toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

RE: VERITAS platforms (was Qualstar AIT-2 and Veritas)
by Steve Kappel 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

Brian wrote: ... >I cannot comment on Veritas, I was unable to eval their product because they >do not support NDMP on anything but solaris. Just to clarify, this was with the NetBackup 3.1.1 release which is pretty old. VERITAS NetBackup NDMP is supported on the following platforms beginning with version 3.2 (spring 1999): Solaris (sparc) NT HP/UX AIX __________________________________________________________________________ Steve Kappel steve.kappel(a)veritas.com VERITAS Software steve.kappel(a)iname.com (Personal)

1 0

RE: Qualstar AIT-2 and Veritas
by Alvarado, Michael 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

Have you considered the GbE AIT 2 library from SpectraLogic? -----Original Message----- From: Moshe Linzer [mailto:Moshe.Linzer@nsc.com] Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2000 4:00 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Qualstar AIT-2 and Veritas In our quest for a Budtool + tape library replacement, we are currently looking at Veritas NetBackup and a Qualstar AIT-2 tape library for our 2 NetApp F760's. Does anyone have experience with this combination? Qualstar makes a good argument for AIT technology. Is AIT-2 fully supported on the 760? From looking on NOW, I noticed a few things: 1. The F760 SCSI port is HVD, Qualstar library is LVD-SE, so I need a converter. Can the Filer port be changed to LVD-SE? 2. Tape drive matrix on NOW (http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/cert_matrices/tape_drives.sht ml) says that versions below OnTap 6.0 require a PVR. What exactly is a PVR? Will I still get full performance from the drive? Is anyone using Veritas with a Qualstar library? Thanks, Moshe -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Moshe Linzer | On the Internet, Unix Systems Manager | National Semiconductor, Israel | nobody knows you're a moron. Phone: 972-9-970-2247 | Fax: 972-9-970-2001 | - Network Magazine Email: moshel(a)nsc.com | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -

1 0

RE: Qualstar AIT-2 and Veritas
by BrianH＠dice.com 10 Dec '00

10 Dec '00

I use a qualstar 4660 to backup my two 760's. It works great. It is fully supported by my 760's and 740's. I have never had any problems with it. You are right on the LVD comment. Except Qualstar can get you HVD drives if you request them. It was like a $400 option to get all the drives in HVD. The only problem I had then, was I had to get a HVD scsi card to control the robot arm, which was harder to find. I cannot comment on Veritas, I was unable to eval their product because they do not support NDMP on anything but solaris. --Brian -----Original Message----- From: Moshe Linzer To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Sent: 12/10/00 5:59 AM Subject: Qualstar AIT-2 and Veritas In our quest for a Budtool + tape library replacement, we are currently looking at Veritas NetBackup and a Qualstar AIT-2 tape library for our 2 NetApp F760's. Does anyone have experience with this combination? Qualstar makes a good argument for AIT technology. Is AIT-2 fully supported on the 760? From looking on NOW, I noticed a few things: 1. The F760 SCSI port is HVD, Qualstar library is LVD-SE, so I need a converter. Can the Filer port be changed to LVD-SE? 2. Tape drive matrix on NOW (http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/cert_matrices/tape_drives .shtml) says that versions below OnTap 6.0 require a PVR. What exactly is a PVR? Will I still get full performance from the drive? Is anyone using Veritas with a Qualstar library? Thanks, Moshe -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Moshe Linzer | On the Internet, Unix Systems Manager | National Semiconductor, Israel | nobody knows you're a moron. Phone: 972-9-970-2247 | Fax: 972-9-970-2001 | - Network Magazine Email: moshel(a)nsc.com | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----

