffffc0000cade18): op > 0x28:020c22c0:0080 sector 34349865 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 20:17:56 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.5(0xfffffc0000cc1e38): op > 0x28:021a93c0:0080 sector 35296301 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:18:52 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cc7ad8): op > 0x28:02249240:0080 sector 35951273 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:20:51 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.5(0xfffffc0000cd6cf8): op > 0x28:0239ed40:0080 sector 37350752 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:25:13 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.0(0xfffffc0000ca6298): op > 0x28:02692bc0:0080 sector 40447008 recovered error - (1 16, 0) > Wed Feb 7 20:44:04 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cb8718): op > 0x28:033932c0:0080 sector 54080224 recovered error - (1 17, 7) > Wed Feb 7 20:49:34 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cb3df8): op > 0x28:0378e938:0080 sector 58255736 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 21:00:00 PST [statd]: 9:00pm up 12 days, 1:29 3 NFS ops, > 48418877 CIFS ops, 810 HTTP ops > Wed Feb 7 21:03:25 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000ca99d8): op > 0x28:041f4af0:0080 sector 69159705 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 21:04:13 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000ca5c18): op > 0x28:04289df0:0080 sector 69770779 recovered error - (1 17, 7) > Wed Feb 7 21:32:53 PST [consumer]: Reconstruction of data disk in volume > vol0, RAID group 0, complete. >

2 1

Crashing netcache and retrieval of core-file
by Rune Bakken 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

I seem to be unable to retrieve the core-file that NetApp support wants me to send, as my (borrowed) netcache C720 keeps booting when starting the netcache software. I have no problem booting without rc, but then again I have no solution to how to get the core file. I am running NetCache 5.0D14 Anyone with a solution to how to get the core-file? FYI: This is the PANIC message I receive, just in case someone else has seen this. PANIC: MM fault MMCSR=1, type=0, VA=0x61fcf7fff, PC=0xfffffc00005783a0, RA=0xfffffc0000700d90 in process sthread_loop on release NetApp Release 5.0D14 on Mon Feb 12 11:11:28 2001 >>>>>>>>>>>>.rune -- Rune Bakken "I feel sorry for people who don't drink. System Administrator When they wake up in the morning, that's as Nextra, good as they're going to feel all day." - Telenor Company - Frank Sinatra

2 1

ntfs qtrees
by neil lehrer 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

hi, we are migrating our files from sun/NFS to filer/cifs. i have clustered f760's running ontap 5.36r2. for testing the data is copied over using cpio and the unix perms are maintained. i found the note shown below on page 421 of the Ontap SAG. i find it confusing and a little contradictory -- every windows user is given full access, but if you don't set ntfs file sec then unix perms are enforced? "Note When you create an NTFS qtree or change a qtree to NTFS, by default, every Windows user is given full access. You must change the permissions if you want to restrict access to the qtree for some users. If you do not set NTFS file security on a file, UNIX permissions are enforced." could someone please clear this up? what if the unix perms say no?? is this just written poorly? thanks. -- regards

1 0

I NEVER ASKED FOR BEEING ON THIS MAILING LIST
by Cour, Didier 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

