toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

Re: by the way......
by dnb＠ccs.neu.edu 23 Jan '00

23 Jan '00

Linda Walton <lwalton(a)reasoning.com> writes: > I just found out this afternoon that the HW/SW support contract > for our filers had expired on 12/31/1999. Hmmm, I assumed that > someone would have contacted us before it expired instead of > finding out while trying to download OS on the now.netapp website. We had something similar happen (except ours had been out for 2 mos. before *I* noticed it). I was pretty peeved. Luckily our brandy-new sales rep hopped right on the ball when I called him (maybe it was the rep switch which caused the problem, dunno). Luckily we had no problems which forced a support call, or I would have been livid. > To the Network Appliance Corp. readers; is there some way to > find out when the support expires without contacting my sales rep? Yes, the now.netapp.com has a support contract area. I was idly browsing it when I came upon our lapse. I agree, it would be a good thing if the mothership mailed people before their contracts ran out. This leads me think I might want to write a generalized agent which checked the web sites of my vendors looking for this sort of thing (we had this lapse in Cisco-land once as well). Shouldn't be too hard. If I did, would someone be interested in this? > By the way, I would not trade my filers for all the money in > world but this kind of nonsense makes me crazier. Ditto (well, ok, I probably have my price). Peace, dNb

1 0

slow copies from Netapp, very fast to copy up to the Netapp
by adam-s＠pacbell.net 22 Jan '00

22 Jan '00

Hello, We are new to the Netapp and are having the problem that while copying from the Netapp to either an NT (CIFS) or Sun Solaris 2.6 box (NFS), the throughput ranges from 24K/sec to 79K/sec. Copying from an NT or Sun is wonderfully fast (we have trunked the Quad Ethernet). I only know NFS but am working with the NT guys. On the NFS side, I tried a larger packet size (32K instead of 8K), I tried vers 2 and 3, I tried UDP and TCP, and I tried various combos and permuations. I tried all this even though I believe it must be some configuration parameter on the Netapp *common* to both the CIFS stuff and NFS. We are currently running 5.3.1 so please let me know if you think 5.3.4 will help or even fix it. The two of us both searched NOW and found CIFS or NFS specific troubleshooting stuff which we tried. We also looked through the archives. We are stumped. I am wondering if we forgot to configure something obvious. We have not done a lot of "tuning" on the NetApp, most of the posts here refer to tuning tips on the client side and I am going to try some of that too but first the basic problem needs to be resolved. I have included the output of the options command in the hopes that something there. thanks for any help/advice you can give Adam netapp1> options autosupport.doit DONT autosupport.enable on autosupport.from adamh(a)my.dom.ain autosupport.mailhost mailhost.my.dom.ain autosupport.noteto autosupport.to autosupport@netapp.com,adam@my.dom.ain,etc. cifs.access_logging.enable off cifs.access_logging.file_name /etc/log/adtlog.evt cifs.bypass_traverse_checking on cifs.guest_account cifs.home_dir /vol/vol0/home cifs.idle_timeout 1800 cifs.netbios_aliases cifs.oplocks.enable on cifs.perm_check_use_gid on cifs.save_case off cifs.scopeid cifs.search_domains cifs.show_snapshot off cifs.symlinks.cycleguard on cifs.symlinks.enable on cifs.trace_login off console.encoding nfs dns.domainname my.dom.ain dns.enable on ftpd.enable off httpd.admin.enable on httpd.enable off httpd.log.max_file_size 2147483647 httpd.rootdir XXX httpd.timeout 900 httpd.timewait.enable off https.admin.enable off ip.match_any_ifaddr on ip.path_mtu_discovery.enable on nfs.mount_rootonly on nfs.per_client_stats.enable on nfs.tcp.enable on nfs.udp.xfersize 32768 nfs.v2.df_2gb_lim off nfs.v3.enable off nfs.webnfs.enable off nfs.webnfs.rootdir XXX nfs.webnfs.rootdir.set off nis.domainname nis.enable off pcnfsd.enable off pcnfsd.umask 22 raid.reconstruct_speed 4 raid.scrub.enable on raid.timeout 24 rsh.enable on snmp.enable on ssh.enable off telnet.enable on telnet.hosts * timed.enable off timed.log off timed.max_skew 30m timed.proto ntp timed.sched hourly timed.servers vol.copy.throttle 10 wafl.convert_ucode off wafl.create_ucode off wafl.default_nt_user wafl.default_unix_user pcuser wafl.maxdirsize 10240 wafl.nt_admin_priv_map_to_root on wafl.root_only_chown on wafl.wcc_minutes_valid 20 netapp1> email: a d a m - s (a t) p a c b e l l d o t n e t

