toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

Does anyone have experience/knowledge of 9K frames ?
by Eyal Traitel 17 Feb '00

17 Feb '00

Hi ! Does anybody knows if it is supported now in NetApp ? What about Cisco switches ? Has anyone uses it with trunking also ? Eyal.

1 0

Re: wafl unicode options and conversion times
by Todd C. Merrill 17 Feb '00

17 Feb '00

Bruce Sterling Woodcock wrote: > From: Joan Pearson <jpearson(a)netapp.com> > > Yes, while a directory is being converted, all access to it should be > > locked out. Perhaps the nfs client was using information it had > > already cached before the conversion. > > Yeah, but doesn't the cache check something on the directory before > it makes assumptions? Access or modify time? > > Maybe the filer isn't updating that at the start of the conversion > process. I dunno. There's gotta be a way to defeat the client > cacheing other than mounting "noac". This was all "first contact" stuff, from both a freshly rebooted filer and client. No caching as far as I understand it was involved. In our debugging, we tried the "noac" option; it didn't work (for obvious reasons looking back on it now). The first contact initiates the conversion; unfortunately for us, it was the dirents() from the `rm -rf` returning an incomplete directory listing. Joan, the call was 83902. On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Hal Siegel wrote: > This conversion took close to a day and a half on a 630 full of > hundreds of thousands of files of gzipped archive data. Interesting. I interpreted the docs as saying a single directory with 100,000 files took 9 minutes. I never expected a directory with 20-30 files to be converted in anything more than a negligible time. My expectations were just out of line with the behaviour of the filer. NetApp folks, perhaps this could be expounded upon in future docs with more warnings and other examples. > Note that you > can monitor the conversion taking place by watching sysstat - there's a > steady 3-400 disk reads per second going on while the conversion is > being done. Looking at our MRTG data a few days later, I figured that out. Doh! Eyal Traitel wrote: > Can one of you explain the need for this anyway ? It's really only a concern in a mixed CIFS/NFS environment, which we are heavily. The docs can explain the wafl ucode options much better than I can. But, one problem with not having the unicode information in the directory structure is this, which we ran into all the time: o create a directory via an NFS client o do not access this directory from a CIFS client o create a snapshot o try to access this directory via a CIFS client via the snapshot You will get "permission denied." The CIFS access tries to create the unicode information in the directory upon creation or access, but, since it's in a read-only snapshot, it can't. The wafl ucode options allow you to create directories with the unicode information already there, even if created via an NFS client, or to convert the directories upon any access, NFS or CIFS. It is the latter case that takes a non-trivial amount of time, enough to impact normal behavior. 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

wafl unicode options and conversion times
by Todd C. Merrill 16 Feb '00

16 Feb '00

Just thought I'd share a caveat that we ran into in the recent past in upgrading from 5.2.x to 5.3.x. It took two separate cases and 50+ emails and phone calls to figure out, so hopefully this info will save somebody else quite a bit of time. (Many thanks to Mike Smith in tech support for his patience and perseverance in resolving it.) 5.3 (?) introduced two new options, wafl.convert_ucode and wafl.create_ucode, to convert directories upon access and create directories from scratch with unicode bits, respectively, even if accessed/created via an NFS client. We updated our rc files with these options and proceeded with business as usual after the upgrade. Hours later, our entire automated testing environment came to a screeching halt with "permission denied" and other bizarre errors. For instance, an `rm -rf` of a directory would fail, leaving files around, when all the file and directory permissions would have allowed the removal: % rm -rf build.removeme rm: Unable to remove directory build.removeme/test/toolbox/map/map: File exists rm: Unable to remove directory build.removeme/test/toolbox/map: File exists ... Cut to the chase: after getting packet snoops and trying various things on different filers, and the usual troubleshooting, NetApp was able to reproduce the "problem." It wasn't a problem. The docs state, regarding unicode conversion of directories: "For example, converting a directory of 100,000 files takes the filer about 9 minutes on a netapp f540." I read this, and said to myself, "Self, we don't have any directories that big," so I dismissed as trivial the time it would take to convert our directories. We had maximum 2,000 files in our largest directories. Well, even with a semi-honkin' F740, two generations distant from the aforementioned F540, we were seeing `rm -rf` failures on small directories, with only tens of files. And, the clients doing the `rm -rf` weren't all that speedy, a 200 MHz Sun Ultra2, a 270 MHz Ultra5, and even a SPARC20, if I recall correctly (among other types of UNIX boxes, like 200 MHz Pentium Linux boxes). Turns out, this unicode conversion takes a non-trivial amount of time for *any* directory. System call traces showed directory entry calls returning not all files in that directory. Apparently, during the conversion, the "new" directory list can be incomplete. Hence, an `rm -rf` first gets an (incomplete) directory listing, then removes all those files, does a `cd ..` and then tries an rmdir(), at which point, since there are still files in the directory, it spits out an error like the above. Once we figured this out, we tried to forcibly convert all the directories by doing a `find . -print > /dev/null` to traverse the entire filer directory structure. Well, this apparently didn't work (my notes get sparse here) in all cases. Our final workaround was to go to a CIFS client (an NT box), right-click on each top level folder on the filer and select "properties," and let it finish calculating the folder size, thus doing the unicode conversion as usual (the way it had to be done before the wafl options in 5.3.x). So much for the interpretation of "wafl.convert_ucode" working via NFS access to the directory. At the conclusion of the call, I requested the docs to be expounded upon and made clearer regarding unicode conversions for future releases. To date, we have not had any further problems. The "access denied" messages when trying to access non-unicode directories (those created via an NFS client pre-5.3 or with the wafl.create_ucode option unset) from read-only snapshots via CIFS clients has been eliminated. Yea! Hope this helps others. 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 ---

