toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

RE: Netapp filesystem failure rate
by Mohler,Anissa 01 Aug '00

01 Aug '00

We do publish a calculation that you can use to estimate the "Mean Time to Data Loss" based on the MTBF for each type of drive. You can get the MTBF number from the individual drive manufacturer's web sites. http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3027.html#section3.2 In this reference "Data Loss" is defined as "when the failures of two or more disk drives within the same RAID group overlap" This would be the time that you would be required to restore from tape. As far as actual field numbers... I really don't know ;( -----Original Message----- From: Brian Tao [mailto:taob@risc.org] Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 6:17 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Netapp filesystem failure rate Does Netapp have any numbers that they could share publically on how often they see filesystem failures in the field (i.e., double disk failure, spare drive bug, etc.) that would require restoring all the data from tape? I did a quick count in my head and figured we have roughly 21 filer-years of operation (1 filer running for 3 years, 2 for 2.5 years, etc.) without a catastrophic failure yet. Is the actual observed number more like 50 filer-years? 100? 200? -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

4 3

What about SSH
by Jay Orr 01 Aug '00

01 Aug '00

Is there any way to use SSH to get to a server, so the password isn't broadcast over the network? If not, is there any other authentication method, or is it just straight telnet and console connections? ----------- Jay Orr Systems Administrator Fujitsu Nexion Inc. St. Louis, MO

6 6

RE: NOW website down?
by La Londe, Renee 01 Aug '00

01 Aug '00

Hi All, As requested, we have modified our "downtime" statement to make it clear when the NOW site is down for scheduled downtime or due to technical difficulties . Also we posted our scheduled downtime information in a link off of the NOW home page (located at the bottom). In the near future we will be moving away from monthly releases and will move towards quarterly releases-which equates to more uptime for our users. When this happens the downtime information will be updated with this information accordingly. http://now.netapp.com/public/downtime.shtml Thanks, Renee Get Answers on NOW (Netapp on the Web)! http://now.netapp.com --- Renee.LaLonde(a)netapp.com wrote: > > > Hi Everyone, > > The planned downtime window for "routine > upgrades/maintenance" to NOW is > actually scheduled only during late hours (US PDT) > on Saturdays. > We picked Saturday nights based upon the small > amount of web traffic that occurs > during this period so that we can minimize the > impacts to our customers. > > The outage that we experienced yesterday was due to > internal networking issues > and was not a "planned" outage. However, our > standard "planned downtime" > message below was displayed. We will look at making > this message more > representative of the issue at hand. > > Thanks for your feedback. If you have any > questions/further input please feel > free to send me an email directly. > > Best Regards, > > Renee La Londe > renee(a)netapp.com > E-Service Web Manager > Get Answers on NOW (Netapp on the Web)! > http://now.netapp.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Innis [mailto:figaro911@hotmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 4:51 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: NOW website down? > > > Seems the NOW website is down for "routine" > maintenance. Seems strange to be > having routine maintenance during what is still > business hours here on the > West Coast. Ok, not trying to be US centric but I'am > sure that most of > Netapps sales are from US based businesses, so it > would seem to be sensible > to do this during "off" hours, 2:00am EDT sounds > good. Comments from Netapp > folks? > > > J > > > > The NOW website will be > inaccessible due to routine > maintenance. > We apologize for the > inconvenience. > > To download software, please go to > download.netapp.com. > > The Global Support Center can be > reached during this time > (and at > all times) by the phone numbers > below: > > 1-888-4NETAPP (toll free > within U.S.) > 1-408-822-4700 (direct dial > from elsewhere) > 00 800 44 NETAPP (for > countries with UIFN; > toll-free) > +31 23 5679605 (for all > other countries; int'l call > r > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ===== Yours, Eyal Traitel eTraitel(a)yahoo.com, Home: 972-3-5290415 (Tel Aviv) *** eTraitel - it's the new eBuzzword ! *** __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/

