toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

NAS solutions from Sun?
by Ishankov, Alex 01 Jun '00

01 Jun '00

Hi - Does anybody know anything about recently announced NAS solution from Sun Sun StorEdge N8200 filer (http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2000-05/sunflash.20000530.1.html) and if it is just an adopted version of Network Appliance filer? Thanks

1 0

RE: NT + Unix access rights
by mark.muhlestein＠netapp.com 01 Jun '00

01 Jun '00

As explained in the security guide, access to files with NT security is based on the NT account, while access to files with UNIX security is based on the UNIX account. You can review http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ind… tml to understand multi-protocol security. This is described in the "Concepts" section. Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 4:07 AM > To: Muhlestein, Mark > Cc: mlelstv(a)xlink.net; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: NT + Unix access rights > > > On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 04:54:56PM -0700, > mark.muhlestein(a)netapp.com wrote: > > > I see your problem: WEBMAILER\Administrator is not a member of > > BUILTIN\Administrators on the filer. You should add > "WEBMAILER\Domain Admins" as > > a member of BUILTIN\Administrators on the filer using User > Manager for Domains. > > By default, only the "Domain Admins" group from the domain > the filer is > > installed into is placed as a member of the filer's > BUILTIN\Administrators > > group. > > > Would this give the WEBMAILER\Domain Admins full authority over > the files that use the UNIX security model or just over those > files that use the NT security model ? > > > > > > > > After fixing this, you're going to want to do a "wcc -x" to > force a remapping. > > > > Mark > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 4:20 PM > > > To: Muhlestein, Mark > > > Cc: mlelstv(a)xlink.net > > > Subject: Re: NT + Unix access rights > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 04:02:42PM -0700, > > > mark.muhlestein(a)netapp.com wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > This is a mixed qtree, right? Can you send the output of > > > "wcc -dvv" after > > > > attempting to do the "chown"? The mapped user doing the > > > "chown" has to be a > > > > member of builtin\administrators. > > > > > > here is the relevant part: > > > > > > root (UID 0) from 123.45.67.89 => WEBMAILER\Administrator > > > *************** > > > UNIX uid = 0 > > > > > > NT membership > > > WEBMAILER\Administrator > > > WEBMAILER\Domain Users > > > WEBMAILER\Domain Admins > > > User is also a member of Everyone, Network Users, > > > Authenticated Users > > > *************** > > > > > > Michael van Elst > > > > > > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 2:56 PM > > > > > To: Muhlestein, Mark > > > > > Cc: mlelstv(a)xlink.net; toasters(a)mathworks.com > > > > > Subject: Re: NT + Unix access rights > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 01:34:03PM -0700, > > > > > mark.muhlestein(a)netapp.com wrote: > > > > > > > Apparently the file uses the NT security model in the > > > mixed qtree > > > > > > > and the file owner has locked himself and others out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If this is the case, you should be able to take > > > ownership from NT. > > > > > > > > > > This was unsuccessful so far. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a > > > > > > bug with take ownership (#21325), which is fixed in 5.3.5R2. > > > > > > > > > > I have to check with other people if upgrading the > > > current production > > > > > system to, what I was told is an early-access release, is > > > an option. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You should also be > > > > > > able to do a "chmod" or "chown" from NFS root and get > > > > > control of the file. > > > > > > > > > > This is not possible. Both fail with the error "Not owner". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > that fails, you should do the rc_toggle_basic command > > > > > "lock_dump -f" and see if > > > > > > your file is locked. > > > > > > > > > > The files are not locked according to lock_dump -f. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 > > > > > 721 9652 330 > > > > > Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 > > > > > 721 9652 349 > > > > > Emmy-Noether-Strasse 9 /\ link > > http://nic.xlink.net/ > > > > D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: > > > > hostmaster(a)xlink.net > > > > [ KPNQwest Germany GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe > > > > ] > > > > [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Koen > > > > Bertoen ] > > > > > > -- > > i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 > 721 9652 330 > > Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 > 721 9652 349 > > Emmy-Noether-Strasse 9 /\ link > http://nic.xlink.net/ > > D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: > hostmaster(a)xlink.net > > [ KPNQwest Germany GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe > ] > > [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Koen > Bertoen ] > -- > i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 > 721 9652 330 > Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 > 721 9652 349 > Emmy-Noether-Strasse 9 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ > D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: > hostmaster(a)xlink.net > [ KPNQwest Germany GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe > ] > [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Koen > Bertoen ] >

