toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

RE: need help with Legato and Filer backup
by Benn, Paul 19 Dec '00

19 Dec '00

If you have files with NT-style permissions, though, backing up over NFS is not a desirable option as you will loose any NTFS file attributes including ACLs and DOS attributes. Backing up over CIFS not only retains NTFS file permissions but it retains UNIX permissions as well as tracks an archive bit on UNIX files (so NT apps can do "incremental" backups). If you have a lot of data, you should really consider an NDMP based solution. You can read more on NT based backup here: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3052.html Regards, Paul Benn Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Michael Salmon [mailto:michael.salmon@uab.ericsson.se] Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 3:13 AM To: Dell, Mary; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: need help with Legato and Filer backup +-- On Friday, December 15, 2000 11:28:24 -0600 "Dell, Mary" <mdell(a)mesirow.com> wrote: | | Is anyone out there using legato to back up your filer? We just got our | filer running and are not able to get legato working for it yet despite | help from support and so on. We've got the client installed on the | filer, we've created a client & group setup for it on the (unix) | networker server, and we've got the (eval) enabler--but it keeps failing. +-- I have tried the netapp client, even had it working from time to time, I gave up before I could do any serious testing but I suspect that it isn't 100% reliable when it does work. My best advice is to stop trying to use it and concentrate on something that works, backup over CIFS, NFS or another backup system. /Michael -- This space intentionally left non-blank.

1 0

2 questions for f760
by neil lehrer 19 Dec '00

19 Dec '00

hi, 1. we will be moving our home and share dirs from old sun boxes to f760. the home dirs on the suns were set up like: \home \home\a \home\a\abe \home\a\allen \home\b etc. in other words, user homedirs under the first letter of the id. i was told this was done for performance reasons, inode searching, on the sun boxes. do i need to use this structure on the 760? is there a similar issue on filers? or can it just be \home\userid? 2. i have heard i can connect a tape device to a fibre channel card rather than the scsi to get better performance. anybody know anything about this? i'm not looking for a separate network, just more performance. current config is: 2 atm cards fcal card cluster card [i am configured with 1 f760 as active and the other as standby, do nothing. the tape drive will be attached to the active filer]. plus the other normal cards. thanks.

2 1

re: 2 questions for f760
by mds＠gbnet.net 19 Dec '00

19 Dec '00

On Tue 19 Dec, 2000, neil lehrer <nlehrer(a)ibb.gov> wrote: > > 2. i have heard i can connect a tape device to a fibre channel card > rather than the scsi to get better performance. anybody know anything > about this? i'm not looking for a separate network, just more > performance. Given there are no single tape devices that will likely top the maximum throughput available on a fast-wide parallel SCSI connection, moving to FC won't buy you much. If you say wanted to go from two devices to four, then, yes FC might be a suitable move. I'm not aware yet of (m)any tape devices that do FC natively - most currently require the use of a FC-parallel-SCSI 'bridge' (they're SCSI routers to afficionados). > cluster card [i am configured with 1 f760 as active and the other as > standby, do nothing. the tape drive will be attached to the active > filer]. Then the costs and difficulties in using FC tape hardware outweigh the benefits. >-- End of excerpt from neil lehrer -- -Mark ... an Englishman in London ...

1 0

FW: Backups Using Netapp Dump
by Daniel Oxenhandler 19 Dec '00

19 Dec '00

Jim, We are very happily using Ontap's dump program. We have a DLT7000 autoloader connected to a Solaris box, and use commands like this to back the filer up over a dedicated 100Mbps net: rsh filer dump 0ubf 63 rmt@solaris-box:/dev/rmt/1ubn /vol/vol0/projects It's been totally solid, and captures both CIFS and UNIX metadata, which is a requirement for us. This solution works well if you don't have too many filers, or too much data (we have 1 filer and <200GB). We abandonned paid for Legato licenses to implement this solution, BTW. To me, a commercial solution would start to make sense if your numbers were significantly larger, or you wanted to take advantage of the NDMP protocol, or some of the more advanced libraries, etc. that are out there. Otherwise, dump rocks! Daniel Oxenhandler Network Engineer Sprint Laboratories 650-375-4281 -----Original Message----- From: Collins, Jim [mailto:JCollins@sandc.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 6:35 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Backups Using Netapp Dump Is anyone using the Dump program that comes with Ontap? I have seen a lot of third party stuff and am wondering if anyone has seen any short falls in using this Ontap backup program? Jim Collins