4 3

New Gigabit Ethernet cards in cluster?
by Michael Rogan 16 Feb '00

16 Feb '00

Hello, Has anyone tried to use the new Gigabit Ethernet II (Intel) cards using a single vif in a cluster? I have tried these cards individually and failed the cluster over and everything works just fine but if I put them in a single/multi vif and fail the cluster, I can ping the machine, I can telnet to it and it states that it has failed over, I can http to it; however when I try NFS connections to it, it does not respond? Any suggestions? Config file (Partner rc is nearly identical): ## # RC, file san1 -- MJR # Network 172.17.1.0 to be changed after testing -- MJR # Modified for testing -- MJR ## hostname san1 options dns.domainname blackberry.net options dns.enable on options nis.enable off # Setup Virtual Interfaces ifconfig e6 flowcontrol none ifconfig e7 flowcontrol none vif create single sanvif e6 e7 vif favor e6 # configure interfaces ifconfig e0 192.168.200.110 netmask 255.255.255.0 mediatype 100tx-fd partner 192.168.200.111 ifconfig sanvif 172.17.1.110 netmask 255.255.255.0 trusted partner sanvif # Test, works if vif not configured - MJR #ifconfig e6 172.17.1.110 netmask 255.255.255.0 partner e6 route add default 192.168.200.1 1 savecore exportfs -a nfs on vol snapmirror on ## Michael Michael J. Rogan BlackBerry Sys. Adm. Research In Motion 519-888-7465 www.blackberry.net www.rim.net

1 0

Please add me to your list
by WAY,PETER (HP-Loveland,ex1) 16 Feb '00

16 Feb '00

Peter Way

1 0

RE: Which spare 9 or 18 or 36
by Barrett,Eric 16 Feb '00

16 Feb '00

Yup. When a disk is removed from a RAID group, for whatever reason, the filer will use the smallest possible hot spare disk that it can. (It cannot, of course, reconstruct onto a disk that was smaller than the original.) If a hot spare of the same size isn't available, it will pick the next largest one. -- Eric Barrett, TSE, Network Appliance ebarrett(a)netapp.com / 408-822-4779 (office) NetApp Tech Support: 1-888-4NETAPP > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Harm [mailto:harm1@llnl.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 3:24 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Which spare 9 or 18 or 36 > > > Dear super informative list; > > Let's say there is a volume of 9 GB drives in a 760 > and another volume of 18 GB(or 36 GB). > Now I have a 9 GB spare and an 18 GB spare in the box also. > When a drive dies, does the box pick the spare of the same size > as the failed disk to rebuild? > > }}}===============>> LLNL > James E. Harm (Jim); jharm(a)llnl.gov > (925) 422-4018 Page: 423-7705x57152