1 0

RE: NT + Unix access rights
by mark.muhlestein＠netapp.com 01 Jun '00

01 Jun '00

I see your problem: WEBMAILER\Administrator is not a member of BUILTIN\Administrators on the filer. You should add "WEBMAILER\Domain Admins" as a member of BUILTIN\Administrators on the filer using User Manager for Domains. By default, only the "Domain Admins" group from the domain the filer is installed into is placed as a member of the filer's BUILTIN\Administrators group. After fixing this, you're going to want to do a "wcc -x" to force a remapping. Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 4:20 PM > To: Muhlestein, Mark > Cc: mlelstv(a)xlink.net > Subject: Re: NT + Unix access rights > > > On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 04:02:42PM -0700, > mark.muhlestein(a)netapp.com wrote: > > Hi, > > > This is a mixed qtree, right? Can you send the output of > "wcc -dvv" after > > attempting to do the "chown"? The mapped user doing the > "chown" has to be a > > member of builtin\administrators. > > here is the relevant part: > > root (UID 0) from 123.45.67.89 => WEBMAILER\Administrator > *************** > UNIX uid = 0 > > NT membership > WEBMAILER\Administrator > WEBMAILER\Domain Users > WEBMAILER\Domain Admins > User is also a member of Everyone, Network Users, > Authenticated Users > *************** > > Michael van Elst > > > > > Mark > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 2:56 PM > > > To: Muhlestein, Mark > > > Cc: mlelstv(a)xlink.net; toasters(a)mathworks.com > > > Subject: Re: NT + Unix access rights > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 01:34:03PM -0700, > > > mark.muhlestein(a)netapp.com wrote: > > > > > Apparently the file uses the NT security model in the > mixed qtree > > > > > and the file owner has locked himself and others out. > > > > > > > > > > If this is the case, you should be able to take > ownership from NT. > > > > > > This was unsuccessful so far. > > > > > > > > > > There was a > > > > bug with take ownership (#21325), which is fixed in 5.3.5R2. > > > > > > I have to check with other people if upgrading the > current production > > > system to, what I was told is an early-access release, is > an option. > > > > > > > > > > You should also be > > > > able to do a "chmod" or "chown" from NFS root and get > > > control of the file. > > > > > > This is not possible. Both fail with the error "Not owner". > > > > > > > > > > If > > > > that fails, you should do the rc_toggle_basic command > > > "lock_dump -f" and see if > > > > your file is locked. > > > > > > The files are not locked according to lock_dump -f. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 > > > 721 9652 330 > > > Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 > > > 721 9652 349 > > > Emmy-Noether-Strasse 9 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ > > D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: > > hostmaster(a)xlink.net > > [ KPNQwest Germany GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe > > ] > > [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Koen > > Bertoen ] > > -- i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 721 9652 330 Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 721 9652 349 Emmy-Noether-Strasse 9 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: hostmaster(a)xlink.net [ KPNQwest Germany GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe ] [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Koen Bertoen ]

2 1

Ait2 Robots supported?
by Brian Hostetter 01 Jun '00

01 Jun '00

Has anyone hooked up an AIT2 drive to their filers? I had two 760's shipped out today and am going to need a nice large tape system to back them up. I plan on using the time manager ndmp solution for backups and would like to use a Qualstar 4400 series tape library. Anyone have any luck with them or can anyone suggest a 4-8 tape DLT system? --Brian

4 3

Looking for ST15150W
by Stephen C. Woods 31 May '00

31 May '00

Does anyone here have some 4 GB Wide (ST15150W) drives that are: (1) netapp qualified and (2) you are interested in selling? We have a partially populated shelf that we'd like to fill or at least add to. <scw> ----- Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASnet; 2567 Boelter hall; LA CA 90095; (310)-825-8614 Finger for public key scw(a)cirrus.seas.ucla.edu,Internet mail:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU

1 0

Raid scrubbing overloading a 540
by Stephen C. Woods 31 May '00

31 May '00

We have discovered an interesting feature on our toasters, and after some consideration have come to the conclusion that it is a misfeature. As many of you are aware the raid.reconstruct_speed number determines how much CPU to use in raid reconstruction. This directly controls how long it takes to reconstruct a missing disk. If you are concerned about double disk failure, you set this number higher. Unfortunately this number also controls how much CPU is to be used in raid scrubbing, to make things worse if you have multiple raid volumes they seem to be scrubbed in parallel not sequentially. These are the numbers that we obtained, 540 2 raid groups 0 (20X4GB Wide) 1 (12 X 4GB Narrow) no scrubbing CPU = 6% raid.reconstruct_speed =1 CPU = 11-12% raid.reconstruct_speed =2 CPU = 29-33% raid.reconstruct_speed =3 CPU = 59-65% With raid.reconstruct_speed = 8 the filler didn't seem to be responding to nfs requests, which is how discovered this. Now clearly this affects lower end machines (540) more than faster machines. But since scrubbing seems to be very CPU bound it would seem to us that almost any machine could be brought to its knees by this condition. Our question is this: Would it be reasonable to ask Netapp for one or both of the following: (1) Separate raid reconstruct speed from raid scrub speed. (2) Add an option to force raid scrubbing to be sequential. perhaps raid.scrub_parallel == off Clearly for those concerned about dual disk failures a high raid.reconstruct_speed is important. Equally clearly moderatly high raid.reconstruct_speed can bring a 540 to its knees with 2 Raid groups. Spliting the speeds or, running raid scrubbing sequentially might avoid this. ----- Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASnet; 2567 Boelter hall; LA CA 90095; (310)-825-8614 Finger for public key scw(a)cirrus.seas.ucla.edu,Internet mail:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU

1 0

RE: Ait2 Robots supported?
by Parker, Michael 31 May '00

31 May '00

I have been researching AIT2. FYI please look at http://www.spectralogic.com/NetApp/ which describes a SAN solution for multiple filer environments. Michael Parker Director Information Services Rosetta Inpharmatics 12040 115th Ave NE Kirkland, WA 98034 425-823-7333 mparker(a)rii.com -----Original Message----- From: Marcus Kamenzin [mailto:kamenzin@netapp.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 9:41 AM To: Brian Hostetter Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Ait2 Robots supported? Brian, I made some small test with AIT2 last week and it works great (up to 13,5MB/sec)?? Marcus Brian Hostetter wrote: > Has anyone hooked up an AIT2 drive to their filers? I had two 760's shipped out today and am going to need a nice large tape system to back them up. I plan on using the time manager ndmp solution for backups and would like to use a Qualstar 4400 series tape library. Anyone have any luck with them or can anyone suggest a 4-8 tape DLT system? > > --Brian

1 0

RE: NT + Unix access rights
by mark.muhlestein＠netapp.com 31 May '00

31 May '00

> Apparently the file uses the NT security model in the mixed qtree > and the file owner has locked himself and others out. If this is the case, you should be able to take ownership from NT. There was a bug with take ownership (#21325), which is fixed in 5.3.5R2. You should also be able to do a "chmod" or "chown" from NFS root and get control of the file. If that fails, you should do the rc_toggle_basic command "lock_dump -f" and see if your file is locked. These steps and others are all spelled out in the troubleshooter guide referred to earlier in this discussion. Let us know if you still can't solve this problem. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] > Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 5:20 PM > To: Bruce Sterling Woodcock > Cc: Michael van Elst; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: NT + Unix access rights > > > On Mon, May 29, 2000 at 05:05:39PM -0700, Bruce Sterling > Woodcock wrote: > > > Is the mapping only for access, or only for ownership? > > > > I understand that if root creates a file, and you look at > it from NT, > > it will be owned by Administrator (with the mapping given above). > > But when Administrator tries to access it, he'll be mapped to > > ntadmin, which doesn't have access?? > > This is correct. > > But in this case an ordinary NT user (u12345) has created a file and > neither this user nor the NT administrator seems to have any > access rights. > > Unfortunately this is also true for the UNIX side. Neither root > nor the UNIX user to which u12345 is mapped (also called u12345 with > a uid of 12345) has access to the file despite the fact that it shows > up as > > -rwx------ 1 12345 1101 2215 May 8 17:48 structure.cnf > > in a listing. > > Apparently the file uses the NT security model in the mixed qtree > and the file owner has locked himself and others out. > > > -- > i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 > 721 9652 330 > Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 > 721 9652 349 > Emmy-Noether-Strasse 9 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ > D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: > hostmaster(a)xlink.net > [ KPNQwest Germany GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe > ] > [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Koen > Bertoen ] >

2 1

RE: F740 and subnet problems
by Dennis.Haag＠netapp.com 31 May '00

31 May '00

Check your routing tables with 'netstat -rn' is there a route to the other subnet? Is there a default route? Can you ping the router? Does ifconfig show the expected netmask? -----Original Message----- From: Gregory T Rotunda [mailto:grotunda@brk.photronics.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 5:39 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: F740 and subnet problems what are you IP ranges? how many subnets are there? Double check your subnet mask. We had the same problem and it turned out to be the mask was incorrectly set on the filer. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]On Behalf Of Uros Lampret Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 1:58 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: F740 and subnet problems Hi! I'm relatively new to this business and I have some problems. I recently installed F740 and everything works joust great. BUT I have some access problems. Filer is installed in subnet 10.0.1.XXX and everybody can see it and use it. But from subnet 10.0.2.XXX or 10.0.10.XXX the filer is not accessible. If I PING form Filer someone to 10.0.10.XXX everything is OK and also if I PING Filer from 10.0.10.XXX - OK. We use CIFS and this is single Domain. Any suggestions? Uros Lampret Our Space d.o.o. Malnarjeva 47 1000 Ljubljana EU - Slovenia

1 0

RE: Samba Vs CIFFS
by John.Davis＠netapp.com 31 May '00

31 May '00

Thank You, Todd..I much prefer customer testimonials to Netapp folk chiming in but I've seen lots of Enterprises disappointed that TAS and Samba don't scale out into the Enterprise..thanks again for the kind words. -----Original Message----- From: Todd C. Merrill [mailto:tmerrill@mathworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 9:41 AM To: Davis, John Cc: thomas(a)act.sps.mot.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Samba Vs CIFFS On Sat, 27 May 2000 John.Davis(a)netapp.com wrote: > Netapp glues the MS smb(cifs) code into our microkernel at the > protocol level; Samba and other bolt-ons sit above kernel > space as any other user app would and is subject to the > context switching and shufflings that go on in a general purpose > server; this (primarily) is why the Netapp CIFS solution both scales > well and performs well as we add hundreds of users(see our Netbench > results, for example); this is why the solution is not "free" Way back when, about 2-3 years ago, I came into an environment that had Syntax TAS servers doing our CIFS services. It's not free like SaMBa, and SaMBa was a bit faster than TAS, but comparable. Regardless, I had a dozen or so Sun Ultra2 boxes running as many different CIFS servers, which could each support one development build, one NFS development build, and one CIFS development build. It was a pain to keep each of these suckers up to date and running. The Sun server could barely keep up with one NFS and one CIFS client. One upgrade choice was an 8 - 16 processor Sun box, to keep up with running all those TAS or SaMBa servers and NFS. I converted the whole thing over to a single 400 MHz 21164A processor F740 filer. Lock, stock and barrel. And, today, I'm still sane. We needed consolidation and horsepower. WAFL and snapshots and the other features mentioned were just icing on the cake. The microkernel-level CIFS implementation is just so much *faster* than SaMBa, TAS, or anyone else's user-level implementation. A lot of companies will tell you they have NFS and CIFS multi-protocol file sharing. But, if you ask them if they do it "natively," there are only three players we found: NetApp, EMC, and Auspex. My biggest problems today are adding more disk to support even more development sandboxes, and worrying about now managing a bank of filers. "An 800, an 800, my kingdom for an 800-series filer!" Until next time... The Mathworks, Inc. 508-647-7000 x7792 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick, MA 01760-2098 508-647-7001 FAX tmerrill(a)mathworks.com http://www.mathworks.com ---

1 0

RE: Samba Vs CIFFS
by John.Davis＠netapp.com 31 May '00

31 May '00

Many enterprises have tried employing "free" software like Samba and even some vendors like SGI have tried to incorporate it into a "product"; hopefully some of these folks on this list will respond to your request but from working with "some" of these enterprises I can tell you from experience that Samba neither "scales" in the enterprise nor does it perform beyond about 75 clients doing useful work in a medium to large domain structure..it also is not an easy beast to administer( as explained to me be by several admins); it is "free" , however... Netapp glues the MS smb(cifs) code into our microkernel at the protocol level; Samba and other bolt-ons sit above kernel space as any other user app would and is subject to the context switching and shufflings that go on in a general purpose server; this (primarily) is why the Netapp CIFS solution both scales well and performs well as we add hundreds of users(see our Netbench results, for example); this is why the solution is not "free" -----Original Message----- From: Philip Thomas [mailto:thomas@act.sps.mot.com] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 11:03 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Samba Vs CIFFS Hi, Why should some one pay good money to buy CIFFS license from NetApp when apparently the similar functionality is available "free", Samba? I am hoping folks out there, with experience in both products would be willing to share their knowledge as much their internal policy allows. I am specifically looking for pros and cons with respect to (a) performance (what ever than means) (b) scalibility (500+ users) (c) reliability (d) functionality (e) coexistence with Windows Terminal Server (f) 'cost' (not just dollars) (g) administration (h) interaction or lack of it with commercial apps ...any thing else ?? Perhaps this list is biased to CIFFS, by definition of the mailing list. But I have seen folks willing to speak out in the past. [BTW, please don't shoot the messenger:-)] Thanks. Philip Thomas Motorola - DDL-ITG, M/S M360 2200 W. Broadway Rd Mesa, AZ 85202 rxjs80(a)email.sps.mot.com (480) 655-3678 (480) 655-3881 (fax)

2 1

RE: F740 and subnet problems
by Adam.Fox＠netapp.com 31 May '00

31 May '00

If ICMP (ping) traffic can cross subnets, but CIFS traffic can't, I might suspect an access list on a router between those subnets is blocking TCP traffic (or specific TCP ports). You may want to check with your networking folks to make sure that they don't have access lists that are blocking your traffic. Also check your subnet mask and your default gateways to make sure they are working as well. As a last resort, you could try to run a packet trace on the network to see if packets are reaching the filer. Hope this helps. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Uros Lampret [mailto:uros.lampret@ourspace.si] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 1:58 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: F740 and subnet problems Hi! I'm relatively new to this business and I have some problems. I recently installed F740 and everything works joust great. BUT I have some access problems. Filer is installed in subnet 10.0.1.XXX and everybody can see it and use it. But from subnet 10.0.2.XXX or 10.0.10.XXX the filer is not accessible. If I PING form Filer someone to 10.0.10.XXX everything is OK and also if I PING Filer from 10.0.10.XXX - OK. We use CIFS and this is single Domain. Any suggestions? Uros Lampret Our Space d.o.o. Malnarjeva 47 1000 Ljubljana EU - Slovenia

1 0

CIFS Woes
by Gunn, Billy 31 May '00

31 May '00

Is there a file similar to LMHOSTS for the filer. In attempting to implement CIFS after running an initial setup the filer is able to find a domain controller. After stopping and restarting CIFS or after some period of time it becomes unable to find a domain controller in which case the shares are unavailable. NT systems on the same subnet however are able to find a DC with the help of LMHOSTS. There are no DC's on the subnet in question however broadcasts are forwarded. I assume the filer is simply broadcasting for a DC and timing out rather rapidly. TIA, Billy Gunn Interadnet, Inc

1 0

F740 and subnet problems
by Uros Lampret 31 May '00

31 May '00

Hi! I'm relatively new to this business and I have some problems. I recently installed F740 and everything works joust great. BUT I have some access problems. Filer is installed in subnet 10.0.1.XXX and everybody can see it and use it. But from subnet 10.0.2.XXX or 10.0.10.XXX the filer is not accessible. If I PING form Filer someone to 10.0.10.XXX everything is OK and also if I PING Filer from 10.0.10.XXX - OK. We use CIFS and this is single Domain. Any suggestions? Uros Lampret Our Space d.o.o. Malnarjeva 47 1000 Ljubljana EU - Slovenia

2 1

RE: SQL Server 7 with data files on toaster?
by chris.hackett＠netapp.com 31 May '00

31 May '00

Colm, I was in charge of our Vantive database for the Sales department when we switched it over to a Filer for storage. Our internal sales group uses Vantive to track their contacts and leads. This application runs in an NT environment on a Dell Poweredge 6350 with four processors. Vantive itself runs on top of a MS SQL database. We connect all of the data files from this database out to a pair of clustered F760s. This has been in place since last December, and has been working great since. The system has only been down twice since we went to this configuration - both planned. Once to move the equipment to a different subnet, and a second time when we installed the CFO hardware. The Cluster Failover setup provides us with additional security and flexibility. Though, due to the stateful nature of CIFS, a successful failover requires some manual SQL Server intervention, we feel the overall configuration saves us time when we need to run scheduled maintenance on the Vantive Filer and provides us with availability should we experience unscheduled downtime of this Filer. As for the performance, it's great. In fact, I would say that if anything we have seen a slight performance increase due to the fact that many of the searches are repeated across many diffferent users (such as a search for all of the new leads from a particular tradeshow), in addition to all of the other normal reasons. Additionally, we have installed the SnapRestore software onto these machines and have snapshots running every hour. If something were to happen, we can recover from the snapshot taken at the top of the hour, instead of relying on the more manual process (where it has taken multiple hours to restore in the past). As you probably know, when we perform the SnapRestore, it's a simple reboot of the Filer, then we are working again. The value this provides to the Sales team is difficult to measure. If you have any other questions, please let me know. chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: Colm Buckley [mailto:colm@tuatha.org] > Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 9:38 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: SQL Server 7 with data files on toaster? > > > > Hi - > > Another request for success or horror stories; does anyone on the list > have experience with running MS SQL Server 7 using a toaster to store > the data (as described in http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3042.html > and http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3044.html)? One possibility > being looked at here is to run a database from something like a Dell > PowerEdge 8450 with the data files on an F720 or F740. I'm > aware of the > advantages the toaster will bring in relation to backup, > snapshots etc, > but I'm interested in how the performance of such a setup > would compare > to, say, attaching a big LVD or Fibre RAID5 directly to the server. > > Any comments? > > Colm > > -- > Colm Buckley BA BF | NewWorld Commerce, 44 Westland Row, > Dublin 2, Ireland > colm(a)tuatha.org (personal) | colm.buckley(a)nwcgroup.com (business) > +353 87 2469146 | whois cb3765 | http://www.tuatha.org/~colm/ > No, my powers can only be used for good. > >

1 0

RE: CIFS permissions
by rob.hawley＠netapp.com 30 May '00

30 May '00

The information below would imply that the user would get by the share permissions. It would still have to also get by the file permissions. You should also confirm the permissions assigned to your user by doing a cifs sessions -s. Here are two articles that will allow you to diagnose security problems: http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ts2… l http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ts1… l This is a more detailed article on the security model http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/con… .shtml If the answer does not fall out of the above troubleshooters (or you need access to NOW), please contact customer support. I would suggest having the qtree type, the output of cifs sessions -s, and the reported ACL for the directory you are trying to write to available when you call. You should also report the version of the filer and the version of the client. They should be able to solve this very quickly. -----Original Message----- From: Gunn, Billy [mailto:bgunn@InterAdNet.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 2:20 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: CIFS permissions Hi. I have setup an CIFS share called htdocs. issuing the command 'cifs shares' on the filer returns: htdocs /vol/vol0/media/htdocs INTERADNET\bgunn / Full Control I set up the privaleges so that bgunn would have full control. I can browse the share with no problems however, when attempting to write to the share I get an Access denied error. This share has been mapped to a dirve letter. When viewing the NTFS permissions for the drive it indicates rwx across th board. Is there some other location where permissions are set? Thanks, Billy Gunn Interadnet, Inc.