remove me immediatly from that list d-cour(a)ti.com -----Original Message----- From: Knight, Jason [mailto:Jason.Knight@citadelgroup.com] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 3:29 PM To: 'Levent Kaptanoglu'; Knight, Jason Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Recovered Error Levent, It is normal (or at least not unusual) to see disk errors during a RAID SCRUB, RAID SCRUB is looking for bad media. If you start seeing these errors occur several times a day and on the same disk when the system is not performing a RAID SCRUB then you might consider failing the disk at a convenient time and RMA'ing it if you have enough spares, but you should talk with NetApp support first. Jason Knight -----Original Message----- From: Levent Kaptanoglu [mailto:lkaptan@pro-link.net] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 7:35 AM To: Knight, Jason Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Recovered Error I have the same error Could you find any solution ? ===== MESSAGES ===== Sun Feb 11 00:00:04 EET [asup_main]: System Notification mail sent Sun Feb 11 01:00:00 EET [statd]: 1:00am up 17 days, 16:39 1421477327 NFS ops, 6827 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 01:00:00 EET [raid_scrub_admin]: Beginning disk scrubbing... Sun Feb 11 01:23:28 EET [CIFSAuthen]: CIFS - machine password changed on DC \\MYNETDC1 Sun Feb 11 02:00:00 EET [statd]: 2:00am up 17 days, 17:39 1423199759 NFS ops, 6829 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 03:00:00 EET [statd]: 3:00am up 17 days, 18:39 1424335238 NFS ops, 6829 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 03:05:12 EET [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.2(0xfffffc0000caa4c8): op 0x28:016cf560:0080 sector 23917993 recovered error - (1 17, 1) Sun Feb 11 04:00:00 EET [statd]: 4:00am up 17 days, 19:39 1424889672 NFS ops, 6829 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 05:00:00 EET [statd]: 5:00am up 17 days, 20:38 1425181655 NFS ops, 6829 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 05:45:45 EET [consumer]: Scrub found 0 parity inconsistencies Sun Feb 11 05:45:45 EET [consumer]: Scrub found 0 media errors Sun Feb 11 05:45:45 EET [consumer]: Disk scrubbing finished... -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]On Behalf Of Knight, Jason Sent: 10 Þubat 2001 Cumartesi 18:27 To: 'Eff Norwood'; Maximus Moua; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Recovered Error Have you replaced the LRC? An LRC going bad can show up as disk errors. Jason Knight -----Original Message----- From: Eff Norwood [mailto:eff@cynaptic.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 8:15 PM To: Maximus Moua; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Recovered Error What release of ONTAP are you running? Effrem Norwood ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maximus Moua" <maximus(a)saba.com> To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 10:14 AM Subject: Recovered Error > Hi All, > > I recently acquired a filer F720 with 36 G shelf which exibited a sector > error in the Message log. I have tried swapping drives, replacing FCAL > controller, cable and terminator. The problem occurs on all the data > drives, except the spare, during heavy disk activity such as disk scrubbing > but less frequently and randomly even when disk activity should be minimal. > NetApp tells me this is a soft error and does not warrant concern but I > wonder if any of you have experience this and can assure me to leave this > one alone. > > Thanks, > > -Max > > Wed Feb 7 19:26:45 PST [raid_disk_admin]: Spare disk 1.4 (S/N > 680A845B1K) has been added to the system. > Wed Feb 7 19:33:46 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cbbcb8): op > 0x28:00529380:0080 sector 5411723 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 19:41:51 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cbb978): op > 0x28:00a79900:0080 sector 10983747 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:00:00 PST [statd]: 8:00pm up 12 days, 29 mins, 3 NFS ops, > 48398305 CIFS ops, 810 HTTP ops > Wed Feb 7 20:16:35 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.0(0xfffffc0000cade18): op > 0x28:020c22c0:0080 sector 34349865 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 20:17:56 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.5(0xfffffc0000cc1e38): op > 0x28:021a93c0:0080 sector 35296301 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:18:52 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cc7ad8): op > 0x28:02249240:0080 sector 35951273 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:20:51 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.5(0xfffffc0000cd6cf8): op > 0x28:0239ed40:0080 sector 37350752 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:25:13 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.0(0xfffffc0000ca6298): op > 0x28:02692bc0:0080 sector 40447008 recovered error - (1 16, 0) > Wed Feb 7 20:44:04 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cb8718): op > 0x28:033932c0:0080 sector 54080224 recovered error - (1 17, 7) > Wed Feb 7 20:49:34 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cb3df8): op > 0x28:0378e938:0080 sector 58255736 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 21:00:00 PST [statd]: 9:00pm up 12 days, 1:29 3 NFS ops, > 48418877 CIFS ops, 810 HTTP ops > Wed Feb 7 21:03:25 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000ca99d8): op > 0x28:041f4af0:0080 sector 69159705 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 21:04:13 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000ca5c18): op > 0x28:04289df0:0080 sector 69770779 recovered error - (1 17, 7) > Wed Feb 7 21:32:53 PST [consumer]: Reconstruction of data disk in volume > vol0, RAID group 0, complete. >