8 9

RE: slow copies from Netapp, very fast to copy up to the Netapp
by Fox, Adam 22 Jan '00

22 Jan '00

> I believe this is a limitation of all the current trunking > technologies > (at least, the one that Sun, Cisco, NetApp, and 3Com use for 100bT in > any case). > > IMHO, if the filer is to be primarily used as a backend for one large > ORACLE box, and you need bandwidth between them, put gigabit NICs in > at each end. You could even just cross-over the fibre cable for a > point-point connection if you didn't need gigabit between anything > else at the start (and use the 100bT onboard to talk to the other > clients). Exactly. Many EtherChannel and EtherChannel-style trunking algorithms use MAC addresses to distribute the data down the pipes of a trunk. Therefore, if you only have 1 client, these implementations will only use one pipe. NetApp simply reflects the response down the same pipe the request came in on. So if you only have 1 client, Gbit is the way to go...nice big pipe. You get no throughput advantadge from a multi-trunk due to these switch algorithms. Hope this helps. -- Adam Fox, CCNA, CNX - Ethernet NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com

2 1

Adding a spare to a Volume
by Stephen C. Woods 21 Jan '00

21 Jan '00

The seems to be a big difference in how a 5.1.2R3 system with 4GB disks and a 5.3.4R2 system with 36BG disks adds a spare disk to a volume. With 5.1.2R3 you get a message to the effect of: Zeroing disk, this will take forever, check progress with sysconfig -r With 5.3.4R2 it happens right away, no delay. Clearly this is great, however we wonder exactly when the zeroing took place (this is a brand new system just installed yesterday). Do the disks come zeroed from the factory? Or, does the system zero the drive when the drive is installed as a spare? ----- 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

2 1

NetApp tests with postmark
by E Hunter 21 Jan '00

21 Jan '00

Does anyone have experience with postmark giving negative numbers when reporting performance? Heres an example: Time: 311 seconds total 281 seconds of transactions (35 per second) Files: 5903 created (18 per second) Creation alone: 1500 files (50 per second) Mixed with transactions: 4403 files (15 per second) 2833 read (10 per second) 4486 appended (15 per second) 5903 deleted (18 per second) Deletion alone: 2289 files (2289 per second) Mixed with transactions: 2903 files (10 per second) Data: -1614.75 megabytes read (-5.19 megabytes per second) -2023.98 megabytes written (-6.51 megabytes per second) pm>finished at Wed Jan 12 04:27:17 EST 2000 -5.19 MB /s ?! What's up with that and how can I fix it? -- Eric Hunter System Administrator _______________________ Gigaton.com, Inc. 1200 Brickell Ave. STE 680 Miami, FL 33131 Ph: +1 (305) 373 2002 Fax: +1 (305) 373 2034 _______________________ eric(a)gigaton.com

3 3

Replacement disk not in /etc/qual_devices -- caused both filers of a failover pair to halt?
by Dave Toal 21 Jan '00

21 Jan '00

Folks, Not to detract from the nfs tuning discussion that's shaping up, but... one quick question on failover pair behaviour. Like the subject says: the 'unqualified disk' error showed up on the lcd of both filers (740's) when we swapped the replacement disk. Both filers halted. This is normal and good, yes? Or not? The fix worked, but I still wonder if disk-failover config is 100% correct. Dave