1 0

RE: Backing up a filer
by Kelly Wyatt 16 Feb '00

16 Feb '00

Hmmm... I just saw in the technote that Veritas NetBackup does not support that (a little table in that same technote indicates that)... I will be checking with Veritas on that because they know we plan to test this and have given no indication that this would not work. Kelly -- Kelly Wyatt, Kelly.Wyatt(a)SAS.com Systems Programmer Integrated Solutions Consulting SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Drive / Cary, NC 27513 http://www.sas.com -----Original Message----- From: [ISS] Veritas-Users Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 9:54 AM To: 'Roth, William'; 'gwong(a)futureshop.com' Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: Backing up a filer I understand that you can do NDMP dump across the network to a media server... it is even mentioned in technote 3066, section 4.3 (# 4 below): ---- The NDMP protocol specification allows the following backup configurations: 1. Local backup from a filer to a SCSI-attached tape device 2. Three-way backup from a filer via the network to another filer with a local tape device 3. Backup from a UNIX or Windows NT server via the network to a NetApp filer with a local tape device 4. Backup from a NetApp filer via the network to a UNIX or Windows NT backup server with a local tape device ---- We currently backup filers via dedicated directly attached tape drives (using Veritas NetBackup)... but, this is a costly solution because the tape drives are idle probably 75% of the time. We will be testing NDMP across a dedicated GB ethernet network in the near future. Even if we see some decrease in backup throughput, it will good if we can get those 20 dedicated DLT7000 tape drives in S'Tek 9710's doing more work for us... Is anyone already using a private network and NDMP to backup a filer? Kelly -- Kelly Wyatt, Kelly.Wyatt(a)SAS.com Systems Programmer Integrated Solutions Consulting SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Drive / Cary, NC 27513 http://www.sas.com -----Original Message----- From: Roth, William [mailto:William.Roth@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 11:21 AM To: 'gwong(a)futureshop.com' Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: Backing up a filer Greg, If you want to use NetBackup with NDMP to back up the filer, you need to have at least one direct attached tape drive connected to the filer(not considering a three way NDMP backup using two filers with a tape device direct connected to the remote filer). You can dedicate one or more drives from an existing library controlled by NetBackup, or you can attach a new/different library to the filer(yes, the filer does support a locally attached library). Either the NetBackup host (NDMP client) or the filer can be direct connected to the robotic portion of the library(assuming the library has individual scsi ports for the connection). In the end, NetBackup ends up controlling the library either way. If the robot is direct connected to the NetBackup host via scsi, NetBackup controls it. If the robot is connected to the filer via scsi, the NetBackup host sends scsi cdb's via NDMP to the robot through the filer, thus the robot is still controller by NetBackup. What other information or assistance do you require? Bill Roth Technical Marketing Engineer Network Appliance, Inc. 495 East Java Drive Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Telephone 408-822-3308 -----Original Message----- From: Greg Wong [mailto:gwong@futureshop.com] Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 11:45 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Backing up a filer Hi all, I'm kind of new to the this filer business and I have a question about backing it up. We have an F720 on site that isn't doing much since we aren't backing it up. I need some options on how to do this. We currently back up our other systems vith Veritas Netbackup and a tape library. Now, my question(s) is if I want to use Veritas to back up the filer using NDMP, do I have to dedicate a drive on the remote tape library to the filer? Will the filer support a locally attached library, and if it does, does Veritas control the library or does the filer? Thanks for your help Greg

6 7

RE: max file system size
by Jason Middlebrooks 16 Feb '00

16 Feb '00

So on a F760 I can have 56 32GB drives on one fibre loop? Is any performance lost here? Thanks Jason "Bond, Andrew" <abond(a)netapp.com> on 01/28/2000 09:48:33 AM To: Jason Middlebrooks/Datalink cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: max file system size This question should really be addressed to your local NetApp sales person or SE, however: > Is the maximum storage per fibre loop still 464.4GB? No. The maximum storage per F760 is presently approx. 1.4TB raw disk space. This can be on one loop or more than one loop, in whatever config you require, subject to a maximum of 56 devices per loop. Regards, Andrew

4 3

Which spare 9 or 18 or 36
by Jim Harm 15 Feb '00

15 Feb '00

Dear super informative list; Let's say there is a volume of 9 GB drives in a 760 and another volume of 18 GB(or 36 GB). Now I have a 9 GB spare and an 18 GB spare in the box also. When a drive dies, does the box pick the spare of the same size as the failed disk to rebuild? }}}===============>> LLNL James E. Harm (Jim); jharm(a)llnl.gov (925) 422-4018 Page: 423-7705x57152