1 0

Qualstar AIT-2 and Veritas
by Moshe Linzer 10 Dec '00

10 Dec '00

In our quest for a Budtool + tape library replacement, we are currently looking at Veritas NetBackup and a Qualstar AIT-2 tape library for our 2 NetApp F760's. Does anyone have experience with this combination? Qualstar makes a good argument for AIT technology. Is AIT-2 fully supported on the 760? From looking on NOW, I noticed a few things: 1. The F760 SCSI port is HVD, Qualstar library is LVD-SE, so I need a converter. Can the Filer port be changed to LVD-SE? 2. Tape drive matrix on NOW (http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/cert_matrices/tape_drives.sht…) says that versions below OnTap 6.0 require a PVR. What exactly is a PVR? Will I still get full performance from the drive? Is anyone using Veritas with a Qualstar library? Thanks, Moshe -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moshe Linzer | On the Internet, Unix Systems Manager | National Semiconductor, Israel | nobody knows you're a moron. Phone: 972-9-970-2247 | Fax: 972-9-970-2001 | - Network Magazine Email: moshel(a)nsc.com | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Netapp 840: 2 CPUs?
by Nicolas Perreten 09 Dec '00

09 Dec '00

We've noticed that the 840 system board has room for 2 CPUs although it only uses one. (The second slot is occupied by a "dummy" CPU). I've heard rumors that Netapp will be releasing another version of ONTAP which would make it possible to drop another Intel CPU and therefore improving performance. Has anyone heard the same? Nicolas Perreten Sr. Systems Architect Inquent Technologies Inc.

3 2

NetCache Configuration Brain damage.
by Jaye Mathisen 08 Dec '00

08 Dec '00

2 identical Netcache's, 1 configured the way I want it, the other a blank slate. Both running 5.0D6. There seems to be no way to just take the config of one, change the IP (all the rest of the info is the same), and just stuff it back in the other cache. Instead, there's some monumentally convoluted multi-cache configuration BS that has to be gone through. Crap. Am I the only person out there that just wants 2 caches to work alike? And while the 5.0 GUI is vastly better than the 4.x gui, I am loathe to spend an hour clicking my way through all those damn screens *WHEN I HAVE A PERFECTLY GOOD CONFIGURATION FILE READY TO BE UPLOADED DAMMIT*.

2 2

Re:SYNCSORT BACKUP EXPRESS
by Robert Souder 08 Dec '00

08 Dec '00

>> Anybody out there in Toasterland using SyncSort Backup Express? Would >> appreciate any first-hand insight -- I have a customer asking me to price it >> out for him, and I'd like to know how it stacks up vs. other products I know >> better (Veritas, Legato, CommVault, Workstation Solutions, etc.). TIA. Joe >> >>>I've been evaluating Backup Express for a little while now. >>>Along with Time Navigator (maybe Veritas soon). We eliminated >>>all the others for one reason or another. >>>There are alot of thing in BackEx I like (as compared to Tina) >>>but there are two big problems that we've found with it. The tape >>>duplication process tries to make an exact copy of the tape. For >>>Vault copies this can be a concern if you dest tape is a bit shorter >>>than the original. The data will just fall off the end of the tape. >>>Plus the software feels somewhat on the flaky side. I'm finding >>>a variety of things that should work but don't, plus having to restart >>>the GUI or the deamons to get things working again (like when it stopped >>>showing me the media report information). Talking with some people here >>>at the LISA show, they feel the same way. That BackEx is not as >>>stable as something like Veritas or Legato's products. >>>-- >>>Jeff Bryer bryer(a)sfu.ca >>>Systems Administrator (604) 291-4935 >>>Academic Computing, Simon Fraser University Jeff, We too have been evaluating and using Backup Express and have been very happy with it and the support received from Syncsort. They are one of the only ones that have a functional NDMP backup product that met our needs. The other companies like Veritas and Legato failed with either lack of support for robot capabilities or other technical reasons. As for restarting the GUI or daemons, we have not experienced this. Not to say we haven't experienced problems, but any problem we have encountered has been quickly answered by one of their support tech's. If they can't answer it they will get back to us usually within an hour. Bob Souder souder(a)super.org IDA - Center for Computing Sciences (CCS) (301) 805-7371

3 3

Antivirus Scanning NTFS shares?
by Witham, John 08 Dec '00

08 Dec '00

Hi All: I've read NetApp just partnered with the big 3 AV vendors [http://quicken.excite.com/investments/news/story/bw/?story=/news/stories/bw /20001129/a2086.htm&symbol=NTAP] BUT, having had to dig myself out of a loveletter reincarnation recently, I'm looking for some input on what other sysadmins do to keep their NetApps free of buggies. I just want something to tide us over until the vaporware AVOnTap becomes a reality. TIA! -john John Witham MCSE, MCP+i, A+ Systems Engineer Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. V://847.383.3304 F://847.383.3205 mailto://jwitham@takedapharm.com