1 0

RE: ArcServe and Filers
by Garrett Burke 20 Jan '00

20 Jan '00

Hi July, We use ARCServe IT for NT with our Filer (F230). We create a snapshot, share the snapshot and backup directly over the network. Major problem 1: Really slow, especially when lots of small files like we have. Major problem 2: Can't do incrementals (presumably as the Full Backups can't clear the archive bit in the snapshot and sure a new snapshot is created for each backup) There's a doc on using ARCServe on the Netapp site - see http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3052.html I don't know how to use an Intermediatry host with ARCServe. NT 4.0 doesn't allow you to share a drive mapped from another host. Neither does the ARCServe NT Client list the mapped drive in it's list of drives to backup. Am I missing a configuration item? We run with oplocks disabled as we found that this improved the speed, but we are still only seeing 90MB/min with a PIII 450Mhz with a DLT7000 as the backup host. I'm seeing backup speeds of between 150MB/min & 200MB/min from NT servers using the ARCServe client SW. I intend having a hard look at this in early Mar., and if I can't solve it usign ARCServe then I intend looking at other backup solutions - QuickRestore (http://www.worksta.com/) looks interesting. Would be interested in any feedback from QuickRestore users. My gut feeling is that ARCServe is fine for a few NT Servers, but once you have > 50GB of data then it's time to play with the big boys (which means shelling out for the SW). Doing restores from ARCServe Tapes is a doddle. Hopefully won't have to give the ease of use up. I'd love to be able to put my hand on my heart when I go looking for the cash for a F740 (in a few months) that I'll be able to back it up, but that is not the case at the moment using ARCServe. Regards, GB > -----Original Message----- > From: July at Zerowait [SMTP:july@zerowait.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 3:13 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: ArcServe and Filers > > ******************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are solely for the use of the individual or organisation to whom they are addressed. If you have received this mail in error please notify the system administrator at +353 1 6399700 or by email to hostmaster(a)msc.ie This email message has been swept for computer viruses. Managed Solutions Corporation, Enterprise Customer Relationship Management, Workflow and Contract Administration. Tel: 353 1 639 9700 Fax: 353 1 639 9701 Don't forget to visit our website at http://www.managed-solutions.com ********************************************************************

6 5

ArcServe and Filers
by July at Zerowait 19 Jan '00

19 Jan '00

Hi. We have a customer who wants to use NetApp filers with ArcServe. Has anyone here done that or know someone who has? Presently, I believe they have a workaround that uses an intermediary server that takes the backup from the filer and then uses ArcServe to transfer to tape, but we'd prefer an answer with a little more finesse. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- July A. J. Linett, VP Tech Mktg 302.266.9408 july(a)zerowait.com Zerowait: Best Of Breed Internet Core Technologies Web Acceleration ** Data Storage ** Load Balancing www.zerowait.com*www.loadbalancing.net*www.nas-san.com -------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

RE: ArcServe and Filers
by Thomas, Brian 19 Jan '00

19 Jan '00

We have given up on ARCServe and are moving to Veritas NetBackup, it supports NDMP which allows attaching a tape library directly to our F740s. The speed increases were quite impressive. Brian -----Original Message----- From: Garrett Burke [mailto:Garrett.Burke@msc.ie] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 10:38 AM To: 'July at Zerowait' Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: ArcServe and Filers Hi July, We use ARCServe IT for NT with our Filer (F230). We create a snapshot, share the snapshot and backup directly over the network. Major problem 1: Really slow, especially when lots of small files like we have. Major problem 2: Can't do incrementals (presumably as the Full Backups can't clear the archive bit in the snapshot and sure a new snapshot is created for each backup) There's a doc on using ARCServe on the Netapp site - see http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3052.html I don't know how to use an Intermediatry host with ARCServe. NT 4.0 doesn't allow you to share a drive mapped from another host. Neither does the ARCServe NT Client list the mapped drive in it's list of drives to backup. Am I missing a configuration item? We run with oplocks disabled as we found that this improved the speed, but we are still only seeing 90MB/min with a PIII 450Mhz with a DLT7000 as the backup host. I'm seeing backup speeds of between 150MB/min & 200MB/min from NT servers using the ARCServe client SW. I intend having a hard look at this in early Mar., and if I can't solve it usign ARCServe then I intend looking at other backup solutions - QuickRestore (http://www.worksta.com/) looks interesting. Would be interested in any feedback from QuickRestore users. My gut feeling is that ARCServe is fine for a few NT Servers, but once you have > 50GB of data then it's time to play with the big boys (which means shelling out for the SW). Doing restores from ARCServe Tapes is a doddle. Hopefully won't have to give the ease of use up. I'd love to be able to put my hand on my heart when I go looking for the cash for a F740 (in a few months) that I'll be able to back it up, but that is not the case at the moment using ARCServe. Regards, GB > -----Original Message----- > From: July at Zerowait [SMTP:july@zerowait.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 3:13 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: ArcServe and Filers > > ******************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are solely for the use of the individual or organisation to whom they are addressed. If you have received this mail in error please notify the system administrator at +353 1 6399700 or by email to hostmaster(a)msc.ie This email message has been swept for computer viruses. Managed Solutions Corporation, Enterprise Customer Relationship Management, Workflow and Contract Administration. Tel: 353 1 639 9700 Fax: 353 1 639 9701 Don't forget to visit our website at http://www.managed-solutions.com ********************************************************************