1 0

RE: Recovered Error
by Knight, Jason 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

Levent, It is normal (or at least not unusual) to see disk errors during a RAID SCRUB, RAID SCRUB is looking for bad media. If you start seeing these errors occur several times a day and on the same disk when the system is not performing a RAID SCRUB then you might consider failing the disk at a convenient time and RMA'ing it if you have enough spares, but you should talk with NetApp support first. Jason Knight -----Original Message----- From: Levent Kaptanoglu [mailto:lkaptan@pro-link.net] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 7:35 AM To: Knight, Jason Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Recovered Error I have the same error Could you find any solution ? ===== MESSAGES ===== Sun Feb 11 00:00:04 EET [asup_main]: System Notification mail sent Sun Feb 11 01:00:00 EET [statd]: 1:00am up 17 days, 16:39 1421477327 NFS ops, 6827 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 01:00:00 EET [raid_scrub_admin]: Beginning disk scrubbing... Sun Feb 11 01:23:28 EET [CIFSAuthen]: CIFS - machine password changed on DC \\MYNETDC1 Sun Feb 11 02:00:00 EET [statd]: 2:00am up 17 days, 17:39 1423199759 NFS ops, 6829 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 03:00:00 EET [statd]: 3:00am up 17 days, 18:39 1424335238 NFS ops, 6829 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 03:05:12 EET [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.2(0xfffffc0000caa4c8): op 0x28:016cf560:0080 sector 23917993 recovered error - (1 17, 1) Sun Feb 11 04:00:00 EET [statd]: 4:00am up 17 days, 19:39 1424889672 NFS ops, 6829 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 05:00:00 EET [statd]: 5:00am up 17 days, 20:38 1425181655 NFS ops, 6829 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 05:45:45 EET [consumer]: Scrub found 0 parity inconsistencies Sun Feb 11 05:45:45 EET [consumer]: Scrub found 0 media errors Sun Feb 11 05:45:45 EET [consumer]: Disk scrubbing finished... -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]On Behalf Of Knight, Jason Sent: 10 Þubat 2001 Cumartesi 18:27 To: 'Eff Norwood'; Maximus Moua; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Recovered Error Have you replaced the LRC? An LRC going bad can show up as disk errors. Jason Knight -----Original Message----- From: Eff Norwood [mailto:eff@cynaptic.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 8:15 PM To: Maximus Moua; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Recovered Error What release of ONTAP are you running? Effrem Norwood ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maximus Moua" <maximus(a)saba.com> To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 10:14 AM Subject: Recovered Error > Hi All, > > I recently acquired a filer F720 with 36 G shelf which exibited a sector > error in the Message log. I have tried swapping drives, replacing FCAL > controller, cable and terminator. The problem occurs on all the data > drives, except the spare, during heavy disk activity such as disk scrubbing > but less frequently and randomly even when disk activity should be minimal. > NetApp tells me this is a soft error and does not warrant concern but I > wonder if any of you have experience this and can assure me to leave this > one alone. > > Thanks, > > -Max > > Wed Feb 7 19:26:45 PST [raid_disk_admin]: Spare disk 1.4 (S/N > 680A845B1K) has been added to the system. > Wed Feb 7 19:33:46 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cbbcb8): op > 0x28:00529380:0080 sector 5411723 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 19:41:51 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cbb978): op > 0x28:00a79900:0080 sector 10983747 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:00:00 PST [statd]: 8:00pm up 12 days, 29 mins, 3 NFS ops, > 48398305 CIFS ops, 810 HTTP ops > Wed Feb 7 20:16:35 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.0(0xfffffc0000cade18): op > 0x28:020c22c0:0080 sector 34349865 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 20:17:56 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.5(0xfffffc0000cc1e38): op > 0x28:021a93c0:0080 sector 35296301 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:18:52 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cc7ad8): op > 0x28:02249240:0080 sector 35951273 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:20:51 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.5(0xfffffc0000cd6cf8): op > 0x28:0239ed40:0080 sector 37350752 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:25:13 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.0(0xfffffc0000ca6298): op > 0x28:02692bc0:0080 sector 40447008 recovered error - (1 16, 0) > Wed Feb 7 20:44:04 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cb8718): op > 0x28:033932c0:0080 sector 54080224 recovered error - (1 17, 7) > Wed Feb 7 20:49:34 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cb3df8): op > 0x28:0378e938:0080 sector 58255736 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 21:00:00 PST [statd]: 9:00pm up 12 days, 1:29 3 NFS ops, > 48418877 CIFS ops, 810 HTTP ops > Wed Feb 7 21:03:25 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000ca99d8): op > 0x28:041f4af0:0080 sector 69159705 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 21:04:13 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000ca5c18): op > 0x28:04289df0:0080 sector 69770779 recovered error - (1 17, 7) > Wed Feb 7 21:32:53 PST [consumer]: Reconstruction of data disk in volume > vol0, RAID group 0, complete. >