4 3

RE: SYNCSORT BACKUP EXPRESS
by BrianH＠dice.com 08 Dec '00

08 Dec '00

I agree with that. I also looked at the same set of software, I gave up on Time Navigator pretty quickly. It took about 4 hours to get the initial demo working, and that was with their support engineer. Once I was able to get it working, I find out that they dont support my Qualstar Library, at least until the next version. I also could not use Veritas since it was NT and Solaris only. I wanted to run my master server on Linux. So far we have had pretty good luck with BackEx, the only problems so far is backups that fail and then the netapp locks that snapshot. --Brian -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Bryer [mailto:bryer@sfu.ca] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 4:40 PM To: joe.luchtenberg(a)data-line.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: SYNCSORT BACKUP EXPRESS > Anybody out there in Toasterland using SyncSort Backup Express? Would > appreciate any first-hand insight -- I have a customer asking me to price it > out for him, and I'd like to know how it stacks up vs. other products I know > better (Veritas, Legato, CommVault, Workstation Solutions, etc.). TIA. Joe > I've been evaluating Backup Express for a little while now. Along with Time Navigator (maybe Veritas soon). We eliminated all the others for one reason or another. There are alot of thing in BackEx I like (as compared to Tina) but there are two big problems that we've found with it. The tape duplication process tries to make an exact copy of the tape. For Vault copies this can be a concern if you dest tape is a bit shorter than the original. The data will just fall off the end of the tape. Plus the software feels somewhat on the flaky side. I'm finding a variety of things that should work but don't, plus having to restart the GUI or the deamons to get things working again (like when it stopped showing me the media report information). Talking with some people here at the LISA show, they feel the same way. That BackEx is not as stable as something like Veritas or Legato's products. -- Jeff Bryer bryer(a)sfu.ca Systems Administrator (604) 291-4935 Academic Computing, Simon Fraser University

2 1

RE: NTFS auditing?
by Watson, Dan 08 Dec '00

08 Dec '00

Hi Brian, We do not yet support viewing the adtlog.evt file directly on the Filer. You will need to move the file to an NT client and then view it with Event Viewer locally. I am not aware of a Unix utility that is able to read the .evt file format. Best, Dan -----Original Message----- From: Brian Tao [mailto:taob@risc.org] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 17:42 To: Benn, Paul Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: NTFS auditing? On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Benn, Paul wrote: > > It's pretty easy to setup and is documented in the System > Administrators guide (if yours are old, you can download a new one > in PDF from NOW). Ah, I see... you just point the NT Event Viewer utility to the file generated by the Netapp. Is there a UNIX utility to view the adtlog.evt file? -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

1 0

RE: NTFS auditing?
by Benn, Paul 08 Dec '00

08 Dec '00

Brian, Yes, filers support NTFS-style auditing using the NT Event Viewer. Pre-6.0 versions of Data ONTAP allow "read" and "write" auditing for individual users. ONTAP 6.0 and later allows auditing of "read," "write," "execute," "change ownership" and take ownership." Other enhancements to the auditing in 6.0 include the ability to set a maximum log file size as well as the ability to use the group "Everyone" (versus having to enter individual account names). It's pretty easy to setup and is documented in the System Administrators guide (if yours are old, you can download a new one in PDF from NOW). Regards, Paul Benn Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Brian Tao [mailto:taob@risc.org] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 10:41 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: NTFS auditing? Has anyone heard of "NTFS write auditing"? A group within our company would like that enabled for files in a certain directory so they can track who is modifying files. Is this a feature of NTFS itself, or is this achievable over CIFS to a filer? I'm asking this in the context of a Netapp serving up the data, of course. -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

2 1

Speaking of NetApp User Groups...
by Jeffrey Krueger 07 Dec '00

07 Dec '00

As far as I'm aware, toasters is about the only user community effort going on for NetApps. Are there others? Namely other discussion groups, websites, or user groups. I've never heard of any and so have pretty much assumed that this is it. -- Jeff -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Krueger, NetApp CA E-Mail: jeff(a)qualcomm.com Senior Engineer Phone: 858-651-6709 NetApp Filers / UNIX Infrastructure Fax: 858-651-6627 QUALCOMM, Inc. IT Engineering Web: www.qualcomm.com