1 0

Backups Using Netapp Dump
by Collins, Jim 19 Dec '00

19 Dec '00

Is anyone using the Dump program that comes with Ontap? I have seen a lot of third party stuff and am wondering if anyone has seen any short falls in using this Ontap backup program? Jim Collins

3 2

Re: need help with Legato and Filer backup
by Leif Nixon 19 Dec '00

19 Dec '00

"Dell, Mary" <mdell(a)mesirow.com> writes: > Is anyone out there using legato to back up your filer? Yup. > We just got our filer running and are not able to get legato working > for it yet despite help from support and so on. We've got the > client installed on the filer, we've created a client & group setup > for it on the (unix) networker server, and we've got the (eval) > enabler--but it keeps failing. We're currently backing the filer up over NFS from a Unix host. Works fine, basically, but it stresses the network a bit. (100 Mbps full duplex) In the near future we're probably moving to Networker 6.0, which can back the filer up directly via NDMP, and we'll possibly set up a dedicated net between the backup server and the filer for the backups. -- Leif Nixon Sysadm/developer Ericsson SoftLab AB ---------------------------------------------------------- E-mail: nixon(a)softlab.ericsson.se Phone: +46 13 23 57 61 ----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

need help with Legato and Filer backup
by Dell, Mary 19 Dec '00

19 Dec '00

Is anyone out there using legato to back up your filer? We just got our filer running and are not able to get legato working for it yet despite help from support and so on. We've got the client installed on the filer, we've created a client & group setup for it on the (unix) networker server, and we've got the (eval) enabler--but it keeps failing. Any ideas or suggestions would be a big help. Thanks, Mary Dell

2 1

about blocking factor
by Abu Ihsan 19 Dec '00

19 Dec '00

hi, i would like to know how to find the blocking factor of a volume and what is the default size and can we modify them as we do with our unix box (newfs). i know we can increase the inode on the fly (very cool). tq, --fared __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/

1 0

tested SNMP trap code
by Schepers, Jan 18 Dec '00

18 Dec '00

Hello list, is there anyone out there that has practice with SNMP test? Where can I obtain more information? regards, Yann

1 0

RE: DLT8000
by Cormier, Darleen 15 Dec '00

15 Dec '00

Mike, the DLT8000 is not supported in native mode until DataOnTap version 6.0. You will have to use the /etc/cloned_tapes file and add an entry that says: QUANTUM DLT8000 EMULATES QUANTUM DLT7000 Please be aware that this means you will only be able to get DLT7000 capacity on your 8000 drive. On our NOW web site at the following URL you can see all of the supported drives and the DataONTAP versions at which they are supported. http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/cert_matrices/tape_drives.shtm l -----Original Message----- From: Mike Horwath [mailto:drechsau@tiny.net] Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 3:08 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: DLT8000 I have a NetApp F760 and I want to use a DLT8000 on it. So, I have this nice differential F/W tape drive. All plugged in. (5.3.6R2 is the OS revision) Anything special I should do since I can't see it on the system, not even at boot? (tape drive was tested on another system before moving it onto the F760) -- Mike Horwath Admin & Manager @ VISI.com WORK: drechsau(a)visi.com IRC: Drechsau http://www.visi.com/ HOME: drechsau(a)geeks.org The only Minnesota ISP with public statistics: http://noc.visi.com/ Garbage In -- Gospel Out. - berkeley fortune(6)

1 0

RE: DLT8000
by Kim, Christopher 15 Dec '00

15 Dec '00

Using Data ONTAP 5.1's "cloned_tapes" for Unsupported Tape Drives You can attach an "unsupported" tape drive to a filer and use it successfully with the cloned_tapes feature, new in Data ONTAP 5.1. To use an "unsupported" tape backup device, the ASCII file /etc/cloned_tapes in the root volume must contain a list of unsupported tape backup devices connected to the filer. To enable this option, do the following: 1.Halt the filer and install the tape adapter (if necessary). 2.Attach the tape drive to the filer and power up the drive. 3.Power up the filer. At boot, there will be an error message telling you the tape drive is unsupported. 4.At the filer console, type mt -f rst0a status. This command will create the file /etc/cloned_tapes. 5.Edit the /etc/cloned_tapes file to map the product ID of the unsupported drive to one that is supported. For example, you can add to this file the following line: QUANTUM DLT8000 EMULATES QUANTUM DLT7000 6.At the filer console, type mt -f rst0a status again. 7.Type sysconfig -t to verify that the drive appears, along with all your previously installed devices. 8.Reboot the filer. Note: At boot, you will still receive an error message about an unsupported tape drive, but the officially "unsupported" tape drive will work successfully. For more information, see the "New features in Data ONTAP 5.1" section of the Data ONTAP 5.1 Release Notes. Thank you, Chris -----Original Message----- From: Mike Horwath [mailto:drechsau@tiny.net] Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 6:08 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: DLT8000 I have a NetApp F760 and I want to use a DLT8000 on it. So, I have this nice differential F/W tape drive. All plugged in. (5.3.6R2 is the OS revision) Anything special I should do since I can't see it on the system, not even at boot? (tape drive was tested on another system before moving it onto the F760) -- Mike Horwath Admin & Manager @ VISI.com WORK: drechsau(a)visi.com IRC: Drechsau http://www.visi.com/ HOME: drechsau(a)geeks.org The only Minnesota ISP with public statistics: http://noc.visi.com/ Garbage In -- Gospel Out. - berkeley fortune(6)