1 0

RE: Recovered Error
by Knight, Jason 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

Have you replaced the LRC? An LRC going bad can show up as disk errors. Jason Knight -----Original Message----- From: Eff Norwood [mailto:eff@cynaptic.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 8:15 PM To: Maximus Moua; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Recovered Error What release of ONTAP are you running? Effrem Norwood ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maximus Moua" <maximus(a)saba.com> To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 10:14 AM Subject: Recovered Error > Hi All, > > I recently acquired a filer F720 with 36 G shelf which exibited a sector > error in the Message log. I have tried swapping drives, replacing FCAL > controller, cable and terminator. The problem occurs on all the data > drives, except the spare, during heavy disk activity such as disk scrubbing > but less frequently and randomly even when disk activity should be minimal. > NetApp tells me this is a soft error and does not warrant concern but I > wonder if any of you have experience this and can assure me to leave this > one alone. > > Thanks, > > -Max > > Wed Feb 7 19:26:45 PST [raid_disk_admin]: Spare disk 1.4 (S/N > 680A845B1K) has been added to the system. > Wed Feb 7 19:33:46 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cbbcb8): op > 0x28:00529380:0080 sector 5411723 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 19:41:51 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cbb978): op > 0x28:00a79900:0080 sector 10983747 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:00:00 PST [statd]: 8:00pm up 12 days, 29 mins, 3 NFS ops, > 48398305 CIFS ops, 810 HTTP ops > Wed Feb 7 20:16:35 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.0(0xfffffc0000cade18): op > 0x28:020c22c0:0080 sector 34349865 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 20:17:56 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.5(0xfffffc0000cc1e38): op > 0x28:021a93c0:0080 sector 35296301 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:18:52 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cc7ad8): op > 0x28:02249240:0080 sector 35951273 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:20:51 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.5(0xfffffc0000cd6cf8): op > 0x28:0239ed40:0080 sector 37350752 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:25:13 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.0(0xfffffc0000ca6298): op > 0x28:02692bc0:0080 sector 40447008 recovered error - (1 16, 0) > Wed Feb 7 20:44:04 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cb8718): op > 0x28:033932c0:0080 sector 54080224 recovered error - (1 17, 7) > Wed Feb 7 20:49:34 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cb3df8): op > 0x28:0378e938:0080 sector 58255736 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 21:00:00 PST [statd]: 9:00pm up 12 days, 1:29 3 NFS ops, > 48418877 CIFS ops, 810 HTTP ops > Wed Feb 7 21:03:25 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000ca99d8): op > 0x28:041f4af0:0080 sector 69159705 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 21:04:13 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000ca5c18): op > 0x28:04289df0:0080 sector 69770779 recovered error - (1 17, 7) > Wed Feb 7 21:32:53 PST [consumer]: Reconstruction of data disk in volume > vol0, RAID group 0, complete. >