1 0

Re: Backing up a filer
by Steve Kappel 15 Feb '00

15 Feb '00

mark wrote: >> NetBackup NDMP does NOT use multiplexing. Also note that for NDMP >> the tape format is determined by the NDMP server vendor. > >NDMP uses dump format as well doesn't it? So all the propositions above >get a little messed around here anyhoo. No, NDMP is format neutral. NetApp's implementation of NDMP uses dump. tar is used by some others. __________________________________________________________________________ Steve Kappel steve.kappel(a)veritas.com VERITAS Software steve.kappel(a)iname.com (Personal)

1 0

Re: Backing up a filer
by Steve Kappel 15 Feb '00

15 Feb '00

Eyal, >Are there any plans / ideas from Veritas on improving backup/restore times of >filers ? The only time NetBackup has a performance impact on backup is when there are a very large number of files in the backup (on the order of millions). Currently we get all the NDMP history in DIR & NODE messages which we then have to convert into full paths for our catalog. This can be CPU, RAM, and disk intensive. We are investigating options for how we might address this issue. As for restore time there isn't much we can do besides add support for 'direct access restore'. Sounds easy but it isn't. Even when NetApp supports it, it may not be what you want - it will have limitations. It is a hard thing to do with a dump-style backup. Because of the limitations and the NetBackup model, we may not be able to support it reliably. We always take the conservative approach of doing everything we can to make sure you get the correct data and any new optimizations have to be bullet-proof. In the end, all we can do is support what NDMP and each NDMP server implementation provides to us. >It seems that the tape/backup s/w is not keeping up well with the filers' huge >sizes ? I don't think it is just filers - the whole industry is seeing an explosion of data. Tape drives certainly haven't kept up with disk. Of course NetBackup has other features that are not available in the NDMP world simply because 1) we have raw access to the disk, and 2) we control the tape format. >What is the best configuration that can give us best performance ? From a NetBackup perspective the only thing you can do is try to keep the number of files per backup from getting very large. Trouble is that breaking a volume up into different backups has an impact on filer efficiency (unless you use quota trees). __________________________________________________________________________ Steve Kappel steve.kappel(a)veritas.com VERITAS Software steve.kappel(a)iname.com (Personal)

1 0

Re: Backing up a filer
by Darrell Fuhriman 15 Feb '00

15 Feb '00

"Eyal Traitel" <eyal.traitel(a)motorola.com> writes: > Are there any plans / ideas from Veritas on improving > backup/restore times of filers ? In this case the issue is primarily the fact that Netapp continues to use dump, which is not the speediest way to recover files. (Being that it has to search the entire tape(s) to get even a single file.) Of course, Veritas has plenty of it's own problems (restore times being only one of them) -- don't get me started. > It seems that the tape/backup s/w is not keeping up well with > the filers' huge sizes ? No question. I've been continually making noises at Netapp to improve the way they do backups, but haven't heard of any movement. > What is the best configuration that can give us best performance ? Well, you could consider using legato and the netapp clientpak, though that requires you to do backups over the network, which is really sub-optimal. Given the current state of affairs at Legato Corporate, who knows what's going to happen in the future with the product. Restores should be dramatically faster though. I think ultimately, right now, the only thing you can do is use faster tape drives and/or smaller volumes, neither of which is really good solution. Darrell

1 0

Re: Backing up a filer
by Steve Kappel 15 Feb '00

15 Feb '00

>> > supported. I liked the fact that both QR and Veritas used an ISO standard >> > tar format for the backup. This ruled Legato out early, since they use >> >> Hmmm, I suspect from what I've learned from Veritas and others, that >> you don't see tar format on the tapes used for the basic backups. The >> reasoning being that the backup software usually interleaves several >> streams of data from clients to ensure streaming onto tapes (to extend >> tape lifetimes as well as reduce the overall backup window). Cloning the >> tapes in some manner allows the backup software to reduce the chance of >> data loss AND also to rationalize the interleaving so you do get tape >> files with coherent tar format inside.. but some folks don't clone >> tapes, so they may well never get tar-readable tapes. > >My understanding of Budtool and Quick Restore was that you could pull tar >files off of the tape directly. Generally, the desire for this ability is: > >1) if the machine with the backup software goes down, you can still do >recoveries, and >2) you can restore to differing systems. > >I will grant that the Veritas solution of interleaving streams does sound >well thought out and probably more efficient, but from an admin's >perspective, you have to figure some day the worst will happen. Interleaving (multiplexing is the term in NetBackup) is optional in NetBackup. You can turn it off for any class. NetBackup NDMP does NOT use multiplexing. Also note that for NDMP the tape format is determined by the NDMP server vendor. __________________________________________________________________________ Steve Kappel steve.kappel(a)veritas.com VERITAS Software steve.kappel(a)iname.com (Personal)

2 1

strange NT errors when copying a file
by Steve Bos 15 Feb '00

15 Feb '00

Has anyone experienced a "session was canceled" error before? When copying a file from a NT box to a 720, the file seems to be copying fine, then at the very end the "session was canceled" error pops up on the NT machine. The strange thing is the file seems to have copied, at least the file sizes are the same. This error doesn't exactly fill you with confidence that the copy went o.k. In the environment, it seems that some machines are more susceptible to this error than others. Has anyone ever run into this before? Thanks in advance... Steve -- Steve Bos steve(a)intervision.com InterVision Systems (408) 567-4223

1 0

Re: AW: Backing up a filer
by Steve Kappel 15 Feb '00

15 Feb '00

>- Do you know, when Netbackup v3.4 will be released? It will be going beta in a few weeks. So probably a few months away. >- Backing up Files without ACL´s? >We also have many UNIX-Files and dont need the use of ACL´s. Is there a >possibility >to disable NDMP-Backup with ACLs? If possible, does this affect restore >times, because the acl´s on the end of the file are not needed. I'm not sure I understand the question. If you are wondering about turning off the backup of ACLs, I believe there is a NetApp NDMP environment variable that can do that. As far as I am aware this wouldn't affect the restore time - it still reads the entire image (I think). Someone from NetApp can correct me if I'm wrong. With NDMP the backup product just positions to the beginning and tells the NDMP server to start the restore. What happens after that is up to the NDMP server implementation. >- NDMP v3: >Are ther any real enhancements with this implementation and when will it be >released >with Veritas/Netapp? V3 adds some minor things to the protocol but that doesn't mean they are used by a given NDMP client. V3 is not in NetBackup 3.4. I can't tell you what is in the following release because the feature content hasn't been finalized (and maybe even then I can't say ;). V3 is in the pipeline but I wouldn't expect any functionality impact because of it. __________________________________________________________________________ Steve Kappel steve.kappel(a)veritas.com VERITAS Software steve.kappel(a)iname.com (Personal)

1 0

AW: Backing up a filer
by Micheler Klaus (EZM, Villach) 15 Feb '00

15 Feb '00

Hi Steve! Thanks for the answers. Please let me ask some more questions. - Do you know, when Netbackup v3.4 will be released? This alternate client restore is very vital to us, because the filer tends to crash, if Data is changed while Restores. One idea is to make a volume for restores only. With the current solution it had to be done on each filer, with alternate Client restore it had to be done only on one Filer - Backing up Files without ACL´s? We also have many UNIX-Files and dont need the use of ACL´s. Is there a possibility to disable NDMP-Backup with ACLs? If possible, does this affect restore times, because the acl´s on the end of the file are not needed. - NDMP v3: Are ther any real enhancements with this implementation and when will it be released with Veritas/Netapp? Thanks in advance for your answers. regards, Klaus Micheler mailto:klaus.micheler@infineon.com -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Steve Kappel [mailto:steve.kappel@raistlin.min.ov.com] Gesendet am: Montag, 14. Februar 2000 20:38 An: Klaus.Micheler(a)infineon.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Betreff: RE: Backing up a filer Hi Klaus, > -NDMP alternate client Restore: Restore Data backuped from Client A >directly to Client B? > What must I do to make this possible? This functionality is implemented in the upcoming NetBackup 3.4 release. > -NDMP Direct Acces Recovery: > Restore of single Files/Directories in a short time (Our Backup >Images are currently about 100 - 150GB). > What Restore times do you have? (In my case, it looks like the >Filersearches the whole dump, which can take up to 8 hours). Is there any >possibility to speed this up? Yes, the entire dump image is read by restore. Neither OnTap or NetBackup support direct access restore in currently shipping releases. This is a complicated problem to solve in a dump-style backup. The only suggestion I can make to improve restore speed is to breakup the backup into smaller dumps. If you are doing full volume dumps now then this may be less efficient as far as backup speed is concerned. __________________________________________________________________________ Steve Kappel steve.kappel(a)veritas.com VERITAS Software steve.kappel(a)iname.com (Personal)