1 0

Filers, IIS5 and Pass-Through Authentication
by Benn, Paul 15 Dec '00

15 Dec '00

Hello Toaster People, I had been working with a few of you on how to configure IIS5 with filers for pass-through authentication. The necessary steps along with a number of other updates have been incorporated into an updated white paper on IIS. The URL hasn't changed but here it is for convenience: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3078.html Thanks to those of you who sent me your comments on the original paper. I ended up making all of the suggested changes. Best Regards, Paul Benn Network Appliance

1 0

DLT8000
by Mike Horwath 15 Dec '00

15 Dec '00

I have a NetApp F760 and I want to use a DLT8000 on it. So, I have this nice differential F/W tape drive. All plugged in. (5.3.6R2 is the OS revision) Anything special I should do since I can't see it on the system, not even at boot? (tape drive was tested on another system before moving it onto the F760) -- Mike Horwath Admin & Manager @ VISI.com WORK: drechsau(a)visi.com IRC: Drechsau http://www.visi.com/ HOME: drechsau(a)geeks.org The only Minnesota ISP with public statistics: http://noc.visi.com/ Garbage In -- Gospel Out. - berkeley fortune(6)

1 0

Qualstar model 68120
by Timothy Cook 15 Dec '00

15 Dec '00

Greetings, As part of our server center upgrades, we are considering the purchase of a Qualstar model 68120 (TLS-6000, 8 drive, 120 tapes) Autoloader. Would anybody care to share privately their experiences with Qualstar products? TIA

1 0

RE: Setting up a VIF
by Fox, Adam 15 Dec '00

15 Dec '00

Once you set up a VIF, the individual interfaces in that VIF lose their individual configuration data. So the VIF takes a single IP address, netmask, broadcast, and MAC address. Once the VIF is created, if you run ifconfig -a you will see that all of the member interfaces of that VIF automatically show up with the same config. info. Hope this helps. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:PMAGLINGER@scvl.com] Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 7:42 PM To: 'NetApps list server' Subject: Setting up a VIF We're looking at taking our Gigabit II Ethernet card and the 10/100 interface that comes with our 740 and creating a VIF. We already have assigned individual IP addresses to the respective interfaces, the question that I have is by setting up the VIF now do we still keep the configurations for the individual cards? In other words... each individual interface has it's own IP address assigned to it, but when you create a VIF, you assign an IP address to it. So do you have to keep the addresses assigned to the individual interfaces AND assign another IP address to the VIF, or can I remove the IP addresses from the individual interfaces and assign one of them to the VIF? Thanks! Paul Maglinger PC Specialist Shoe Carnival, Inc. pmaglinger(a)scvl.com

1 0

Setting up a VIF
by Maglinger, Paul 15 Dec '00

15 Dec '00

We're looking at taking our Gigabit II Ethernet card and the 10/100 interface that comes with our 740 and creating a VIF. We already have assigned individual IP addresses to the respective interfaces, the question that I have is by setting up the VIF now do we still keep the configurations for the individual cards? In other words... each individual interface has it's own IP address assigned to it, but when you create a VIF, you assign an IP address to it. So do you have to keep the addresses assigned to the individual interfaces AND assign another IP address to the VIF, or can I remove the IP addresses from the individual interfaces and assign one of them to the VIF? Thanks! Paul Maglinger PC Specialist Shoe Carnival, Inc. pmaglinger(a)scvl.com