1 0

problems in installing Legato..
by Akhilesh Kumar 19 Jan '00

19 Jan '00

Hi, I have a NetApp filer F720 running 5.3.4R2. I am trying to set it up as Legato backup client ( Networker vesrion 5.5.1 ) from a Solaris 5.6 machine. I go exactly as the Legato documentation says, but when I run na_install on the Solaris machine ( as root ) I get the following error msg : # ./na_install Finishing installation now. File Server: exdfdmz Password: Can't set registry value Installation failed. Sorry # I would appreciate any help. Thanks Akhilesh Kumar

1 0

Re: Problem with F630 and qualified drives
by Luke Mewburn 18 Jan '00

18 Jan '00

Michael Douglass writes: > Is there any way that this drive can be relabeled to say SEAGATE and not > COMPAQ? Is there any way for Netapp to 'approve' this drive (since it > really is the same drive, it's just been 'OEM Branded')? Is there some > type of backdoor/techprompt method of telling the filer that this drive > is, indeed, a trusty drive? Take a look at /etc/qual_devices on your filer; that's probably what you want (from the look of it). Your milage may vary, don't blame me if it trashes your filer, etc, etc.

4 3

[Summary]: Problem with F540 + 5.3.4R2 (NT authentication)
by Paquette, Trevor 18 Jan '00