1 0

CIFS permissions
by Gunn, Billy 30 May '00

30 May '00

Hi. I have setup an CIFS share called htdocs. issuing the command 'cifs shares' on the filer returns: htdocs /vol/vol0/media/htdocs INTERADNET\bgunn / Full Control I set up the privaleges so that bgunn would have full control. I can browse the share with no problems however, when attempting to write to the share I get an Access denied error. This share has been mapped to a dirve letter. When viewing the NTFS permissions for the drive it indicates rwx across th board. Is there some other location where permissions are set? Thanks, Billy Gunn Interadnet, Inc.

1 0

RE: Samba Vs CIFFS
by paul.benn＠netapp.com 30 May '00

30 May '00

> We use both together... > I think that for simplicity, you should get the NetApp > license and use it... > We use Samba as an helper application for handling > soft-links, which we own a > lot... > NetApp can handle soft-links also, but of course not to > outside machines.... Here's a repost of a message posted on this subject a month ago. Stay Tuned! paul@netapp -----Original Message----- From: Muhlestein, Mark Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 1:21 PM To: 'Timothy Demarest'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Any way for CIFS to see symlinks across qtrees/shares? That restriction exists to enforce share level ACLs. However, we do have plans to allow such symlinks securely. Unfortunately, I can't give you info on when. I'll add you to the list of folks who have asked for this. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Timothy Demarest [mailto:demarest@arraycomm.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 11:31 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Any way for CIFS to see symlinks across qtrees/shares? > > > > Is there any way to set the Filer to allow symbolic links to > traverse other > qtrees? I have a symlink on one CIFS share, which is a qtree, > that points > to a directory on another CIFS share, which is another qtree. > Obviously, > this works fine for NFS clients, but the CIFS clients just > see the symlink > as a regular file, not as a directory. > > Thanks, > Tim > >

1 0

Linux 'disk sleep' process
by Henrique Pantarotto 30 May '00

30 May '00

Hello toaster friends, please forgive me if anyone finds this message to be off-topic. I have POP3 and SMTP daemons running on a Linux server, using a F760 filer with NFS. Often, our Linux server gets a couple of stuck processes, that won't go away. It's not possible to kill them. It has "disk sleep" status, and they cannot receive kill commands. Does anyone knows how can I kill this processes? I have a couple that are over a week old. Thanks a lot! [root@blabla /]# ls /proc/13797/fd -l total 0 lrwx------ 1 root root 64 May 30 16:31 0 -> socket:[17770653] lrwx------ 1 root root 64 May 30 16:31 1 -> socket:[17770653] lrwx------ 1 root root 64 May 30 16:31 2 -> socket:[17770653] lrwx------ 1 root root 64 May 30 16:31 3 -> /var/spool/pop/.nfs0015790300007a77 [root@blabla /]# cat /proc/13797/status Name: nnpopper State: D (disk sleep) Pid: 13797 PPid: 557 Uid: 520 520 520 520 Gid: 12 12 12 12 Groups: 0 VmSize: 2176 kB VmLck: 0 kB VmRSS: 856 kB VmData: 312 kB VmStk: 20 kB VmExe: 320 kB VmLib: 1436 kB SigPnd: 0000000000000000 SigBlk: fffffffffffffeff SigIgn: 0000000000000000 SigCgt: 0000000000001001 CapInh: 00000000fffffeff CapPrm: 0000000000000000 CapEff: 0000000000000000 _______________________________________________ Henrique Pantarotto SysOp Site São Paulo Terra Networks Brasil S/A A Internet mais sua do que nunca Tel: (11) 5505-5728 r.316/238 ICQ: 6934285 henrique(a)corp.terra.com.br

1 0

RE: NT + Unix access rights
by rob.hawley＠netapp.com 30 May '00

30 May '00

The NetApp security model is that each file/directory has exactly one type of security style; Unix or NT. When accessing the file from the native security side (i.e. NT accessing a file with ACLs) then Native security rules apply. When accessing from the other side (i.e. NFS accessing a file with an ACL), we must first map the user into an NT user. Once we do that we can use normal ACL rules. Normally we just convert the UID into a user name and then look up the user name in the filer's domain ( or in a list of trusted domains). It is possible to override this default mapping using the mapping file described below. These are used when the names are different on the two sides ( e.g. Administrator on NT and root on UNIX). This is a more detailed article on the security model http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/con… .shtml Here are two articles that will allow you to diagnose security problems: http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ts2… l http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ts1… l The console commands wcc and cifs security -s can help in understanding how the mapping operates. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ mailto: hawleyr(a)netapp.com US Mail: Network Appliance Inc. Phone: 408-822-6661 495 East Java Drive FAX: 408-822-4521 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Sterling Woodcock [mailto:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 5:06 PM To: Michael van Elst Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: NT + Unix access rights ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael van Elst" <mlelstv(a)xlink.net> To: "Bruce Sterling Woodcock" <sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com> Cc: "Michael van Elst" <mlelstv(a)xlink.net>; <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 4:30 PM Subject: Re: NT + Unix access rights > On Mon, May 29, 2000 at 10:14:10AM -0700, Bruce Sterling Woodcock wrote: > > > The usermap maps the UNIX 'root' account to the NT 'Administrator' > > > account. The NT 'Administrator' account is mapped to an unprivileged > > > UNIX account different from the file owner. > > > > Can someone explain this? I don't follow. > > The software release 5.3 has the feature to map Accounts independently > for the UNIX side and the NT side. I.e. the usermap file has the lines: > > Administrator <= root > Administrator => ntadmin > > where ntadmin is an unprivileged account and root is the regular > privileged account. Is the mapping only for access, or only for ownership? I understand that if root creates a file, and you look at it from NT, it will be owned by Administrator (with the mapping given above). But when Administrator tries to access it, he'll be mapped to ntadmin, which doesn't have access?? Bruce