2 1

solaris netboot from netapp filer
by Rob Windsor 07 Dec '00

07 Dec '00

This is an odd situation, perhaps someone else has run into it.. I've been running jumpstart off of the netapp, Solaris-2.6 and -8. For both versions, and for any network configuration, any time I netboot a system off of the netapp, I must send one ping packet to the system being jumpstarted to get it beyond "configuring devices..." (Sol-2.6) or "Configured interface hme0" (Sol-8, ultrasparc, same effect for sun4m, just s/hme/le/). This ping packet must be directed specifically at the host, not a broadcast ping ("ping a.b.c.255"). Anyone else seen this? Is there a workaround or hack that makes this go, other than what I'm doing already? Rob++ ---------------------------------------- Rob Windsor E-Mail - mailto:rob_windsor@adc.com Senior Unix Systems Administrator Voice - phone:972-680-6919 Computer Services Fax - phone:972-680-0370 Broadband Access and Transport Group __o ADC Telecommunications _`\<,_ Richardson, TX 75082 (_)/ (_)

5 4

cache age
by bbadyk＠xo.com 07 Dec '00

07 Dec '00

Hello everyone, I have been trying to extract the cache age from a couple different filers and can't seem to locate an SNMP OID that will contain that info..The only other option i can think of is extracting it from an rsh sysstat..Has anyone retrieved that using snmp? Thanks!! -B.J. Badyk

3 2

Re: solaris netboot from netapp filer
by Rob Windsor 07 Dec '00

07 Dec '00

My apologies in advance for posting this publically, since you sent it privately. I thought I would use this opportunity to clarify the situation a bit. On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 14:45:19 PST, Chris Wilkes wrote: > Do you haveto do the ping if you have another solaris box be the > jumpstart server? Nup, this problem doesn't exist if I use a solaris server as the boot server. (That's why I posted to the tosters list.) > I would do a tcpdump on the network to see if the client computer even > contacts the filer, and if the filer responds before the ping. Hmm. We're full of switches here. I'll bridge a couple of ports on the 5500 and sniff for that. This problem is independant of what switch is between the two (client and netapp). I've replicated the problem with an Asante' friendlynet 10/100 switch, a 3com "SuperStack III", and the Cisco 5500. It is also independant of Data OnTap version and filer hardware (seen it on F520, F740, F760). It doesn't matter if we are using sun4m or sun4u boxes, (ultra-1, ultra-2, ultra-10, ultra-60). Rob++ ---------------------------------------- Rob Windsor E-Mail - mailto:rob_windsor@adc.com Senior Unix Systems Administrator Voice - phone:972-680-6919 Computer Services Fax - phone:972-680-0370 Broadband Access and Transport Group __o ADC Telecommunications _`\<,_ Richardson, TX 75082 (_)/ (_)

1 0

SYNCSORT BACKUP EXPRESS
by Joe Luchtenberg 07 Dec '00

07 Dec '00

Anybody out there in Toasterland using SyncSort Backup Express? Would appreciate any first-hand insight -- I have a customer asking me to price it out for him, and I'd like to know how it stacks up vs. other products I know better (Veritas, Legato, CommVault, Workstation Solutions, etc.). TIA. Joe Joe Luchtenberg Dataline, Inc. New number and email, please update: 757.858.0600 858.0606 fax joe.luchtenberg(a)data-line.com

2 1

NTFS auditing?
by Brian Tao 07 Dec '00

07 Dec '00

Has anyone heard of "NTFS write auditing"? A group within our company would like that enabled for files in a certain directory so they can track who is modifying files. Is this a feature of NTFS itself, or is this achievable over CIFS to a filer? I'm asking this in the context of a Netapp serving up the data, of course. -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