1 0

RE: What about SSH
by Mike Sphar 31 Jul '00

31 Jul '00

If you're running Data ONTAP 5.3 or later, check the man page for SecureAdmin. Just go to http://[Your_Filer_name]/na_admin/man/na_secureadmin.1.html -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services, BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Jay Orr [mailto:orrjl@stl.nexen.com] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 12:44 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: What about SSH Is there any way to use SSH to get to a server, so the password isn't broadcast over the network? If not, is there any other authentication method, or is it just straight telnet and console connections? ----------- Jay Orr Systems Administrator Fujitsu Nexion Inc. St. Louis, MO

1 0

Virtual Interfaces and direct connections to servers
by David Lockwood 31 Jul '00

31 Jul '00

Has anybody had any experience of connecting UNIX servers directly to a NetApp filer and using Virtual Interfaces to get a broader bandwidth. I want to be able to bypass a network switch and use software on the UNIX box that will 'trunk' the UNIX servers network ports together? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For further information on Benetton Formula 1 visit our web site at www.benettonf1.com. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please destroy and notify Benetton Formula on +44 1608678000. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: Visio Stencils for NetApp filers
by Smart, Steve 31 Jul '00

31 Jul '00

http://now.netapp.com/NOW/cgi-bin/software/ The the link on bottom right of thep age will get you to the Visio stencil area. S -----Original Message----- From: David Lockwood [mailto:David.Lockwood@benettonformula.com] Sent: 31 July 2000 11:57 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Visio Stencils for NetApp filers Does anyone know where I can get some Visio stencils for NetApp filers. I am particularly interested in a Stencil for the front and rear of an F740. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For further information on Benetton Formula 1 visit our web site at www.benettonf1.com. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please destroy and notify Benetton Formula on +44 1608678000. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Visio Stencils for NetApp filers
by David Lockwood 31 Jul '00

31 Jul '00

Does anyone know where I can get some Visio stencils for NetApp filers. I am particularly interested in a Stencil for the front and rear of an F740. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For further information on Benetton Formula 1 visit our web site at www.benettonf1.com. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please destroy and notify Benetton Formula on +44 1608678000. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: Netapp filesystem failure rate
by Mohler, Jeff 31 Jul '00

31 Jul '00

Lets add in 'environmentals' too. Ive been on site and seen: 120d ambient temp machine rooms. Racks with running filers being moved across a room by hammering a pipe at the base of the rack. Shelves dropped. Drives dropped. Heads dropped. A & B power supplies all on the same curcuit (causes FCAL brown out badness in a lot of cases) Leaky styrofoam cups placed on the filer head. Drives SLAMMED home when replaced/installed by customer. Stripped screws securing a shelf having the heads hammered off with a chisel..with the shelf/drives still spinning ..and the winner... ...a serial cable in place of a FCAL jumper cable. -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Sterling Woodcock [mailto:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 1:18 AM To: Mohler,Anissa; 'Brian Tao' Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Netapp filesystem failure rate > As far as actual field numbers... I really don't know ;( Actual field numbers would no doubt be greater, since you are dealing with a wider variety of drives over history (presumably some less reliable than the current ones) and you also have some rare software / firmware bugs that probably necessitated a restore once or twice. Bruce

1 0

Netapp filesystem failure rate
by Brian Tao 30 Jul '00

30 Jul '00

Does Netapp have any numbers that they could share publically on how often they see filesystem failures in the field (i.e., double disk failure, spare drive bug, etc.) that would require restoring all the data from tape? I did a quick count in my head and figured we have roughly 21 filer-years of operation (1 filer running for 3 years, 2 for 2.5 years, etc.) without a catastrophic failure yet. Is the actual observed number more like 50 filer-years? 100? 200? -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

1 0

Remove me from this alias please
by meadsoft＠infonet.ca 30 Jul '00

30 Jul '00

Remove me from this alias please.