1 0

NT + Unix access rights
by Michael van Elst 30 May '00

30 May '00

Hi, I'm using an F740 running 5.3.4R3. One volume uses a qtree with mixed security settings. Within that qtree I have a couple of files that cannot be accessed at all. The files were created by an NT client. On the UNIX side I can neither read nor touch the files. I cannot chmod or chown them. I cannot remove them. I could 'mv' them to a different directory once. I can create a hard link to them but which isn't deletable anymore. The file shows up with 0700 permissions. The directory where the file is located and all directories above were created by a UNIX client. This is true independent on wether I am working as root or as the files' owner (according to the usermap). On the NT side I cannot use the file either and I cannot even look at the security settings for the file. This is also independent of the user. Neither the owner nor the Administrator has access to the file. The usermap maps the UNIX 'root' account to the NT 'Administrator' account. The NT 'Administrator' account is mapped to an unprivileged UNIX account different from the file owner. I learned that the undocumented command 'rm' on the filers console (after rc_toggle_basic) allows to delete these files. Is there anything I can do ? Regards, -- i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 721 9652 330 Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 721 9652 349 Emmy-Noether-Strasse 9 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: hostmaster(a)xlink.net [ KPNQwest Germany GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe ] [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Koen Bertoen ]

2 4

RE: NT + Unix access rights
by Graham.Knight＠netapp.com 29 May '00

29 May '00

In NT you can set the ACL of a file so tight that the Administrator cannot read it. What you should try to do is map the drive as Administrator, then Take Ownership of the file. If that succeeds you should be able to set the ACL to whatever you want it to be, or delete the file. Another thing you might want to consider is setting this option: cifs.nfs_root_ignore_acl on This allows a root user on a root mounted NFS partition to do whatever it wants to a file with an ACL. I'm not 100% positive that the option above is available on 5.3.4R3. I know that it is available in 5.3.4R3P2. Graham -----Original Message----- From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 10:48 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: Michael van Elst Subject: NT + Unix access rights Hi, I'm using an F740 running 5.3.4R3. One volume uses a qtree with mixed security settings. Within that qtree I have a couple of files that cannot be accessed at all. The files were created by an NT client. On the UNIX side I can neither read nor touch the files. I cannot chmod or chown them. I cannot remove them. I could 'mv' them to a different directory once. I can create a hard link to them but which isn't deletable anymore. The file shows up with 0700 permissions. The directory where the file is located and all directories above were created by a UNIX client. This is true independent on wether I am working as root or as the files' owner (according to the usermap). On the NT side I cannot use the file either and I cannot even look at the security settings for the file. This is also independent of the user. Neither the owner nor the Administrator has access to the file. The usermap maps the UNIX 'root' account to the NT 'Administrator' account. The NT 'Administrator' account is mapped to an unprivileged UNIX account different from the file owner. I learned that the undocumented command 'rm' on the filers console (after rc_toggle_basic) allows to delete these files. Is there anything I can do ? Regards, -- i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 721 9652 330 Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 721 9652 349 Emmy-Noether-Strasse 9 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: hostmaster(a)xlink.net [ KPNQwest Germany GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe ] [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Koen Bertoen ]

2 1

question about databases on NetApps
by Mike Kazar 28 May '00

28 May '00

Pardon my ignorance, but I have a question for people running databases on NetApp boxes. I've seen a number of notes in the past from people running Oracle or Sybase over NFS to a NetApp box, and I'm puzzled: why run a database over NFS instead of on top of a local disk? Are you running several instances of the database on several hosts, all sharing the same database over NFS? I'm surprised that works reasonably with a log file being hammered on by several different machines (and I don't really understand how it could work at all with several different log files). Also, I would have thought that NFS's loose cache consistency semantics would have prevented sharing a database from working at all, unless use of file locking disables caching appropriately. Or are you just running one database host, and using the NetApp to manage the database host's disk space. If so, what are the advantages you get from using the NetApp for disk space management instead of just using a local disk? Thanks in advance, Mike