1 0

Chicago Area Network Appliance
by Knight, Jason 06 Dec '00

06 Dec '00

I am interested in starting a Netapp Users Group in the Chicago Area, I know there are a lot of customers in the suburbs and downtown. I want to gauge the interest before reserving a conference room or making any grand plans. I would like to arrange the meetings close to the majority depending on where the interest is heaviest (assuming enough interest, of course). Please let me know if you are interested and where in ChicagoLand you are located by responding to jasonk(a)wfg.com <mailto:jasonk@wfg.com> . The toasters will probably appreciate NOT being copied on the responses. Thanks, Jason Knight MSCE, Network Appliance CA

1 0

Strange problem...
by mitch＠netline.com 06 Dec '00

06 Dec '00

We just ran across a strange happening on our F760 filer. One of our folks did a "du -s" on an RCS directory to see how much space it was using: => du -s RCS du: RCS/ParseNVP.pm,v: Value too large for defined data type And got a strange error. In fact, pretty much anything that would do a stat(2) call on this file in this directory would generate the same error message. There were no errors logged on the filer and all weekly messages seem to indicate that all is well, but it still puzzles me. I ran off for the requisite caffine boost and came back and am now unable to reproduce the problem. I asked the user if they perhaps did something such as recreating the RCS directory from another source... they hadn't. The file which was complained about is a mere 3422 bytes, and all timestamps indicate that the file has not changed recently. Has anybody else seen this problem or have any ideas on how/why this may have occurred? For what it's worth, the NFS client accessing the files is running Solaris 5.7. I unfortunately didn't pop over to one of my BSD boxes before the problem worked itself out. ~mitch

5 5

RE: Backup solution for 2x F840, 2xF630
by Premanshu Jain 05 Dec '00

05 Dec '00

Hello everybody, I am scheduled to get one P-3000 shortly. If you wish to see my evaluation results, you may wait.. prem -----Original Message----- From: Collie, Michael [mailto:Michael.Collie@netapp.com] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 5:40 PM To: 'Manny Kaiser'; 'Oliver Ho'; 'PrJain(a)shastanets.com' Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Backup solution for 2x F840, 2xF630 Hello, Manny's response addressed some key questions that an administrator must answer when designing a backup solution. Further, one of the benefits of FC is that it provides backup access to storage that is not directly attached to the source data. Therefore, the question of performance on the F630 should not be the only consideration when making you decision. I do not entirely agree with Prem on the recommended approach for 'keeping things simple'. In fact direct attached SCSI can be more expensive and more complicated to manage. ATL is scheduled to ship a P3000 library this month that supports NDMP. This library supports GbE interface for each of its 16 DLT drives. Each DLT drive within the library is independent (own IP address & NDMP server) which almost eliminates the possibility of a complete library disaster. GbE is a proven technology that is considered mature. My recommendation is to centralize you backup using a Library with enough capacity for future scaling. I do not have enough information on your total infrastructure, i.e. FC, SCSI, Ethernet to make a recommendation on what interface this library should use. This information is necessary to calculate you total cost of ownership for a selected solution. Regards, Michael. -----Original Message----- From: Manny Kaiser [mailto:mkaiser@mmcnet.com] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 3:42 PM To: 'Oliver Ho' Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Backup solution for 2x F840, 2xF630 Hi, I would go on and comment, that it is good practice to distant your filers from your backup system, thus a fibre solution is preferred. Today management overhead of one large or several small libraries is not too big when using Veritas, thus I don't think this should be a major consideration. An additional consideration is making sure that the fibre at both ends are compatible. I definitely agree that with snapshots, the biggest concern of a backup system is disaster recovery, thus recovery time is an essential consideration - how long can your business be down until you recover a volume, a filer, or all your filers. The number of drives, the speed that they can actually restore data and of course your volume sizes are key factors in determining a backup system. Manny "Traitel, Eyal" wrote: > Personally, I'd go for the large library because of the price, easier > management for you, better scalability and more features probably... > You will have more flexibility as well... > > On number of drives - consider restore times as well... > 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: Oliver Ho [mailto:oliver@interq.or.jp] > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 10:22 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Backup solution for 2x F840, 2xF630 > > Dear all, > > I have been given a task of designing a Netapps backup solution for my > network. > > We have > 2x F840 > 2x F630 > and various unix servers. > > Approx 1TB of data for the netapps. > > Various Vendors have informed me that the F630 are too slow for > FibreChannel. > > Solution 1 > One VERY HUGE Library with 2x FC for F840 and 2x SCSI for F630 card > mixture for the netapps > 4 Tape drives > FC Switch for F840s > > Solution 2 > Library with 2x FC for F840, two tape drives > FC Switch for F840s > Library with 2x SCSI for F630, two tape drives > > Solution 3 > Three small library with SCSI for each F630 > One Library with 2x FC with two tape drives > FC Switch for F840s. > > The funny thing is Solution 1 is the cheapest, then 2,3. I guess its > because it mean more hardware. > > Can someone give me some pointers. These are all very expensive solutions. > I have heard that some ppl have used Gigabit ethernet and dumped via NDMP. > > We are thinking of using Veritas Netbackup for backups. > I have heard that you can get some kind of SCSI->FC conversion, so I can > connect to whatever FC connected library I may have. > > What would you do in my case? > > TIA > > Regards > Oliver Ho.