1 0

RE: Performance probs with UDP NFSv3. (and other pertinent questions)
by mds＠gbnet.net 28 Jul '00

28 Jul '00

I'd put money on the client-side options in /etc/system (or ndd equivs in scripts) not being raised high enough. We've discussed these Solaris tunables to death before now. A good document on them can be found here: http://www.rvs.uni-hannover.de/people/voeckler/tune/EN/tune.html I also have a question stemming from this discussion; first, some background: Oracle, and other db's I presume, keep a lot of data in memory. They arrange to have parts of tables in memory according to their use patterns, if at all possible. Solaris, as with most modern Unixen, has a filesystem buffer-cache that keeps small writes (and probably also large writes) and reads in memory that's not part of the user-process space, and isn't AFAIK shared with the user-process space. It's possible in Sol2.6-7 to use priority-paging to alleviate the buffer- cache competition for process memory. Solaris 8 has a different memory model. Either way the problem doesn't go away, it just bites less hard and fast. Now (I'm getting there!) VxFS, UFS (since Sol2.6), and raw-disk devices (or Disksuite metadevices or VxVM volumes) all allow for DirectIO or raw IO. The goal being *not* to double-cache database files. The DBMS is better at cacheing database data and more system RAM can be used constructively by the DBMS if there's less buffer-cache competing. It also saves lots of double-copies between the buffer-cache and user process space. As an aside VxFS allows 'discovered' DirectIO which means Oracle's small writes can still cause a problem. What I want to know, and what I have yet to have clarified for me, is: 1) are NFS files buffer-cached? (I believe they are) and, 2) is there anything that can be done to moderate the buffer-cache competition (other than priority-paging), and/or alleviate the double-copying that this implies. Also, given that on Solaris I'm informed that nothing short of an obscure fcntl() call can ensure data is flushed from a file back to the server, just how do databases maintain their ACID transaction semantics? Do you need log sections on local disk regardless? I feel I should know this stuff, being an old hand now on the list, but it occurred to me that I still don't have all the answers. Sorry if this was a little incoherent, not entirely sober and alert right now, I might have missed something obvious. -- -Mark ... an Englishman in London ...

2 1

RE: Performance probs with UDP NFSv3.
by jeff.mohler＠netapp.com 28 Jul '00

28 Jul '00

If I had to GUESS here..I would say that the GigE to FastE conversion -might- be the issue with large transmit windows (v3). UDP has no throttle methodology built in like TCP does...and you could be overrunning the conversion process. More stats would help..but im only guessing. The Gig to FastE issue isnt perhaps the best way to do this at all, but will work given you dont overrun the switching mechanism. Now if this were a <xxx> to FDDI, I would be concerned, because the packet fragmentation and reconstruction will easily override most switches. -----Original Message----- From: Krishnan Prabhakar [mailto:kpkar@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 12:55 PM To: foo+netapp(a)eek.org Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Performance probs with UDP NFSv3. > The network at the moment is like this: > > [760] flow-control need to be turned ON > | > Gig-e > | > | > [Foundry FastIron] flow-control need to be turned ON on the port > | > | > 100Mb/s Ethernet > | > | > [Foundry FastIron] flow-control need to be turned ON > | > | > Gig-e > | flow-control need to be turned ON > [Sun e4500] i guess the bottle-neck is the 100bt inbetween 10x faster Gig-e links on both-sides. ( FastIron cant forward the packets through 100Mb/s port as fast as it receives packets through 1000Mb/s port ie. from filer/e4500) Usually its done the otherway ( 100bt -- 1000sx pipe - 100bt ) the above network topology is not 'appropriate' for a server network! i guess there should be lots of 'dropped'/retransmits at the both ends ( 'netstat -s' ) Note : this is my first guess based on the info. in this thread. > > > The reason for the 100Mb in between is that for the moment the 4500 and > the filer are in different parts of a building (power issues prevent > having them in the same place) which is connected via 100Mb. > > That said, I spent a lot of time looking at the switches and network to > see if it was causing the problems. The fast ethernet interface has never > gone above around 30Mb or so, there are no errors of any kind of any of > the ints (no collisions, no align/fcs/giant/short, nothing *at all*). > Everything is full-duplex, flowcontrol is off on everything (any thoughts > about that?), all of the cabling was tested before installation... in > short, the network looks right. > > Eventually the filer and DB will be connected directly to each other, but > I have trouble believing that this will solve the current problems > considering there is currently no congestion in the network. > > The DB has all of the recent patches, but no optimization has been done. > > What am I missing? > > -Brian > > foo wrote: > > Has anyone else experienced performance problems using UDP NFSv3 between > > Solaris 2.7 and an F760 (running 5.3.5R2)? > > > > Using v3 I get the following errors intermittently: > > > > Jul 27 20:41:07 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 not responding still trying > > Jul 27 20:41:07 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 ok > > Jul 27 20:42:06 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 not responding still trying > > Jul 27 20:42:06 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 ok > > Jul 27 20:43:30 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 not responding still trying > > Jul 27 20:43:30 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 ok > > Jul 27 20:45:40 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 not responding still trying > > Jul 27 20:45:40 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 ok > > > > When I switched the mount to v2 (udp), these errors went away, and > > performance seemed to increase. Netapp documentation recommends v3, but it > > doesnt seem to work very well in my environment. > > > > Since this filer is used for a DB, this is causing huge problems. Should I > > just leave it at v2, or is worth trying to determine why v3 is performing > > poorly? > > > > -Brian