1 0

Network interface "vh"?
by Jeffrey Krueger 14 Dec '00

14 Dec '00

Does anyone know what the interface "vh" is? Could it stand for "virtual host"? I don't think there's anything in the DOT manuals regarding it. broiler> ifstat vh -- interface vh (47 days, 7 hours, 4 minutes, 18 seconds) -- RECEIVE Packets: 0 | Bytes: 0 | Errors: 0 Queue full: 0 TRANSMIT Packets: 0 | Bytes: 0 | Errors: 0 Collisions: 0 broiler> netstat -I vh Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Collis Queue vh* 1536 none none 0 0 0 0 0 0 broiler> ifconfig vh vh: flags=40<RUNNING> mtu 1536 Thanks! -- Jeff -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Krueger, NetApp CA E-Mail: jeff(a)qualcomm.com Senior Engineer Phone: 858-651-6709 NetApp Filers / UNIX Infrastructure Fax: 858-651-6627 QUALCOMM, Inc. IT Engineering Web: www.qualcomm.com

1 1

RE: Veritas & Filers, or: to NDMP or not to NDMP ...
by Braunschweiger, Udo 13 Dec '00

13 Dec '00

there are some points worth to think about before you decide how to do backups. Using ndmp instead of nfs has the follwing impacts: ndmp is blocklevel based, nfs of course is filebased If we backing up a volume that is holding a database, usually the "minimal read ahead" option is set to meet the needs for accessing the database-files. This impacts nfs backup performance dramatically. On the other hand, in order to use ndmp, we need expensive client software for our backup software. But even if we use ndmp to send the data over the network (not a local tapedrive) this backup method is not affecting cached data in the readcache of the filer. This can be a very important reason for ndmp, especially if we are running a database with 7 times 24 hours uptime. On On-Tap Releases 5.3.5 or newer, the ndmpd version-behaviour can be set using the "ndmpd version [2,3]" command on the filers console. -----Original Message----- From: Francett, Robert D (SAIC) [mailto:FranceRD@bp.com] Sent: Dienstag, 12. Dezember 2000 01:35 To: 'Shaun T. Erickson'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Veritas & Filers, or: to NDMP or not to NDMP ... Shaun, We use Veritas Netbackup via NDMP and it has worked well. Therefore no worries impacting net with backups. Never used BudTool. Upgrades to DOT have never been a problem. NOW keeps a page which lists NB versions sanctioned with the various DOT releases. I double-check it when considering upgrade. Hope that helps, Bob Francett BP Exploration/Alaska -----Original Message----- From: Shaun T. Erickson [mailto:ste@research.bell-labs.com] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 5:55 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Veritas & Filers, or: to NDMP or not to NDMP ... ... that is the question. I am switching from BudTool to Veritas Netbackup. It seems, if I understand things correctly, that I can either back up my filers over NFS, or I can use NDMP and back them up to a locally attached tape drive, or to another filer with a locally attached tape drive. NDMP seems the way to go, for performance and speed reasons. However, I stopped using NDMP with BudTool, because everytime I had to upgrade either BudTool or OnTap, I ran into compatability problems between the differing NDMP implimentations. What has been the experience of those of you who are using Veritas and have tried the above solutions? Which method do you suggest I use, and why? -ste -- Office: (908) 582-7629 Cell: (908) 672-6456 Pager: (888) 290-2057

1 0

Samba sharing an NFS mounted drive (netapp)
by Stoo Davies 13 Dec '00

13 Dec '00

I posted this on the Samba mailing list earlier, but if anyone here has tried Samba sharing an NFS mounted drive info would be appreciated. Thanks Stoo Hi, I hope someone will be able to help me with a strange problem that started after an upgrade. A Redhat 6.1 based file server running Samba 2.0.5a has been sharing /home for a number of months. The /home mount was from a SCSI attached RAID array. We ran out of space recently so copied the files across to a netapp filer, and mounted /home from there. I know the filer can do CIFS, but due to existing file references and other services we need to maintain the Samba shares. Since the move we've started having some file locking problems, the M$ Access "Too many active users" message makes this look like the glibc 64bit file locking problem. My question is wether anyone knows of problems sharing NFS mounted drives with Samba? Thanks Stoo