1 0

RE: Setting up FTP in NT40 environment
by Benn, Paul 05 Dec '00

05 Dec '00

Hello Paul, Using NT4 and IIS4, you can use a filer on the back end by way of a UNC path but you'll need to configure it for anonymous access. If you want authenticated access, you can do this with IIS5/Win2K and Data ONTAP 5.3.7. The instructions (actually an update to our existing white paper on IIS) aren't yet posted on the web. They should be on the web soon, however. Check this page in a week or so to see the updated information: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3078.html <http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3078.html> Regards, Paul Benn Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:PMAGLINGER@scvl.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 8:43 AM To: 'NetApps list server' Subject: Setting up FTP in NT40 environment We have a F740 running 5.3.6R2 in a WindowsNT environment. We are wanting to FTP to the filer from NT without setting up UIDs and GIDs (basically without anything to do with UNIX). Anyone have any experience with this? Have a prosperous and profitable day! _____ Paul Maglinger, A+, CA, CET, MCP PC Specialist Shoe Carnival Inc. (812)867-4674 pmaglinger(a)scvl.com <mailto:pmaglinger@scvl.com> _____

1 0

Setting up FTP in NT40 environment
by Maglinger, Paul 05 Dec '00

05 Dec '00

We have a F740 running 5.3.6R2 in a WindowsNT environment. We are wanting to FTP to the filer from NT without setting up UIDs and GIDs (basically without anything to do with UNIX). Anyone have any experience with this? Have a prosperous and profitable day! _____ Paul Maglinger, A+, CA, CET, MCP PC Specialist Shoe Carnival Inc. (812)867-4674 pmaglinger(a)scvl.com <mailto:pmaglinger@scvl.com> _____

1 0

FS: F630, F720, F740 and F760's with 9gb, 18gb, 36gb shelf options
by ScottUCE＠aol.com 05 Dec '00

05 Dec '00

Used Netapp F630 and F7XX systems are available with 9gb, 18gb and 36gb disk shelf options. Please contact us if you have any interest. Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, MN 55436 (952) 935-7282 (952) 935-5056 - FAX www.unioncomputer.com

1 0

RE: Strange problem...
by Traitel, Eyal 05 Dec '00

05 Dec '00

Me and CC-ed Mati had it some time ago... HP/UX just read it with no problems at all. It seems some bug with Solaris I think... We never insetigad it more than just deleting the files from the HP/UX machine... 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 Lamb [mailto:skeezics@measurecast.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 4:46 AM To: mitch(a)netline.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Strange problem... [...] > du: RCS/ParseNVP.pm,v: Value too large for defined data type [snip] > > Has anybody else seen this problem or have any ideas on how/why this > may have occurred? Yup. I called this in as a bug report about four or five months ago. I could probably dig up the case #, but I think it's closed... This filer that first displayed this problem is running both CIFS and NFS, and I thought (at first) that it might be a bug related to using a "mixed" security style. But the problem appeared even on volumes that were not - nor had they ever been - anything but Unix-style security, nor even accessed once by a CIFS client. The odd thing is, when those files would pop up I could go in and delete them via CIFS... > For what it's worth, the NFS client accessing the files is running > Solaris 5.7. I unfortunately didn't pop over to one of my BSD boxes > before the problem worked itself out. I first encountered this using RCS on Solaris 7 as well (both SPARC & x86). I figured it might be some obscure bug related to file locking and the NFS lock manager, but then someone reported that a _core file_ was displaying the same oddball symptoms... The workaround (if you have CIFS licensed) is to try deleting the file via CIFS. If that doesn't work, try again via NFS - you may find that just as mysteriously as it appeared, the error will then go away and you'll be able to delete (or access) the file. Tickling it via CIFS seems to get it "unstuck." Very odd. And, I know, not very scientific. ;-) I suppose I should have shut down the box and wack'ed it upside its WAFL, just to see if there really is some insidious directory corruption waiting to bite me on the backside at some inopportune time. But I don't really have the luxury of an extended downtime, and since it appears there's a crude workaround, I haven't (to my deep shame :-) re-opened the case and pestered for a fix... -- Chris -- Chris Lamb, Unix Guy MeasureCast, Inc. 503-241-1469 x247 <skeezics(a)measurecast.com>