3 2

Samba Vs CIFFS
by Philip Thomas 28 May '00

28 May '00

Hi, Why should some one pay good money to buy CIFFS license from NetApp when apparently the similar functionality is available "free", Samba? I am hoping folks out there, with experience in both products would be willing to share their knowledge as much their internal policy allows. I am specifically looking for pros and cons with respect to (a) performance (what ever than means) (b) scalibility (500+ users) (c) reliability (d) functionality (e) coexistence with Windows Terminal Server (f) 'cost' (not just dollars) (g) administration (h) interaction or lack of it with commercial apps ...any thing else ?? Perhaps this list is biased to CIFFS, by definition of the mailing list. But I have seen folks willing to speak out in the past. [BTW, please don't shoot the messenger:-)] Thanks. Philip Thomas Motorola - DDL-ITG, M/S M360 2200 W. Broadway Rd Mesa, AZ 85202 rxjs80(a)email.sps.mot.com (480) 655-3678 (480) 655-3881 (fax)

4 3

RE: Samba Vs CIFS
by paul.benn＠netapp.com 27 May '00

27 May '00

Philip, I take it that your going to use a filer anyway (NetApp CIFS/NFS vs. NetApp NFS + Samba)..?? Samba is an interesting application but there are limitations that you should be aware of, especially when considering deployment in a multiprotocol environment and from the perspective of NT only administrators. Since the underlying file system that Samba uses is a UNIX file system, the mocked up NTFS permissions that Samba provides will be based on UNIX and limited to a maximum of three ACEs (access control entries) for each ACL (access control list). One ACE for "owner," one for "group" and one for "world." Because of this, one must set NT file permissions using the individual bits under "Special Access" (you won't be able to use the canned ACEs like "Full Control, Change" etc.). Though not a problem for many, NT admins may not necessarily be comfortable with this. I've actually heard of NT admins who were unaware that the "Change," "Full Control" etc. entries actually represented the lower level permissions bits. NetApp's CIFS makes the filer look just like an NT member server rather than providing an NT facility to manipulate UNIX permissions. If one needs to manipulate UNIX permissions under NT, the SecureShare Access tool (available on NOW and on the DOT CD) can be installed. The tool adds a page to the file properties dialog. Share level ACLs are not only based on UNIX groups, they are set by editing the smb.conf file (by way of vi or SWAT), not Server Manager. Another possible issue for NT admins. Beginning with Data ONTAP 5.3, a limited implementation of Windows NT access logging became available. Success or failure of file reads or writes can be audited. Furthermore, auditing can be set up for files residing in "NTFS" or "Mixed" qtrees. Samba doesn't provide this. Samba also has weaknesses in a true multiprotocol environment. The DOS "archive," "system" and "hidden" bits are mapped to the UNIX "X" bits. If a UNIX admin removes an X bit or if an NT admin flips the archive bit, NT users will be in for a surprise when they can't execute program. Something else to consider is that when a Windows user hides a file, a leading period is not added and the file is NOT hidden for the UNIX user. The reverse _may_ also be true (files hidden with a leading period in UNIX may not be hidden from Windows users). Data ONTAP keeps track of these separately. Furthermore, WAFL keeps an archive bit for UNIX files so that an NT based backup program can do an "incremental" backup of UNIX data (backing up over CIFS retains NT ACLs as well as UNIX permissions). Multiprotocol environments add an interesting twist with respect to file permissions. Remember that Samba can only use UNIX permissions but NetApp filers can be configured to use UNIX and NTFS permissions. Another NT-like edge that WAFL has over Samba is inherited permissions. When a file is copied to a directory or a new file is created in a directory with NTFS-style permissions, that file inherits the permissions of the parent directory. This is also true (as of Data ONTAP 5.3) if a file with UNIX-style permissions is copied to a directory with NTFS-style permissions. The overhead of Samba's group mapping doesn't exist with filers. Because filers map _users_ on the fly, there is no need for group mapping (this is frequently misunderstood and viewed as a limitation). Consider centralized support and administration. If you were to use NetApp's CIFS, you'd have one stop shopping for support, bypassing being stuck between two vendors on some support issues. If Samba support beyond mailing lists is desired, there _is_ cost involved. Administration is centralized on the filer versus filer administration + Samba administration. Again, assuming that you're going to use a filer anyway: **Samba = UNIX rules + two levels of support and administration + painful for NT admins + multiprotocol weaknesses** **NetApp's CIFS = just like NT + centralized support and administration** Hope this helps. Best Regards, Paul Benn Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Philip Thomas [mailto:thomas@act.sps.mot.com] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 10:03 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Samba Vs CIFFS Hi, Why should some one pay good money to buy CIFFS license from NetApp when apparently the similar functionality is available "free", Samba? I am hoping folks out there, with experience in both products would be willing to share their knowledge as much their internal policy allows. I am specifically looking for pros and cons with respect to (a) performance (what ever than means) (b) scalibility (500+ users) (c) reliability (d) functionality (e) coexistence with Windows Terminal Server (f) 'cost' (not just dollars) (g) administration (h) interaction or lack of it with commercial apps ...any thing else ?? Perhaps this list is biased to CIFFS, by definition of the mailing list. But I have seen folks willing to speak out in the past. [BTW, please don't shoot the messenger:-)] Thanks. Philip Thomas Motorola - DDL-ITG, M/S M360 2200 W. Broadway Rd Mesa, AZ 85202 rxjs80(a)email.sps.mot.com (480) 655-3678 (480) 655-3881 (fax)

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