1 0

unsubsribe
by Girish Ahuja 12 Dec '00

12 Dec '00

unsubsribe ============================================ Girish Ahuja

1 0

SnapManager and tape backups
by Loux, Linda 12 Dec '00

12 Dec '00

We are going to move our Exchange database onto a filer. I have gone through the SnapManager System Administrator's Guide, and have some questions about getting the SnapManager snapshots backed up to tape. Does anyone have any additional documentation pointers? Linda Loux Systems Administrator Rosetta Inpharmatics ********************************************************************** This email message is the property of Rosetta Inpharmatics and contains confidential information that may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying, or communication of the contents of this message is prohibited. If this message was received in error, please forward a copy to mail_admin(a)rii.com and delete the message and any attachments from your computer. Thank you. **********************************************************************

1 0

RE: Veritas & Filers, or: to NDMP or not to NDMP ...
by Kelly Wyatt 12 Dec '00

12 Dec '00

I'm pretty sure that backing up over NFS won't get any NT ACLS that might be in the filesystem. That may or may not be an issue for you. There have been ONTAP/NetBackup integration issues. I've seen upgrades of ONTAP totally break backups and I've seen versions of ONTAP that cause unexplained downing of tape drives on just a handful of my filers (roughly 6 out of 14, different robots, so it is not hardware issue -- we use a cron job to up the drives regularly). Things have improved since we began using NetBackup for NDMP 2 1/2 years ago. I understand that VERITAS has a standard test suite they run against major releases of ONTAP. They don't check the minor releases as far as I know, nor the patch releases. We users tend to do that :-). Unfortunately, often we can't wait until NetBackup is qualified on a particular version of ONTAP. We are heavy users of the multiprotocol features of the filers and often require the latest version of ONTAP for bug fixes or features. We have a backup lab where we test things as thoroughly as we can... and still things slip by. But it is not all bad. VERITAS with NDMP seems to be pretty rock solid for backing up filers. We are happy with the throughput of our backups, etc. I'd do the same thing again. Kelly -- Kelly Wyatt, Kelly.Wyatt(a)SAS.com Senior Systems Programmer Strategic Recovery SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Drive / Cary, NC 27513 http://www.sas.com SAS... The Power to Know -----Original Message----- From: Shaun T. Erickson [mailto:ste@research.bell-labs.com] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 9:55 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Veritas & Filers, or: to NDMP or not to NDMP ... ... that is the question. I am switching from BudTool to Veritas Netbackup. It seems, if I understand things correctly, that I can either back up my filers over NFS, or I can use NDMP and back them up to a locally attached tape drive, or to another filer with a locally attached tape drive. NDMP seems the way to go, for performance and speed reasons. However, I stopped using NDMP with BudTool, because everytime I had to upgrade either BudTool or OnTap, I ran into compatability problems between the differing NDMP implimentations. What has been the experience of those of you who are using Veritas and have tried the above solutions? Which method do you suggest I use, and why? -ste -- Office: (908) 582-7629 Cell: (908) 672-6456 Pager: (888) 290-2057

1 0

RE: cifs testdc problem and 1D registration conflict
by Walsh, Warren (MN65) 12 Dec '00

12 Dec '00

This sounds a lot like bug 16355, which we ran into earlier this year. The filer incorrectly registers itself with WINS using a workstation(00), messenger (03), and server (20) that matches the domain name (1c). IE, there's the correct entries for a machine named FILER with 00, 03, and 20; then there's additional entries of DOMAIN with 00, 03, and 20. NetApp's support didn't have a solution, but someone on the list here did. NetApp support later confirmed that yes, it was bug number 16355, and the solution was fixed by upgrading to a newer version on OnTap. -warren Warren M. Walsh Honeywell Laboratories -----Original Message----- From: Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau [mailto:MadDog@fool.com] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 1:18 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: cifs testdc problem and 1D registration conflict We'd been seeing a problem where a cifs testdc would yield the following results: filer> cifs testdc Using Established configuration Current Mode of NBT is H Mode Netbios scope "" Registered names... FILER < 0> WINS FILER < 3> WINS FILER <20> WINS DOMAIN < 0> WINS Testing Primary Domain Controller found 1 addresses trying 192.168.0.10...192.168.0.10 is alive found PDC DC-001 Testing all Domain Controllers found 3 addresses trying 192.168.0.10...192.168.0.10 is alive trying 192.168.0.10...192.168.0.10 is alive trying 192.168.0.13...192.168.0.13 is alive found DC DC-001 at 192.168.0.10 Not able to communicate with DC 192.168.0.10 found DC DC-002 at 192.168.0.13 NetApp was perplexed, had me re-run CIFS setup, etc. to no avail. Today we rebooted our PDC because we noticed that the master browser registration was in conflict: NetBIOS Remote Machine Name Table Name Type Status --------------------------------------------- PDC <00> UNIQUE Registered PDC <20> UNIQUE Registered DOMAIN <00> GROUP Registered DOMAIN <1C> GROUP Registered DOMAIN <1E> GROUP Registered PDC <03> UNIQUE Registered DOMAIN <1D> UNIQUE Conflict ..__MSBROWSE__.<01> GROUP Registered DOMAIN <1B> UNIQUE Registered After the PDC rebooted, the cifs testdc problem went away. I know I've corresponded with some folks from toasters who were having this cifs testdc problem. If you're having the problem, can you do an nbtstat -a on your PDC, and see if you see a <1D> entry in conflict? Thanks, Mad Dog For your enjoyment: http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q163/4/09.asp