18 Jan '00

This was the answer to this problem. Thanx to all who responded. -- Two rights do not make a wrong. They make an airplane. Trevor Paquette | AT&T Canada |Work:(403)705-6390 TrevorPaquette(a)metronet.ca |600, 205 5th Ave SW | Fax:(403)705-9601 http://www.metronet.ca |Calgary, AB, Canada |ICBM:51'03"N/114'05"W Senior Unix Network Architect| T2P 2V7 |Mind:In the Rockies > -----Original Message----- > From: Puneet Anand [SMTP:puneet@netapp.com] > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 1:53 PM > To: Paquette, Trevor > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Problem with F540 + 5.3.4R2 (NT authentication) > > What does your /etc/paswd file look like ? > You would need to set the wafl.default_unix_user to 'pcuser' (w/o > quotes) > > options wafl.default_unix_user pcuser > > and add an entry for pcuser in your password file. > like , > > pcuser::65534:65534::/: > > Hope this helps > > -Puneet > ________ > > > > "Paquette, Trevor" wrote: > > > > We have an F540 that we have 're-commissioned' to internal service. > > It is running OnTap 5.3.4R2 and because of the support costs, senior > > management > > has decided not to renew support for it.. (sigh.. not my decision..) > > > > Anyway.. we want to use it as a disk for internal users within our NT > > domain.. > > > > I've configured the system as the knowledge base suggested.. but the > damn > > thing will NOT > > authenticate users unless they have a local account in the /etc/passwd > file. > > This contrary to what the knowledge base says.. > > > > http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/contents/TIP/TIP_643.shtml > > http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/contents/FAQ/FAQ_462.shtml > > > > Output from various commands.. > > > > The following command shows the system is properly registered in the NT > > Domain. > > > > calna001> cifs sessions > > Server Registers as 'CALNA001' in group 'A01AB' > > Filer is using en_US for DOS users > > WINS Server: 10.1.1.15 > > Selected domain controller \\A01DC006 for authentication > > Comment: Calgary NetApp File Server > > ======================================== > > PC (user) #shares #files > > > > The qtrees for the system (one big volume: vol0) are set properly as > ntfs > > calna001> qtree > > Volume Tree Style Oplocks > > -------- -------- ----- -------- > > vol0 ntfs enabled > > vol0 Common ntfs enabled > > > > And the shares on the system are setup properly.. > > > > calna001> cifs shares > > Name Mount Point Description > > ---- ----------- ----------- > > root$ / > > A01AB\a01tpaf / Full Control > > Common /Common > > A01AB\a01tpaf / Full Control > > > > When I try to mount the share.. I get the following with > cifs.trace_login > > turned on: > > Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: Login attempt by A01AB\a01tpaf > from > > A05WST99 > > Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: User authenticated by DC > > Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: PC user name maps to UNIX user > a01tpaf > > Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: Unix user name not valid > > > > Proper login attempt, and it is authenticated by the DC.. but then the > thing > > looks for the user in the local /etc/passwd file.. I do NOT want this to > > happen; and I should be able to do this by the knowledge base articles > > listed above.. > > > > Virtual beer for anyone who can solve this.. > > > > -- > > Two rights do not make a wrong. They make an airplane. > > > > Trevor Paquette | AT&T Canada |Work:(403)705-6390 > > TrevorPaquette(a)metronet.ca |600, 205 5th Ave SW | Fax:(403)705-9601 > > http://www.metronet.ca |Calgary, AB, Canada |ICBM:51'03"N/114'05"W > > Senior Unix Network Architect| T2P 2V7 |Mind:In the Rockies > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Michael S. Keller [SMTP:mkeller@mail.wcg.net] > > > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 8:43 AM > > > To: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com > > > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > > Subject: Re: Upgrade to 534R2 - disk firmware > > > > > > Look in the /etc/disk_fw directory of the root volume or the 534R2 > > > tarball. > > > > > > "Richard L. Rhodes" wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm currently on 5.2.2 and want to upgrade to latest recommended > > > > release: 5.3.4R2. In looking at NOW and for 534R2 I find the > > > > following (I have 2 F740 NetApps): > > > > > > > > 1) I downloaded 534R2 itself . . . .no problem. > > > > > > > > 2) I need to upgrade firmware from 2.1_a2 to 2.2_a2. I grabbed the > > > > microcode from NOW, downloaded it . . . no problem. > > > > > > > > 3) I need to upgrade my ST118202FC disk drive firmware from FD99 to > > > > FDF6. I searched NOW but could find no disk drive firmware. > > > > > > > > So . . .QUESTION: Where does one get the disk drive firmware? > > > > > > > > THis is the first time I've ever upgraded my NetApps, so I'm > assuming > > > > I've missed something simple! > > > > > > > > THanks > > > > > > > > Rick > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com > > > > Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 > > > > f: 330-384-2514

2 1

bug status for bugs not available on NOW
by Jay Soffian 18 Jan '00

18 Jan '00

Several months ago, we had one of our filers crash. It panic'ed with the message "Panic Message: ../driver/disk/disk.c:5345: Assertion failure". The case was closed with: Bug Number/Title: 17623/too big disk_bno of a buf in a received msg in disk_rdwr_start crashed the filer Problem Category: WAFL Recommended Solution/Workaround: We just filed this bug after looking at this core, should be having a fix soon. Just this weekend, we had the same filer crash with the message: ("../driver/disk/disk.c:5608: Assertion failure."). I'm about to upload the core file for analysis. On a related note, I also had a case closed out on a crash we had related to clustering and was told a bug was filed (#19618). I'm curious what the status is of these bugs (17632, 19618); they are not currently viewable on NOW. Can NetApp provide an update? j. -- Jay Soffian <jay(a)cimedia.com> UNIX Systems Engineer 404.572.1941 Cox Interactive Media