1 0

RE: Backup solution for 2x F840, 2xF630
by Collie, Michael 05 Dec '00

05 Dec '00

Hello, Manny's response addressed some key questions that an administrator must answer when designing a backup solution. Further, one of the benefits of FC is that it provides backup access to storage that is not directly attached to the source data. Therefore, the question of performance on the F630 should not be the only consideration when making you decision. I do not entirely agree with Prem on the recommended approach for 'keeping things simple'. In fact direct attached SCSI can be more expensive and more complicated to manage. ATL is scheduled to ship a P3000 library this month that supports NDMP. This library supports GbE interface for each of its 16 DLT drives. Each DLT drive within the library is independent (own IP address & NDMP server) which almost eliminates the possibility of a complete library disaster. GbE is a proven technology that is considered mature. My recommendation is to centralize you backup using a Library with enough capacity for future scaling. I do not have enough information on your total infrastructure, i.e. FC, SCSI, Ethernet to make a recommendation on what interface this library should use. This information is necessary to calculate you total cost of ownership for a selected solution. Regards, Michael. -----Original Message----- From: Manny Kaiser [mailto:mkaiser@mmcnet.com] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 3:42 PM To: 'Oliver Ho' Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Backup solution for 2x F840, 2xF630 Hi, I would go on and comment, that it is good practice to distant your filers from your backup system, thus a fibre solution is preferred. Today management overhead of one large or several small libraries is not too big when using Veritas, thus I don't think this should be a major consideration. An additional consideration is making sure that the fibre at both ends are compatible. I definitely agree that with snapshots, the biggest concern of a backup system is disaster recovery, thus recovery time is an essential consideration - how long can your business be down until you recover a volume, a filer, or all your filers. The number of drives, the speed that they can actually restore data and of course your volume sizes are key factors in determining a backup system. Manny "Traitel, Eyal" wrote: > Personally, I'd go for the large library because of the price, easier > management for you, better scalability and more features probably... > You will have more flexibility as well... > > On number of drives - consider restore times as well... > 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: Oliver Ho [mailto:oliver@interq.or.jp] > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 10:22 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Backup solution for 2x F840, 2xF630 > > Dear all, > > I have been given a task of designing a Netapps backup solution for my > network. > > We have > 2x F840 > 2x F630 > and various unix servers. > > Approx 1TB of data for the netapps. > > Various Vendors have informed me that the F630 are too slow for > FibreChannel. > > Solution 1 > One VERY HUGE Library with 2x FC for F840 and 2x SCSI for F630 card > mixture for the netapps > 4 Tape drives > FC Switch for F840s > > Solution 2 > Library with 2x FC for F840, two tape drives > FC Switch for F840s > Library with 2x SCSI for F630, two tape drives > > Solution 3 > Three small library with SCSI for each F630 > One Library with 2x FC with two tape drives > FC Switch for F840s. > > The funny thing is Solution 1 is the cheapest, then 2,3. I guess its > because it mean more hardware. > > Can someone give me some pointers. These are all very expensive solutions. > I have heard that some ppl have used Gigabit ethernet and dumped via NDMP. > > We are thinking of using Veritas Netbackup for backups. > I have heard that you can get some kind of SCSI->FC conversion, so I can > connect to whatever FC connected library I may have. > > What would you do in my case? > > TIA > > Regards > Oliver Ho.

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters