toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

(Fwd) (Fwd) Re: nas storage
by Percy Tzelnic 26 Mar '00

26 Mar '00

Dave: It seems to me that innuendo and insinuation, pointed at your competitors, is not quite worthy of an officer of a company proudly claiming the position of market leadership. As much as I am trying to justify your remark in a context of levity, the continuation of this thread (below) seems to have pushed to the point where it is embarrassing and demeaning. Yael Melman at EMC was not even aware of the existence of this mailing list. (Now she is, of course; BTW, the name Yael, two syllables, ya-'el, is originally a Hebrew name, always uni-gender.) Perhaps the actual Yael Hellmann would eventually come out and dispel the affiliation mystery... However, that's very much a moot point, even if, contrary to evidence, we assumed that Ms. Hellmann worked for EMC. The actual indictment by innuendo in this thread was that EMC was inimical to NAS, since, allegedly, EMC was exclusively a SAN company. This is simply untrue: EMC is the fastest growing vendor in the NAS market. Percy On 23 Mar 00, at 9:58, Dave Hitz wrote: <color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> ... <color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>> (Hey Yael! Are you the same Yael Hellmann who works at EMC?) <color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> > Dave > <color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>On 23 Mar 00, at 13:06, Keith Brown wrote: <color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> ... <color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>> We do need to clear up this last name thing though, because Yael <color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> would look more than a little silly if he'd got that wrong on his > Yahoo sign-up page . I mean... What next? A false beard? A blond > wig, evening gown and high heels? No... I'm sure this was just a > mistake, and probably yours Christian, right? We all make mistakes, > and you're usually so conscientious about getting your facts > straight here. > > So to show that there was clearly no malicious intent, is it > Melmann or Hellmann? Also, in order that we can all get some > perspective on any vested interests that might have been behind > young Yael's comments trashing network attached storage, perhaps > you could tell us what he does for EMC? That would be both helpful > and enlightening. <color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>> ... <color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>------- End of forwarded message ------- <nofill>

1 0

test
by bar-lev benjamin 24 Mar '00

24 Mar '00

:-) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: mini-core
by Jeff Krueger 24 Mar '00

24 Mar '00

From Chris Thompson on Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:49:50 GMT: > >I remember asking about moving the "savecore" after the "nfs on" back >in the days of FASware 3.1.6 (or had they renamed it ONTAP by then?) We have been putting "savecore" after "nfs on" for quite a while now. It works as expected allowing client connections while the the core is being saved into the file system. Unfortuantely, CIFS doesn't come on until after the completion of all commands in "/etc/rc", so the only way to get it on first is to not have "savecore" in there at all and just run it manually. This doesn't seem like a good idea.. >and got a generally discouraging response, along the lines of "if >turning NFS on provokes another crash, you could be in trouble". Actually if you crash a second time before "savecore" has run, you merely can't dump the new core. In fact, it says something like "Dupming core... Can't dump, core already present on disk." IMHO, a problem that crashes your filer that quickly should be visible in the first core. If not, just boot off floppy and do a savecore. 99% of our NetApp crashes involve a sucessful core dump and reboot cycle. >Eventually I did make the change: the main problem turned out to be >that savecore thrashed the filing system so hard (this was on an >FAServer 450) that NFS hardly got a look-in, just at the time when >the clients were retrying all their outstanding requests. That could have been the fact that it was an FAServer 450. =) Our 300, 500, 600, and 700 series filers don't seem to have a problem handling NFS and "savecore" simultaneously. -- Jeff -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Krueger E-Mail: jeff(a)qualcomm.com NetApp File Server Lead Phone: 858-651-6709 IT Engineering and Support Fax: 858-651-6627 QUALCOMM, Incorporated Web: www.qualcomm.com

1 0

RE: nas storage
by Adams_Christian＠emc.com 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

> (Hey Yael! Are you the same Yael Hellmann who works at EMC?) > > Dave [Adams, Christian] Hey Dave - Yael Melmann works for EMC. /Christian Adams EMC P.S. Nice re-telling of Auspex's "Myth of MIPS for I/O".

2 1

re: nas support
by Yael Hellmann 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

Regardless of a specific application and configuration, I am looking for an architecture that will support nas. Setting all components equal, comparing apples to apples, you end up with either going through a server for each operation or accessing a disk directly and an architecture that lets you access the disk directly must be faster. If you could have fast disk channels, getting information from that disk must be faster than getting the information through the server. It is not completely true for all applications. You still need the server for co-ordination and then it is a trade off. But I believe that each storage vendor will need this capability to be competitive. Some applications that would need this capability are publisher consumers messaging model, backup, source control. -----Original Message----- From: Josh McCormick [mailto:jmccorm@mail.wcg.net] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 9:02 AM To: mkeller(a)mail.wcg.net Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: nas storage > Necessary to yell? > I use what I received. I am required to stick with it for a while yet. > You make a blanket statement without supporting facts. Here's what I'm wondering, Michael. When they are comparing the Netapp Filers to local storage, what exactly are they comparing? * Are they comparing 100mbit NFS delivery to a SCSI variant? * Are they comparing their raid and caching to a(n anonymous) local disk solution? JBOD or something else? * Are they comparing their NFS filesystem implementation to UFS and/or VxFS? Are the comparing the whole solution against something when it is claimed to be on par with local disks, and if so, what solutions are they comparing against? Of course, it would be a surprise is the Netapp Filers were on par with local storage in all cases. What I want to know is, what are the edge cases? What are the filers particually better at, and what are they particularly worse at? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com

2 1

5.3.5
by Dave Atkin 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

1. We just started to run 5.3.5 on one of our 740s in order to test compatibility with Windows 2000. Is anyone else doing this successfully? 2. With 5.3.5 we are getting lots of messages on the console like: GMT [CIFSAdmin]: oplock break timed out to station CST209 for file \\NTCR2\w95apps\APPLICATIONS\SPSS\9\spssprod.inf We support some 1200 Windows 95 PCs, and at peak times we get several messages per minute for different files and PCs. Does anyone know what this means, should we care about it, and if not, can we turn them off! 3. Finally, I still don't think NetApp have quite got their early access releases sorted out properly. I looked at the NOW site and downloaded 5.3.5, but when I talked to a support engineer today he said "Why aren't you running 5.3.5P2?" Dave Atkin ------------------------------------------------------ Dave Atkin, Head of Technical Services Computing Service, University of York, YORK YO10 5DD Phone: +44-1904-433804 (ddi) Fax: +44-1904-433740 Email: D.Atkin(a)york.ac.uk ------------------------------------------------------

3 3

RE: mini-core
by Watanabe, Steve 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

> From: Jeff Krueger [mailto:jkrueger@qualcomm.com] > > >From "Watanabe, Steve" on Thu, 23 Mar 2000 06:05:13 PST: > > > >In a coming release compression of the core will be deferred > >if there is enough space available on the disk. In addition > > Cool. So in 5.3.5, does it check to see if an uncompressed dump is > possible, or does it compress regardless of available space? In 5.3.5 the core is always compressed. The "coming release" I refer to doesn't have a number yet. -steve > > >the core will be sprayed to multiple disks in parallel (it > >currently is written synchronously to one disk at a time). > > Sweet! That's what we like to hear! =) > > -- Jeff > >

1 0

RE: mini-core
by Watanabe, Steve 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

> From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] > > Ethan Torretta <ejt(a)tellme.com> writes: > > "Michael J. Tuciarone" <tooch(a)netapp.com> wrote: > > > As filers have received more main memory, we began running out of > > > reserved disk areas before the whole core was dumped. The actual > > > ratio of memory to disk depends on memory size and disk model; > > > the larger the ratio the more likely you'll be unable to dump the > > > whole core. In response, we implemented the compressed > core feature. > > > Now if the filer computes there isn't enough disk space > to save the > > > entire core uncompressed, we compress the core before > writing it out. > > > > This makes me very interested in providing enough disks to allow > > uncompressed cores. However, looking at the documentation > I don't think > > that's going to happen. According to the SAG, each disks > provides only > > 20 MB of dump space, so for an F760 with 1024 MB of main > memory, fifty-two > > disks will be necessary for an uncompressed dump. Is this > correct? > > The chart still says only fourteen for "256 or more." I've > got fourteen > > on each filer; if twenty, say, would do it, I'd rearrange > filers so that > > the most sensitive ones had twenty, but fifty-two is out of > the question. > > The problem would seem to be that the 20 MB reserved area > hasn't altered > from the days of 2 GB, maybe 1 GB, discs, and so things have > got out of > proportion. > > How about using the space wasted by "right-sizing" for dumps? > Only if it > exists, of course, but in practice it will, and will be a lot > more than > 20 MB per disc! > As you said above, the 20MB reserved area is the same on all sized disks. However we do use the space that is left over after right-sizing. The size of the space varies with the capacity of the disk. In a coming release compression of the core will be deferred if there is enough space available on the disk. In addition the core will be sprayed to multiple disks in parallel (it currently is written synchronously to one disk at a time). This is for fibre channel disks only. -steve

2 1

RE: nas storage
by Cormier, Darleen 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

Gentlemen, I really must protest. Network Appliance plays very nicely in a SAN environment and is working very actively on solutions and with partners in that area. May I respectfully refer you all to www.netapp.com/news/press to the announcement dated 02/02/2000. Six leading Storage Vendors Introduce the first NAS & SAN Data Protection Solution for Network Attached Storage Solutions, and may I respectfully refer you to www.vixel.com/NAS_SAN_EVENT/NAS_html which has a variety of articles and white papers, discussing their relationship with Network Appliance and how they work with us in SAN enviroments, and may I repectfully refer you to www.spectralogic.com/NetApp which also explains their relationship to Network Appliance and our integrated SAN solutions, and may I respectfully refer you to www.legato.com/News/index.html which has articles explaining their relationship with Network Appliance and our combined SAN-based architecture and solutions, and may I respectfully refer you to www.snia.org which has a new NAS work group and is also working on developing SAN standards. I would also like to reassure those of you, who have expressed a concern that Network Appliance is not planning future competitive products, that you are mistaken. Network Appliance is continuing to develop products which will compete sucessfully in both NAS and SAN environments. -----Original Message----- From: Yael Hellmann [mailto:yael_hellmann@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 6:56 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: re: nas storage Jeff probably hit the point - NetApp do not have a solution for SAN and I think that NetApp should re-think their direction. With more and more vendors competing in the nas /san domain, these products will be better and provide more functionality and better performance. The current connectivity limitations will be eliminated. With fibre fabric you will not be limited to the current limited implementation. I think that NetApps products are great but I am disappointed that they don't plan for future competitive products. -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Van Cleave [mailto:jeffvc@icopyright.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 6:13 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: nas storage NetApp is not designed to compete with SAN - and yes, you cannot say that 100mb ethernet will compete with fiber channel. However, direct attach has limitations in the number of servers it can connect to. At last check, EMC can connect with 32 systems. Hitachi can connect to a large number with a channel box (I don't know the high end limit). But you are limited by the length of cable between the SAN and the server. Basically we approached using NetApp as a replacement for all of our NFS servers, and to some extent our data servers. For direct attach, we will probably go with Hitachi. I think in any environment, both SAN and NetApp can be used effectively. It is not really an argument of which one is better, but what is your functional requirement and how will those needs be met. Jeff __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com