2 1

Storage Service Providers
by Bruce Sterling Woodcock 14 Feb '00

14 Feb '00

If it's okay to ask about more general issues on this list... I saw that netdrive.com is using Netapp for their online storage. I'm curious if people on this list see this as a big area in the future? Is B2C storage going to catch on with home users with thin clients? Are any of you considering B2B storage at the businesses where you work? Essentially, outsourcing your storage to a provider who gives you a storage line just like phone, electricity, or any other utility. Bruce

3 2

RE: Backing up a filer
by Steve Kappel 14 Feb '00

14 Feb '00

Hi Klaus, > -NDMP alternate client Restore: Restore Data backuped from Client A >directly to Client B? > What must I do to make this possible? This functionality is implemented in the upcoming NetBackup 3.4 release. > -NDMP Direct Acces Recovery: > Restore of single Files/Directories in a short time (Our Backup >Images are currently about 100 - 150GB). > What Restore times do you have? (In my case, it looks like the >Filersearches the whole dump, which can take up to 8 hours). Is there any >possibility to speed this up? Yes, the entire dump image is read by restore. Neither OnTap or NetBackup support direct access restore in currently shipping releases. This is a complicated problem to solve in a dump-style backup. The only suggestion I can make to improve restore speed is to breakup the backup into smaller dumps. If you are doing full volume dumps now then this may be less efficient as far as backup speed is concerned. __________________________________________________________________________ Steve Kappel steve.kappel(a)veritas.com VERITAS Software steve.kappel(a)iname.com (Personal)

1 0

Re: Extending db file
by Richard L. Rhodes 14 Feb '00

14 Feb '00

<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>Opps . . . . I think I resent my origional message to the list by accident when I was trying to form this reply. If I did, sorry. I did a bunch of testing and found that I could resize a db files up to a maximum size of 1582940k. Up to that point I can resize the db file with no problem. Any attempt to resize a file past this point resulted in the error. Oracle 7.3 has a 2gb file limit so this didn't seem to be an oracle error. By just coping files I was able to create a file over 4gb in size, so the problem didn't seem to be a netapp/nfs problem. I decided to change some mount options. THe first things I tried was running nfs over tcp (I had been using udp). IT WORKED! After making the change I was able to resize the db file right up to Oracle's 2gb limit. I don't know what's different between nfs over tcp and over udp, but it's working now! Rick ></color>I've brought an Oracle db (7.3.4.3) up on a >RS/6k(aix432)/Netapp(534r2) system. The mounts are using nfs v3 and >udp. All has gone really well except when I went to extend the size >of some of the db files. When I do this I get the following >messages: > SVRMGR> ALTER DATABASE DATAFILE >'/oracledata/orac/dbfiles/orac_gis_1.dbf' RESIZE 1600M; > ORA-01237: cannot extend datafile 10 > ORA-01110: data file 10: '/oracledata/orac/dbfiles/orac_gis_1.dbf' > ORA-09967: sfsfs: unable to resize a file larger <color><param>0100,0100,0100</param> <nofill> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 f: 330-384-2514

1 0

RE: Backing up a filer
by Micheler Klaus (EZM, Villach) 14 Feb '00

14 Feb '00

Hi Kelly! We are currently using Veritas Netbackup v3.2 with NDMP Extension to backup our 4 Netapp F740. Two Filers have directly attached DLT7000 Drives and the other two are backed up via GBit - LAN with NDMP 3way Backup. (We also use Library Sharing for the the two NDMP-Masters). Throughput is about 15-20GB/h per DLT7000, and we are very pleased with that solution. Currently we are using Veritas Netbackup v3.2 with patch 326, Our Filers have Ontap 5.3.4R2. One Question because I´m new to Netbackup: -NDMP alternate client Restore: Restore Data backuped from Client A directly to Client B? What must I do to make this possible? -NDMP Direct Acces Recovery: Restore of single Files/Directories in a short time (Our Backup Images are currently about 100 - 150GB). What Restore times do you have? (In my case, it looks like the Filersearches the whole dump, which can take up to 8 hours). Is there any possibility to speed this up? Thanks for any answers/ideas. regards, Klaus Micheler Klaus Micheler Infineon Technologies mailto:Klaus.Micheler@infineon.com -----Original Message----- From: Kelly Wyatt Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 1:35 PM To: 'Steve Kappel' Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Backing up a filer Is anyone actually doing 3-way NDMP backups w/ NetBackup. We have been pleased with using NBU with NDMP and directly attached drives for our filers for about 18 months... but, we are about out of capacity in our two tape libraries. Most filers have two tape drives (which we prefer), so when we install the three filers we just received, we have hit our limit... and we have three more filers on order... So, we need to either get another tape library or come up with a solution that doesn't require an entire tape library for every 5 filers. Thanks for any input -- Kelly