2 1

Recovered Error
by Maximus Moua 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

Hi All, I recently acquired a filer F720 with 36 G shelf which exibited a sector error in the Message log. I have tried swapping drives, replacing FCAL controller, cable and terminator. The problem occurs on all the data drives, except the spare, during heavy disk activity such as disk scrubbing but less frequently and randomly even when disk activity should be minimal. NetApp tells me this is a soft error and does not warrant concern but I wonder if any of you have experience this and can assure me to leave this one alone. Thanks, -Max Wed Feb 7 19:26:45 PST [raid_disk_admin]: Spare disk 1.4 (S/N 680A845B1K) has been added to the system. Wed Feb 7 19:33:46 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cbbcb8): op 0x28:00529380:0080 sector 5411723 recovered error - (1 17, 3) Wed Feb 7 19:41:51 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cbb978): op 0x28:00a79900:0080 sector 10983747 recovered error - (1 17, 1) Wed Feb 7 20:00:00 PST [statd]: 8:00pm up 12 days, 29 mins, 3 NFS ops, 48398305 CIFS ops, 810 HTTP ops Wed Feb 7 20:16:35 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.0(0xfffffc0000cade18): op 0x28:020c22c0:0080 sector 34349865 recovered error - (1 17, 3) Wed Feb 7 20:17:56 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.5(0xfffffc0000cc1e38): op 0x28:021a93c0:0080 sector 35296301 recovered error - (1 17, 1) Wed Feb 7 20:18:52 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cc7ad8): op 0x28:02249240:0080 sector 35951273 recovered error - (1 17, 1) Wed Feb 7 20:20:51 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.5(0xfffffc0000cd6cf8): op 0x28:0239ed40:0080 sector 37350752 recovered error - (1 17, 1) Wed Feb 7 20:25:13 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.0(0xfffffc0000ca6298): op 0x28:02692bc0:0080 sector 40447008 recovered error - (1 16, 0) Wed Feb 7 20:44:04 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cb8718): op 0x28:033932c0:0080 sector 54080224 recovered error - (1 17, 7) Wed Feb 7 20:49:34 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cb3df8): op 0x28:0378e938:0080 sector 58255736 recovered error - (1 17, 1) Wed Feb 7 21:00:00 PST [statd]: 9:00pm up 12 days, 1:29 3 NFS ops, 48418877 CIFS ops, 810 HTTP ops Wed Feb 7 21:03:25 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000ca99d8): op 0x28:041f4af0:0080 sector 69159705 recovered error - (1 17, 3) Wed Feb 7 21:04:13 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000ca5c18): op 0x28:04289df0:0080 sector 69770779 recovered error - (1 17, 7) Wed Feb 7 21:32:53 PST [consumer]: Reconstruction of data disk in volume vol0, RAID group 0, complete.