1 0

Performance probs with UDP NFSv3.
by foo 28 Jul '00

28 Jul '00

Has anyone else experienced performance problems using UDP NFSv3 between Solaris 2.7 and an F760 (running 5.3.5R2)? Using v3 I get the following errors intermittently: Jul 27 20:41:07 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 not responding still trying Jul 27 20:41:07 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 ok Jul 27 20:42:06 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 not responding still trying Jul 27 20:42:06 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 ok Jul 27 20:43:30 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 not responding still trying Jul 27 20:43:30 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 ok Jul 27 20:45:40 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 not responding still trying Jul 27 20:45:40 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 ok When I switched the mount to v2 (udp), these errors went away, and performance seemed to increase. Netapp documentation recommends v3, but it doesnt seem to work very well in my environment. Since this filer is used for a DB, this is causing huge problems. Should I just leave it at v2, or is worth trying to determine why v3 is performing poorly? -Brian

4 3

Re: CIFS, ownership and chowning from nfs -Reply
by Timothy Cook 28 Jul '00

28 Jul '00

setting anon=0 in your exports will set any unknown uid to roots uid, allowing unscrupulus people to create scripts which will execute as root and wreak havoc on your system. Not a recommended procedure as far as system security is concerned! >>> Jay Tribick <jay.tribick(a)carrier1.net> 07/27/00 08:50am >>> > After on of the NT/Admins went bonkers last night moving a bunch of > users to the NetApp (without consulting me first), I have found that > appox 10% of the user catalogs is owned by root, with unix-style > permissions are drwxrwxrwx, and I am unable to change owner or > permissions from either nfs-side or using SecureShare tool on the NT. > > The users are unable to write to their nfs-mounted files > > At the time of migration, the usermap.cfg did not contain mapping of > the Admin account/group to root, and > > wafl.nt_admin_priv_map_to_root on > wafl.root_only_chown on > > Does anyone have a clue to what can remedy this? Try adding anon=0 onto your options in /etc/exports - that should allow you to change permissions as long as your UID is 0 (AFAIR) -- Regards, Jay Tribick Senior Systems Engineer Carrier1 Voice: +44 207 531 3874 Mobile: +44 7801 526 638

4 4

RE: Performance probs with UDP NFSv3.
by jeff.mohler＠netapp.com 28 Jul '00

28 Jul '00

Can you describe what network hardware lies between the filer and your UNIX machine? Im more inclined to say you have a transmission problem than a version one. Smaller transmission windows in v2 may be hiding a performance issue in your LAN/WAN that v3 has a problem with. End resuly may be going to TCP to introduce more reliable error correction. -----Original Message----- From: foo [mailto:foo+netapp@eek.org] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 9:18 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Performance probs with UDP NFSv3. Has anyone else experienced performance problems using UDP NFSv3 between Solaris 2.7 and an F760 (running 5.3.5R2)? Using v3 I get the following errors intermittently: Jul 27 20:41:07 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 not responding still trying Jul 27 20:41:07 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 ok Jul 27 20:42:06 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 not responding still trying Jul 27 20:42:06 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 ok Jul 27 20:43:30 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 not responding still trying Jul 27 20:43:30 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 ok Jul 27 20:45:40 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 not responding still trying Jul 27 20:45:40 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 ok When I switched the mount to v2 (udp), these errors went away, and performance seemed to increase. Netapp documentation recommends v3, but it doesnt seem to work very well in my environment. Since this filer is used for a DB, this is causing huge problems. Should I just leave it at v2, or is worth trying to determine why v3 is performing poorly? -Brian

3 3

Need terminator for one of the disk shelfs.
by Robert Johannes 28 Jul '00

28 Jul '00

Dear fellas, I was recently involved in the moving of a netapp filer from a hosting facility to our office building, and during transportation, I lost the terminator that plugs into the port that looks like a serial-port on the back of the disk shelf. That port is labeled "output/terminator" on the back of disk shelf (I assume the casing actually housing the disks is called the disk shelf?) Where can I find a replacement for this terminator? Would a standard retail store carry something like this? If so, which ones? Any help appreciated. I've not tried running the filer without that terminator, does anyone know what would happen if I did? Do I stand to lose data? Thanks Robert Johannes Systems Administrator Kairos-Damango Internet Services Inc. 1300 Godward Street suite 3200 Minneapolis, MN 55413

4 3

RE: Performance probs with UDP NFSv3.
by Aaron.Sims＠netapp.com 28 Jul '00

28 Jul '00

You mention this filer is used for a DB. I'll assume Oracle. You really should have a direct crossover connection between the filer and the Sun, preferably gigabit ethernet. Aaron > -----Original Message----- > From: foo [mailto:foo+netapp@eek.org] > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 12:18 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Performance probs with UDP NFSv3. > > > Has anyone else experienced performance problems using UDP > NFSv3 between > Solaris 2.7 and an F760 (running 5.3.5R2)? > > Using v3 I get the following errors intermittently: > > Jul 27 20:41:07 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 not > responding still trying > Jul 27 20:41:07 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 ok > Jul 27 20:42:06 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 not > responding still trying > Jul 27 20:42:06 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 ok > Jul 27 20:43:30 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 not > responding still trying > Jul 27 20:43:30 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 ok > Jul 27 20:45:40 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 not > responding still trying > Jul 27 20:45:40 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 ok > > When I switched the mount to v2 (udp), these errors went away, and > performance seemed to increase. Netapp documentation > recommends v3, but it > doesnt seem to work very well in my environment. > > Since this filer is used for a DB, this is causing huge > problems. Should I > just leave it at v2, or is worth trying to determine why v3 > is performing > poorly? > > -Brian >

1 0

Re: Performance probs with UDP NFSv3.
by Eyal Traitel 28 Jul '00

28 Jul '00

I've been working with 2.7 and F760 using v3 and 32K transfer size with no problems. I believe that you should look at the toasters archive for Solaris client optimizations maybe, since there were a few talk this year about that. Anyway, you better look also if you're at the latest patch level of the Solaris... Eyal. --- foo <foo+netapp(a)eek.org> wrote: > Has anyone else experienced performance problems using UDP NFSv3 > between > Solaris 2.7 and an F760 (running 5.3.5R2)? > > Using v3 I get the following errors intermittently: > > Jul 27 20:41:07 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 not > responding still trying > Jul 27 20:41:07 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 ok > Jul 27 20:42:06 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 not > responding still trying > Jul 27 20:42:06 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 ok > Jul 27 20:43:30 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 not > responding still trying > Jul 27 20:43:30 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 ok > Jul 27 20:45:40 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 not > responding still trying > Jul 27 20:45:40 bullwinkle unix: NFS server 10.20.10.10 ok > > When I switched the mount to v2 (udp), these errors went away, and > performance seemed to increase. Netapp documentation recommends v3, > but it > doesnt seem to work very well in my environment. > > Since this filer is used for a DB, this is causing huge problems. > Should I > just leave it at v2, or is worth trying to determine why v3 is > performing > poorly? > > -Brian ===== Yours, Eyal Traitel eTraitel(a)yahoo.com, Home: 972-3-5290415 (Tel Aviv) *** eTraitel - it's the new eBuzzword ! *** __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/

1 0

RE: Performance probs with UDP NFSv3.
by Schepers, Jan 28 Jul '00

28 Jul '00

Hi Brain, > When I switched the mount to v2 (udp), these errors went away, and > performance seemed to increase. Netapp documentation > recommends v3, but it > doesnt seem to work very well in my environment. V3 uses larger udp packets then v2. There are a couple network switches in the market place that are know to drop UDP packets (UDP - a.k.a. You Drop Packets) when they get overloaded. To drop packets by design is a wrong policy that even is used by one of the biggest internet plumbers. Especially when knowing the motivation that is something like 'udp is an unreliable protocol, the application will resent the packet when it does not arrive'. Imagine what happens with your application NFSv3 that uses packets of 32K rather then 4K (v2). The packet has almost arrived, then the switch drops it because it is too busy doing other things. The packet needs to be retransmitted taking unnecessary part of the available bandwidth .... Enfin, it ends as an avalanche of never arriving packets. What switches do you have? -Yann-

1 0

Mixing FC-8 and FC-9 shelves
by Brian Tao 28 Jul '00

28 Jul '00

Any issues daisychaining an FC-9 shelf off an FC-8 shelf, or vice-versa? Both have 18GB drives. Does auto-termination on the FC-9 still work if there is an FC-8 shelf in the chain? I'll upgrade the filers to 5.3.6R1 to address the auto-termination bug with the FC-9's. -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

2 2

RE: CIFS, ownership and chowning from nfs -Reply
by Dawn Hamel 27 Jul '00

27 Jul '00

There is a utility called ntchown.exe that will allow you change the ownership of NT files/dirs to the appropriate user (so that even on the Unix side, it is changed from root to the user) without touching the ACL's on the NT side. You should be able to get this from support Word of caution on this utility. If you ntchown a Unix based security file ... you will blow away the Unix security and place an NT acl on that area Dawn Systems Programmer -----Original Message----- From: alan.yoder(a)netapp.com [mailto:alan.yoder@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 1:33 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS, ownership and chowning from nfs -Reply > > After on of the NT/Admins went bonkers last night moving a bunch of > > users to the NetApp (without consulting me first), I have found that > > appox 10% of the user catalogs is owned by root, with unix-style > > permissions are drwxrwxrwx, and I am unable to change owner or > > permissions from either nfs-side or using SecureShare tool > on the NT. A reminder, there is a security troubleshooter on the NOW site that can help you walk through to a solution for most kinds of problems like this. Go to NOW and search for "security". It's called the "Data ONTAP 5.3 Security Troubleshooting Guide". Alan =============================================================== Alan G. Yoder agy(a)netapp.com ===============================================================

1 0

RE: CIFS, ownership and chowning from nfs -Reply
by alan.yoder＠netapp.com 27 Jul '00

27 Jul '00

> > After on of the NT/Admins went bonkers last night moving a bunch of > > users to the NetApp (without consulting me first), I have found that > > appox 10% of the user catalogs is owned by root, with unix-style > > permissions are drwxrwxrwx, and I am unable to change owner or > > permissions from either nfs-side or using SecureShare tool > on the NT. A reminder, there is a security troubleshooter on the NOW site that can help you walk through to a solution for most kinds of problems like this. Go to NOW and search for "security". It's called the "Data ONTAP 5.3 Security Troubleshooting Guide". Alan =============================================================== Alan G. Yoder agy(a)netapp.com ===============================================================

1 0

RE: CIFS, ownership and chowning from nfs
by don.yenish＠netapp.com 27 Jul '00

27 Jul '00

If file access is controlled by NT ACL's as Andrew suggests, whomever you reach at NetApp support should know of a tool call "ntchown", which is very useful for allowing the NT administrator to set the owner of a directory or file. This was eventually supposed to be placed on NOW, but I'm not sure if it ever made it. Best of luck, Don Y. > -----Original Message----- > From: abond(a)netapp.com [mailto:abond@netapp.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 8:17 AM > To: rb(a)nextra.com > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: CIFS, ownership and chowning from nfs > > > Anders probably has guessed the problem right, that it is an > NTFS tree and so > the Unix permissions seen by ls -al or SecureShare Access in > Explorer will be > derived permissions and not "real" unix permissions. > SecureShare Access has a > checkbox that tells you whether a file has an ACL or not. > > In any case, I assume you have opened a call with NetApp > support, as they will > be able to take you through the solution. > > Regards, > Andrew > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jay Tribick [mailto:jay.tribick@carrier1.net] > > Sent: 27 July 2000 13:51 > > To: Rune Bakken > > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: Re: CIFS, ownership and chowning from nfs > > > > > > > After on of the NT/Admins went bonkers last night moving > a bunch of > > > users to the NetApp (without consulting me first), I have > found that > > > appox 10% of the user catalogs is owned by root, with unix-style > > > permissions are drwxrwxrwx, and I am unable to change owner or > > > permissions from either nfs-side or using SecureShare tool > > on the NT. > > > > > > The users are unable to write to their nfs-mounted files > > > > > > At the time of migration, the usermap.cfg did not contain > mapping of > > > the Admin account/group to root, and > > > > > > wafl.nt_admin_priv_map_to_root on > > > wafl.root_only_chown on > > > > > > Does anyone have a clue to what can remedy this? > > > > Try adding anon=0 onto your options in /etc/exports - that should > > allow you to change permissions as long as your UID is 0 (AFAIR) > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Jay Tribick > > Senior Systems Engineer > > Carrier1 > > Voice: +44 207 531 3874 > > Mobile: +44 7801 526 638 > > >

1 0

Re: CIFS, ownership and chowning from nfs
by Rune Bakken 27 Jul '00

27 Jul '00

abond(a)netapp.com writes: > Anders probably has guessed the problem right, that it is an NTFS > tree and so the Unix permissions seen by ls -al or SecureShare > Access in Explorer will be derived permissions and not "real" unix > permissions. SecureShare Access has a checkbox that tells you > whether a file has an ACL or not. My problem was getting permission to change the ACL on the files, but after fixing the usermap.cfg to use the "real" Domain Administrator account as mapping for root, my problems did resolv!! > In any case, I assume you have opened a call with NetApp support, as > they will be able to take you through the solution. Well I did call NetApp support, but they did not have a good answer, but my fix occured while talking to support :-) Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>.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." a Telenor Company - Frank Sinatra

1 0

RE: CIFS, ownership and chowning from nfs
by abond＠netapp.com 27 Jul '00

27 Jul '00

Anders probably has guessed the problem right, that it is an NTFS tree and so the Unix permissions seen by ls -al or SecureShare Access in Explorer will be derived permissions and not "real" unix permissions. SecureShare Access has a checkbox that tells you whether a file has an ACL or not. In any case, I assume you have opened a call with NetApp support, as they will be able to take you through the solution. Regards, Andrew > -----Original Message----- > From: Jay Tribick [mailto:jay.tribick@carrier1.net] > Sent: 27 July 2000 13:51 > To: Rune Bakken > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: CIFS, ownership and chowning from nfs > > > > After on of the NT/Admins went bonkers last night moving a bunch of > > users to the NetApp (without consulting me first), I have found that > > appox 10% of the user catalogs is owned by root, with unix-style > > permissions are drwxrwxrwx, and I am unable to change owner or > > permissions from either nfs-side or using SecureShare tool > on the NT. > > > > The users are unable to write to their nfs-mounted files > > > > At the time of migration, the usermap.cfg did not contain mapping of > > the Admin account/group to root, and > > > > wafl.nt_admin_priv_map_to_root on > > wafl.root_only_chown on > > > > Does anyone have a clue to what can remedy this? > > Try adding anon=0 onto your options in /etc/exports - that should > allow you to change permissions as long as your UID is 0 (AFAIR) > > -- > Regards, > > Jay Tribick > Senior Systems Engineer > Carrier1 > Voice: +44 207 531 3874 > Mobile: +44 7801 526 638 >

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