1 0

RE: cifs testdc problem and 1D registration conflict
by bentele＠mtu-friedrichshafen.com 12 Dec '00

12 Dec '00

Hi, I've got the same problems after our wins/dns environment was upgraded to win2k. ... "Not able to communicate with DC ...." nbtstat -a 'PDC' shows all records registered ( even 1D ) since then my filers deny resolving each others hostnames by using dns/wins, a call is open at netapp since 27-nov. Thanks Mit freundlichen Grüßen Markus Bentele MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH * 07541-90-2654 * 07541-90-5510 * bentele(a)mtu-friedrichshafen.com -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau [mailto:MadDog@fool.com] Gesendet: Montag, 11. Dezember 2000 20:18 An: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Betreff: cifs testdc problem and 1D registration conflict We'd been seeing a problem where a cifs testdc would yield the following results: filer> cifs testdc Using Established configuration Current Mode of NBT is H Mode Netbios scope "" Registered names... FILER < 0> WINS FILER < 3> WINS FILER <20> WINS DOMAIN < 0> WINS Testing Primary Domain Controller found 1 addresses trying 192.168.0.10...192.168.0.10 is alive found PDC DC-001 Testing all Domain Controllers found 3 addresses trying 192.168.0.10...192.168.0.10 is alive trying 192.168.0.10...192.168.0.10 is alive trying 192.168.0.13...192.168.0.13 is alive found DC DC-001 at 192.168.0.10 Not able to communicate with DC 192.168.0.10 found DC DC-002 at 192.168.0.13 NetApp was perplexed, had me re-run CIFS setup, etc. to no avail. Today we rebooted our PDC because we noticed that the master browser registration was in conflict: NetBIOS Remote Machine Name Table Name Type Status --------------------------------------------- PDC <00> UNIQUE Registered PDC <20> UNIQUE Registered DOMAIN <00> GROUP Registered DOMAIN <1C> GROUP Registered DOMAIN <1E> GROUP Registered PDC <03> UNIQUE Registered DOMAIN <1D> UNIQUE Conflict ..__MSBROWSE__.<01> GROUP Registered DOMAIN <1B> UNIQUE Registered After the PDC rebooted, the cifs testdc problem went away. I know I've corresponded with some folks from toasters who were having this cifs testdc problem. If you're having the problem, can you do an nbtstat -a on your PDC, and see if you see a <1D> entry in conflict? Thanks, Mad Dog For your enjoyment: http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q163/4/09.asp

1 0

RE: Veritas & Filers, or: to NDMP or not to NDMP ...
by Francett, Robert D (SAIC) 12 Dec '00

12 Dec '00

Shaun, We use Veritas Netbackup via NDMP and it has worked well. Therefore no worries impacting net with backups. Never used BudTool. Upgrades to DOT have never been a problem. NOW keeps a page which lists NB versions sanctioned with the various DOT releases. I double-check it when considering upgrade. Hope that helps, Bob Francett BP Exploration/Alaska -----Original Message----- From: Shaun T. Erickson [mailto:ste@research.bell-labs.com] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 5:55 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Veritas & Filers, or: to NDMP or not to NDMP ... ... that is the question. I am switching from BudTool to Veritas Netbackup. It seems, if I understand things correctly, that I can either back up my filers over NFS, or I can use NDMP and back them up to a locally attached tape drive, or to another filer with a locally attached tape drive. NDMP seems the way to go, for performance and speed reasons. However, I stopped using NDMP with BudTool, because everytime I had to upgrade either BudTool or OnTap, I ran into compatability problems between the differing NDMP implimentations. What has been the experience of those of you who are using Veritas and have tried the above solutions? Which method do you suggest I use, and why? -ste -- Office: (908) 582-7629 Cell: (908) 672-6456 Pager: (888) 290-2057

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