1 0

RE: nas storage
by Kirschner, Lewis 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE DESPITE WHAT THE GENTLEMAN SAYS BELOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE'VE GOT SEVERAL THOUSAND CUSTOMER WHO WILL TELL YOU OTHERWISE!!! -----Original Message----- From: Yael Hellmann [mailto:yael_hellmann@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 2:59 PM To: michael.alvarado(a)netapp.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: nas storage You are still limitted by the network and netapp will not be able to compete with products which provide direct disk attachment. Products in mind are SANergy and CXFS. Below is a message from a user who supports my assumtion that you cannot get local performance over a network link. "From: Michael S. Keller [mailto:mkeller@mail.wcg.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 10:56 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: nas storage I do not get performance on par with my perception of local disk storage. Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by "on par with local disk storage"? When I run Usenet news spools from Solaris 2.6 on a NetApp filer, I must throttle NFS to get it to work reliably. " --- "Alvarado, Michael" <michael.alvarado(a)netapp.com> wrote: > Network Appliance's current customer experience is > that they do get performance > on par with local disk storage already. > > Our current plans do not include any interoperation > with the SANenergy products. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yael Hellmann [mailto:yael_hellmann@yahoo.com] > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 6:02 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: nas storage > > > I am currently investigating the market for nas > storage. What is netapp plans in providing a > solution > which will deliver local disk performance for nas > storage? Does netapp have plans for products with > SANergy functionality or performance? > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com

6 7

RE: nas storage
by Yael Hellmann 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

You are still limitted by the network and netapp will not be able to compete with products which provide direct disk attachment. Products in mind are SANergy and CXFS. Below is a message from a user who supports my assumtion that you cannot get local performance over a network link. "From: Michael S. Keller [mailto:mkeller@mail.wcg.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 10:56 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: nas storage I do not get performance on par with my perception of local disk storage. Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by "on par with local disk storage"? When I run Usenet news spools from Solaris 2.6 on a NetApp filer, I must throttle NFS to get it to work reliably. " --- "Alvarado, Michael" <michael.alvarado(a)netapp.com> wrote: > Network Appliance's current customer experience is > that they do get performance > on par with local disk storage already. > > Our current plans do not include any interoperation > with the SANenergy products. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yael Hellmann [mailto:yael_hellmann@yahoo.com] > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 6:02 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: nas storage > > > I am currently investigating the market for nas > storage. What is netapp plans in providing a > solution > which will deliver local disk performance for nas > storage? Does netapp have plans for products with > SANergy functionality or performance? > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com

5 4

NOW website
by Jay Orr 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

Dunno if anyone had noticed, but as of the 11th they got rid of JavaScript. I just logged in with LYNX and it let me. Still gives lots of cookies, though. I'm going to check it out some more, but nice to see they finally took care of this. ----------- Jay Orr Systems Administrator Fujitsu Nexion Inc. St. Louis, MO

1 0

RE: Solaris 7 & NFS2/NFS3/TCP/UDP....
by Fox, Adam 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

> -----Original Message----- > From: Justin [mailto:Justin.Acklin@sv.sc.philips.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 7:21 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Solaris 7 & NFS2/NFS3/TCP/UDP.... > > > I just looked at our main filer and realized we are using 8k NFS > packets. With almost exclusively > solaris 2.6 and 2.7 clients. I bet we would see a significant speed > increase if we upped it, particularly > with the large regressions being done on this Netapp. But, can I just > log in and change the value? > Will that affect existing mounts, and at what point would the new > blocksize take effect? > Or, can I only set it on reboot -- but even then the clients > would have > to remount > the filesystem right? Someone help me out on the proper way > to do this, > and let me > know if doing this causes harm in any way. Looking at nfsstat most of > our operations are indeed > nfs3. In my real-world experience, some sites do well with 32K transaction sizes, some do better with 8K. It depends on the typical amounts of retransmissions you have on your network. What people need to remember is that regardless of how big your transaction size is, if you are using Ethernet, you are bound to a 1500 byte packet size. So with a larger transaction size you are generating fewer NFS requests, but layers 2 and 3 still have to deal with the consequenses. Layer 3 has to break the requests into multiple IP packets, and layer 2 is responsible for holding those packets until the transaction is complete in the case of retransmission. Now let's add UDP to the mix. UDP doesn't have a concept of a packet count. Therefore, retransmissions are more expensive in a UDP environment because you have to start from the beginning. Now, with 8K transactions you're only talking about a small number of packets that would have to be retransmitted. What with 32K, you can have many more (in the range of 16-18 packets) and this can be expensive. So what's the bottom line? You may want to experiment with a client or two and see how these parameters affect your network. In some cases, 32K/UDP works great. In others, it's not so great. Use what works on your network. Hope this helps. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com