2 1

remove
by Max Chan 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

Please remove me from the list. Thank you. Max

1 0

RE: legato
by Benn, Paul 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

Yes, that is correct. We also track the DOS "archive" bit on files with UNIX-style permissions. Paul Benn Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@Remedy.COM] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 2:38 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: legato Actually, I believe that if you want to preserve both CIFS and NFS acls (probably only relevant if you have shares in mixed or CIFS mode), then backing up over CIFS is supposed to preserve both the CIFS and NFS permissions. Backing up over NFS only saves the NFS permissions and you will likely lose CIFS ACLs when you restore. That's my understanding anyway. We back up over NFS here, but all my shares are in UNIX mode. -- 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: Benn, Paul [mailto:paul.benn@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 7:50 AM To: Melvin, Grant; 'Robert Alatorre'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: legato make that 5.... don't forget backup over CIFS by way of a UNC path. Granted, it's not the most desirable way to backup a filer with NetWorker but it can be done. :) Paul Benn Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Melvin, Grant [mailto:Grant.Melvin@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 7:54 PM To: 'Robert Alatorre'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: legatto Hi, Hope you don't mind me jumping in on this question. As I see it Legato currently provide 4 ways to backup a NetApp filer: 1. BudTool 2. NFS 3. NetWorker NetApp Client 4. NDMP-compliant NetWorker It would be interesting (to me at least) to hear experiences with each variant. Option 4 is essentially replacing option 1 since that option is being discontinued. Cheers, Grant =========== grant(a)netapp.com ========== Grant Melvin === === Software Development Manager === === Data Availability & Management === |\ | __ ___ /\ __ __ === Network Appliance === | \ | |__ | /__\ |__| |__| === 475 East Java Drive === | \| |__ | / \ | | (R) === Sunnyvale === === California, 94089 === === Tel:(408)822-6761 =========== Network Appliance ========== Fax:(408)822-4578 -----Original Message----- From: Robert Alatorre [mailto:ralatorre@aperian.com] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 2:08 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: legatto Anybody have any bad or good experience using legatto as backup for the net app filer? Bob Alatorre Systems Support Engineer Office 512-226-8753 Cell 512-658-9110 ralatorre(a)aperian.com > ******************* Internet Email Confidentiality Footer > ******************* > > Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or > responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not use, > copy, disclose or deliver this message to anyone. If you have received > this message in error, kindly notify the sender by reply email or at the > phone number listed above, and then delete this message. > > >

1 0

RE: legato
by Mike Sphar 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

Actually, I believe that if you want to preserve both CIFS and NFS acls (probably only relevant if you have shares in mixed or CIFS mode), then backing up over CIFS is supposed to preserve both the CIFS and NFS permissions. Backing up over NFS only saves the NFS permissions and you will likely lose CIFS ACLs when you restore. That's my understanding anyway. We back up over NFS here, but all my shares are in UNIX mode. -- 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: Benn, Paul [mailto:paul.benn@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 7:50 AM To: Melvin, Grant; 'Robert Alatorre'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: legato make that 5.... don't forget backup over CIFS by way of a UNC path. Granted, it's not the most desirable way to backup a filer with NetWorker but it can be done. :) Paul Benn Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Melvin, Grant [mailto:Grant.Melvin@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 7:54 PM To: 'Robert Alatorre'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: legatto Hi, Hope you don't mind me jumping in on this question. As I see it Legato currently provide 4 ways to backup a NetApp filer: 1. BudTool 2. NFS 3. NetWorker NetApp Client 4. NDMP-compliant NetWorker It would be interesting (to me at least) to hear experiences with each variant. Option 4 is essentially replacing option 1 since that option is being discontinued. Cheers, Grant =========== grant(a)netapp.com ========== Grant Melvin === === Software Development Manager === === Data Availability & Management === |\ | __ ___ /\ __ __ === Network Appliance === | \ | |__ | /__\ |__| |__| === 475 East Java Drive === | \| |__ | / \ | | (R) === Sunnyvale === === California, 94089 === === Tel:(408)822-6761 =========== Network Appliance ========== Fax:(408)822-4578 -----Original Message----- From: Robert Alatorre [mailto:ralatorre@aperian.com] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 2:08 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: legatto Anybody have any bad or good experience using legatto as backup for the net app filer? Bob Alatorre Systems Support Engineer Office 512-226-8753 Cell 512-658-9110 ralatorre(a)aperian.com > ******************* Internet Email Confidentiality Footer > ******************* > > Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or > responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not use, > copy, disclose or deliver this message to anyone. If you have received > this message in error, kindly notify the sender by reply email or at the > phone number listed above, and then delete this message. > > >

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