1 0

Extending db file
by Richard L. Rhodes 12 Feb '00

12 Feb '00

Ok, I'm stumpted! I've brought an Oracle db (7.3.4.3) up on a RS/6k(aix432)/Netapp(534r2) system. The mounts are using nfs v3 and udp. All has gone really well except when I went to extend the size of some of the db files. When I do this I get the following messages: SVRMGR> ALTER DATABASE DATAFILE '/oracledata/orac/dbfiles/orac_gis_1.dbf' RESIZE 1600M; ORA-01237: cannot extend datafile 10 ORA-01110: data file 10: '/oracledata/orac/dbfiles/orac_gis_1.dbf' ORA-09967: sfsfs: unable to resize a file larger The db runs correctly. Oracle has permissions to, and can, create/delete files in this directory. The netapp filesystem isn't out of space - I can (as oracle) create large files in this dir. Snapshots are not using the space. There's no AIX error message. There's no error message in the Netapp messages file. In general . . . . I'm stumpted! Does anyone have any idea of what might be causing this? I highly suspect user error (me) but right now I'm blind as to what I may be doing wrong. THanks Rick ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 f: 330-384-2514

2 1

Extending db file
by Richard L. Rhodes 12 Feb '00

12 Feb '00

1 0

Quota Manager
by Michael Plett 11 Feb '00

11 Feb '00

Does anybody with a filer use the Microsoft product Quota Manager? If so please let me know we are trying to find out if this product works with a filer. Thanks ********************************************************************* Michael Plett Application Engineer Axis Technologies Office: 972/588-1874 16633 Dallas Parkway Fax: 972/588-1876 Suite 600 Email:maplett@axistec.com Dallas, TX 75248 USA http://www.axistec.com ********************************************************************* ___ _ _______ _ / _ \ __ __ (_) ___ |__ __| __ __ | |_ | |_| | \ \/ / | | ( __) | | / _) / _)| _ \ | _ | > < | | _ \ | | ( _)( |_ | | | | |_| |_| /_/\_\ |_| (___) |_| \__) \__)|_| |_|

2 1

Quota Manager
by Michael Plett 11 Feb '00

11 Feb '00

I have the producer of the program wrong. Its Software Shelf International, Inc not Microsoft that make Quota Manager? ********************************************************************* Michael Plett Application Engineer Axis Technologies Office: 972/588-1874 16633 Dallas Parkway Fax: 972/588-1876 Suite 600 Email:maplett@axistec.com Dallas, TX 75248 USA http://www.axistec.com ********************************************************************* ___ _ _______ _ / _ \ __ __ (_) ___ |__ __| __ __ | |_ | |_| | \ \/ / | | ( __) | | / _) / _)| _ \ | _ | > < | | _ \ | | ( _)( |_ | | | | |_| |_| /_/\_\ |_| (___) |_| \__) \__)|_| |_|

1 0

RMA reminder calls
by Jim Harm 10 Feb '00

10 Feb '00

Has anyone else gotten just a little bit miffed at the frequency, speed, and pointlessness of the calls about NetApp RMAs? I get called in less than a week. shipped on 1-31, received on 2-1, reminder(actually more of a where is it, ya dead beat?) call on 2-2!, it is scheduled to be installed today and I don't want the broken box in office; it gets shipped when I have time. sometimes I'll get a call with a list of RMAs from the last 6 months and they expect me to respond with the whereabouts of every RMA when the fact is they have all been shipped back to NetApp. I have to schedule work to replace parts and it takes sometimes a week or more(usually less) and I don't want to have to deal with some extra middle man company to try to justify what I am doing with the RMA. And I feel guilty if I shine them on. }}}===============>> LLNL James E. Harm (Jim); jharm(a)llnl.gov (925) 422-4018 Page: 423-7705x57152

9 9

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