1 0

re: nas storage
by Yael Hellmann 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

Jeff probably hit the point - NetApp do not have a solution for SAN and I think that NetApp should re-think their direction. With more and more vendors competing in the nas /san domain, these products will be better and provide more functionality and better performance. The current connectivity limitations will be eliminated. With fibre fabric you will not be limited to the current limited implementation. I think that NetApps products are great but I am disappointed that they don't plan for future competitive products. -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Van Cleave [mailto:jeffvc@icopyright.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 6:13 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: nas storage NetApp is not designed to compete with SAN - and yes, you cannot say that 100mb ethernet will compete with fiber channel. However, direct attach has limitations in the number of servers it can connect to. At last check, EMC can connect with 32 systems. Hitachi can connect to a large number with a channel box (I don't know the high end limit). But you are limited by the length of cable between the SAN and the server. Basically we approached using NetApp as a replacement for all of our NFS servers, and to some extent our data servers. For direct attach, we will probably go with Hitachi. I think in any environment, both SAN and NetApp can be used effectively. It is not really an argument of which one is better, but what is your functional requirement and how will those needs be met. Jeff __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com

4 3

RE: mini-core
by Klinkner, Steve 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

> From: Eyal Traitel [mailto:eyal.traitel@motorola.com] > Where/What/Who... :) > How do I enable it ? First time I've ever heard about it > being in 5.3 These were introduced in 5.3.4. It is a summary form of a full core. > "Graham C. Knight" wrote: > > Does anyone know if there is a way to > > have the mini-core files that are > > introduced in 5.3 mailed to a > > list *other* than my autosupport list > > - or to disable them being mailed at all? Currently these get delivered to the recipients on the "autosupport.to" list, and there isn't a way to tweak that. We plan to make this type of thing more configurable in the future. Do you like getting copies of all the other autosupports, but want to avoid having the mini cores delivered to your mailbox? Or would you also like more flexibility regarding whether and where they get delivered? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- steve klinkner klink(a)netapp.com

6 7

RE: VIF and Volume Questions
by Mohler, Jeff 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

There are no drawbacks at all, clients only see what you export, and you shouldnt be exporting /vol/vol0 by itself to your clients..but creating directories or qtrees inside there for your clients to play in. The volume-to-spindle contention issues dont apply on a Filer the way you probly see them in a UFS/NT environment. The only pro to separate..is you can use advanced tools/utilities like SnapRestore to backdate an entire volume, without affecting the boot volume. Adding shelves is trivial, and done properly doesnt even require a shutdown (RTFM before you even think 'bout it tho). And you can vol copy your boot to somewhere else, make it the boot volume, and go from there, but the only way to shrink a volume is to destroy it and rebuild it. Your VIF question..I dont follow. You have a single VIF using two ports. You dont need two hostnames for the two ports, because in a VIF they appear as one..same IP and hostname. You dont need to do anything with DNS, just forget they are two RJ45 connections..and see them as a 200Mbit single port. The VIF is at layer-2..and nothing above that needs adjusted to use it properly once the switch is configured. The main IP of the netapp..IS both ports acting as one assuming you only are using the VIF for connectivity. :-----Original Message----- :From: Timothy Demarest [mailto:demarest@arraycomm.com] :Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 10:14 PM :To: toasters(a)mathworks.com :Subject: VIF and Volume Questions : : :Hello All: : :I have two questions: : :I am setting up a new F740. When I ordered the unit, I slightly :underestimated the number of disks required for our storage :requirements. Essentially, I forgot that the boot volume :requires two disks. What are the drawbacks to using the root/boot :volume for other data, such as home directories? I have enough :disks to create volumes & qtrees for other stuff, but am interested :in the pros/cons of NOT keeping the root/boot volume segragated :form other data. How do you have your volumes/qtrees setup? Is it :easy to add another shelf and disks later, and volcopy /vol/vol0 :to a new volume, then reduce the number of disks in the boot volume? : :Second, I have VIF working on a C5500. The first interface is named :f740-eng0, and the second f740-eng1. The VIF is named vifeng. What :should I be using in the DNS for the name of the F740? Do I create :a CNAME for the unit that points to the main IP for the F740? : :Thanks for your help. : :Tim : :-- :Timothy Demarest ArrayComm, Inc. :demarest@arraycomm.com 2480 N. 1st Street, Suite 200 :http://www.arraycomm.com San Jose, CA 95131 :

1 0

VIF and Volume Questions
by Timothy Demarest 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

Hello All: I have two questions: I am setting up a new F740. When I ordered the unit, I slightly underestimated the number of disks required for our storage requirements. Essentially, I forgot that the boot volume requires two disks. What are the drawbacks to using the root/boot volume for other data, such as home directories? I have enough disks to create volumes & qtrees for other stuff, but am interested in the pros/cons of NOT keeping the root/boot volume segragated form other data. How do you have your volumes/qtrees setup? Is it easy to add another shelf and disks later, and volcopy /vol/vol0 to a new volume, then reduce the number of disks in the boot volume? Second, I have VIF working on a C5500. The first interface is named f740-eng0, and the second f740-eng1. The VIF is named vifeng. What should I be using in the DNS for the name of the F740? Do I create a CNAME for the unit that points to the main IP for the F740? Thanks for your help. Tim -- Timothy Demarest ArrayComm, Inc. demarest(a)arraycomm.com 2480 N. 1st Street, Suite 200 http://www.arraycomm.com San Jose, CA 95131

1 0

RE: nas storage
by Mohler, Jeff 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

Mike: You can also upgrade to the newer quad ethernet card, a single port is about a 1.5x speed increase, and a four port VIF will bump you about 1.7x performance. That should help a lot of your bottleneck issues. Sean has some data I sent him..that you can grab. Sorry..but when I bought the 760's you have there, thats the only card they offered. -----Original Message----- From: Michael S. Keller [mailto:mkeller@mail.wcg.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 2:26 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: nas storage Lewis, Necessary to yell? I use what I received. I am required to stick with it for a while yet. Solaris 2.6 run against F760s with ONTAP 5.3.4 performs more slowly local storage would. If you can refute this, then tell me how to fix my installation. I _must_ run NFSv2 to get decent performance, and ONTAP limits NFSv2 packets to 8K. So I must suffer with small transfers. I don't yet have enough storage on these filers to build another test system with Solaris 7 that can handle the load. I'm stuck in the middle without resources to test adequately that Solaris 7 would handle the load better. You make a blanket statement without supporting facts. "Kirschner, Lewis" wrote: > > ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE DESPITE WHAT THE GENTLEMAN SAYS BELOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > WE'VE GOT SEVERAL THOUSAND CUSTOMER WHO WILL TELL YOU > OTHERWISE!!! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yael Hellmann [mailto:yael_hellmann@yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 2:59 PM > To: michael.alvarado(a)netapp.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: nas storage > > You are still limitted by the network and netapp will > not be able to compete with products which provide > direct disk attachment. Products in mind are SANergy > and CXFS. > Below is a message from a user who supports my > assumtion that you cannot get local performance over a > network link. > > "From: Michael S. Keller [mailto:mkeller@mail.wcg.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 10:56 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: nas storage > > I do not get performance on par with my perception of > local disk > storage. Would you care to elaborate on what you mean > by "on par with > local disk storage"? > > When I run Usenet news spools from Solaris 2.6 on a > NetApp filer, I must > throttle NFS to get it to work reliably. > " > > --- "Alvarado, Michael" <michael.alvarado(a)netapp.com> > wrote: > > Network Appliance's current customer experience is > > that they do get performance > > on par with local disk storage already. > > > > Our current plans do not include any interoperation > > with the SANenergy products. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yael Hellmann [mailto:yael_hellmann@yahoo.com] > > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 6:02 PM > > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: nas storage > > > > > > I am currently investigating the market for nas > > storage. What is netapp plans in providing a > > solution > > which will deliver local disk performance for nas > > storage? Does netapp have plans for products with > > SANergy functionality or performance? -- Michael S. Keller, Technology Solutions Consultant, Sprint Enterprise Network Services On loan to Williams Communications Group Voice 918-574-6094, Amateur Radio N5RDV

1 0

RE: Mulitple network cards
by Fox, Adam 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

> I have several network cards on my filer, each with its own > subnet - If I am on > a subnet that the cards are not defined for, how > does the filer know which subnet/card to send the information out on ? > > Mark Fowle > Caterpillar/BCP > This decision is made by the routing table. The routing table is built primarily in 3 ways. Static routes (like the default route and interface routes), ICMP redirects, and if used routing protocols like RIP. The filer will look at the routing table to decide the first hop for the reply. To views your route table, try netstat -rn. Hope this helps. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com

3 3

RE: Solaris 7 & NFS2/NFS3/TCP/UDP....
by Rainchik, Aleksandr (MED, Non GE) 22 Mar '00

22 Mar '00

http://www-viz.tamu.edu/~sgi-faq/faq/html/admin/69.html "[NFS3].... is not supported by the automounter." You can mount it as NFS3 manually, or from /etc/fstab, or using AutoFS, but not via automount (which we use). I've tried to use -vers=3 in automount map, no luck :( I was very surprised... -----Original Message----- From: Keith Brown [mailto:keith@netapp.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 5:35 PM To: Rainchik, Aleksandr (MED, Non GE) Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Solaris 7 & NFS2/NFS3/TCP/UDP.... The usual drill for NFS mounting when no options are specified, as defined by Sun/Solaris (if you accept Sun/Solaris as a definer here?), is to mount using the highest revision of the NFS protocol available on both the client and the server, and the first connection oriented protocol available (usually TCP), falling back to the first connectionless protocol (usually UDP). So if the IRIX folk were paying any attention to the Solaris folk when they put their implementation together, as long as you have: filer> options nfs.v3.enable on filer> options nfs.tcp.enable off set on the filer, you would be in with a fighting chance of getting your 32K/NFSv3/UDP aspirations satisfied, even without specifying any mount options (32K xfer sizes are the default for NFSv3). Keith

1 0

Solaris 7 & NFS2/NFS3/TCP/UDP....
by Rainchik, Aleksandr (MED, Non GE) 22 Mar '00

22 Mar '00

Hi, We have brand new E450 running Solaris 7 and NetApp Release 5.3.4R3 and we are planning to use NetApp as a ClearCase VOB storage. Both are on 100mb/full switched fast Ethernet. I was trying to play with Postmark to identify what is best for performance, like NFS2 or NFS3? TCP or UDP? What values for rsize or wsize? r/wsize TPS read write -------------------------------------- NFS3 UDP 8K 38 223.42 720.64 NFS2 UDP 8K 3 13.81 44.53 NFS3 TCP 32K 2 12.67 40.86 NFS2 TCP 8K 2 13.14 42.39 a) For some reason, the best results I've got was with -o vers=3,proto=udp. NFS2, or NFS over TCP looks like a joke... It's like 20 times slower. b) There is no way to use w/rsize=32768 with NetApp with NFS3 over UDP. Why? I can do it when mounting from Solaris. Any comments? Thank you.

2 1

RE: Mulitple network cards
by Mohler, Jeff 22 Mar '00

22 Mar '00

It will send to your defined default route. -----Original Message----- From: Mark D Fowle [mailto:Fowle_Mark_D@CAT.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 11:53 AM To: toasters Subject: Mulitple network cards I have several network cards on my filer, each with its own subnet - If I am on a subnet that the cards are not defined for, how does the filer know which subnet/card to send the information out on ? Mark Fowle Caterpillar/BCP

1 0

RE: NAS Storage
by Kirschner, Lewis 22 Mar '00

22 Mar '00

My apologies to everyone on this forum. The statement below was an overreaction to a legitimate issue that was raised with regard to performance on our filers. My general comment is that if the performance of the filer seems inadequate for your application, we'd be interested in getting the specifics so we can either address the issue, or explain how to tune things so you can get the performance you need. There's a tremendous amount of variation depending on the workload, network configuration, etc. etc., which makes it difficult to make blanket statements about the relative performance. In general, we have the expectation that the filer should perform similarly to local disk. Sometimes faster, and there may be situations where it's slower. Sorry for the overreaction and "blanket statement" on my part -----Original Message----- From: Kirschner, Lewis Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 3:23 PM To: 'Yael Hellmann'; Alvarado, Michael; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: nas storage ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE DESPITE WHAT THE GENTLEMAN SAYS BELOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE'VE GOT SEVERAL THOUSAND CUSTOMER WHO WILL TELL YOU OTHERWISE!!! -----Original Message----- From: Yael Hellmann [mailto:yael_hellmann@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 2:59 PM To: michael.alvarado(a)netapp.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: nas storage You are still limitted by the network and netapp will not be able to compete with products which provide direct disk attachment. Products in mind are SANergy and CXFS. Below is a message from a user who supports my assumtion that you cannot get local performance over a network link. "From: Michael S. Keller [mailto:mkeller@mail.wcg.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 10:56 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: nas storage I do not get performance on par with my perception of local disk storage. Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by "on par with local disk storage"? When I run Usenet news spools from Solaris 2.6 on a NetApp filer, I must throttle NFS to get it to work reliably. " --- "Alvarado, Michael" <michael.alvarado(a)netapp.com> wrote: > Network Appliance's current customer experience is > that they do get performance > on par with local disk storage already. > > Our current plans do not include any interoperation > with the SANenergy products. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yael Hellmann [mailto:yael_hellmann@yahoo.com] > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 6:02 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: nas storage > > > I am currently investigating the market for nas > storage. What is netapp plans in providing a > solution > which will deliver local disk performance for nas > storage? Does netapp have plans for products with > SANergy functionality or performance? > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com

1 0

RE: mini-core
by Bagg, Rod 22 Mar '00

22 Mar '00

The minicore file is not currently controlled separately from the Autosupport. I have opened a RFE (23389) for consideration of a new feature to provide the ability to control the sending of the minicore email separately from the Autosupport email. A separate option to turn on/off minicore email and a separate list of recipients. Rod Bagg Manager, Sustaining Engineering Network Appliance 408-822-6042 (office) 408-205-9533 (cell) 408-994-2696 (pager) 408-822-4410 (fax) Get answers NOW! - NetApp On the Web http://now.netapp.com

1 0

Recall: nas storage
by Kirschner, Lewis 22 Mar '00

22 Mar '00

Kirschner, Lewis would like to recall the message, "nas storage".

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