1 0

please subscribe me.
by Bud Greasley 18 Jan '00

18 Jan '00

1 0

RE: Problem with F540 + 5.3.4R2 (NT authentication)
by ZANGA, Michael, GCM 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

did you create a computer account in the doman before you pointed the filer to it. You need to create that first. -----Original Message----- From: Paquette, Trevor [mailto:TrevorPaquette@metronet.ca] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 3:39 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Problem with F540 + 5.3.4R2 (NT authentication) We have an F540 that we have 're-commissioned' to internal service. It is running OnTap 5.3.4R2 and because of the support costs, senior management has decided not to renew support for it.. (sigh.. not my decision..) Anyway.. we want to use it as a disk for internal users within our NT domain.. I've configured the system as the knowledge base suggested.. but the damn thing will NOT authenticate users unless they have a local account in the /etc/passwd file. This contrary to what the knowledge base says.. http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/contents/TIP/TIP_643.shtml http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/contents/FAQ/FAQ_462.shtml Output from various commands.. The following command shows the system is properly registered in the NT Domain. calna001> cifs sessions Server Registers as 'CALNA001' in group 'A01AB' Filer is using en_US for DOS users WINS Server: 10.1.1.15 Selected domain controller \\A01DC006 for authentication Comment: Calgary NetApp File Server ======================================== PC (user) #shares #files The qtrees for the system (one big volume: vol0) are set properly as ntfs calna001> qtree Volume Tree Style Oplocks -------- -------- ----- -------- vol0 ntfs enabled vol0 Common ntfs enabled And the shares on the system are setup properly.. calna001> cifs shares Name Mount Point Description ---- ----------- ----------- root$ / A01AB\a01tpaf / Full Control Common /Common A01AB\a01tpaf / Full Control When I try to mount the share.. I get the following with cifs.trace_login turned on: Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: Login attempt by A01AB\a01tpaf from A05WST99 Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: User authenticated by DC Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: PC user name maps to UNIX user a01tpaf Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: Unix user name not valid Proper login attempt, and it is authenticated by the DC.. but then the thing looks for the user in the local /etc/passwd file.. I do NOT want this to happen; and I should be able to do this by the knowledge base articles listed above.. Virtual beer for anyone who can solve this.. -- Two rights do not make a wrong. They make an airplane. Trevor Paquette | AT&T Canada |Work:(403)705-6390 TrevorPaquette(a)metronet.ca |600, 205 5th Ave SW | Fax:(403)705-9601 http://www.metronet.ca |Calgary, AB, Canada |ICBM:51'03"N/114'05"W Senior Unix Network Architect| T2P 2V7 |Mind:In the Rockies > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael S. Keller [SMTP:mkeller@mail.wcg.net] > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 8:43 AM > To: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Upgrade to 534R2 - disk firmware > > Look in the /etc/disk_fw directory of the root volume or the 534R2 > tarball. > > "Richard L. Rhodes" wrote: > > > > I'm currently on 5.2.2 and want to upgrade to latest recommended > > release: 5.3.4R2. In looking at NOW and for 534R2 I find the > > following (I have 2 F740 NetApps): > > > > 1) I downloaded 534R2 itself . . . .no problem. > > > > 2) I need to upgrade firmware from 2.1_a2 to 2.2_a2. I grabbed the > > microcode from NOW, downloaded it . . . no problem. > > > > 3) I need to upgrade my ST118202FC disk drive firmware from FD99 to > > FDF6. I searched NOW but could find no disk drive firmware. > > > > So . . .QUESTION: Where does one get the disk drive firmware? > > > > THis is the first time I've ever upgraded my NetApps, so I'm assuming > > I've missed something simple! > > > > THanks > > > > Rick > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com > > Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 > > f: 330-384-2514 ********************************************************************** This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above. As this e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information, if you are not the named addressee, you are not authorised to retain, read, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. ************************************************************************

1 0

RE: problems mixing 18/9 GB disks?
by ZANGA, Michael, GCM 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

I have been wondering about this myself. It just wasn't intuitive to put two different size drives. I do have a FC9 and FC7 disk shelve with 18gb drives. Has anyone been using the new fc9 and see any problems? -----Original Message----- From: David Schairer [mailto:njal@concentric.net] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 11:05 AM To: mats.oberg(a)tietoenator.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: problems mixing 18/9 GB disks? Yes. ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY DO NOT DO THIS. It will kill your performance, not now, but once you get things filled up. This has not historically been part of NetApps docs but I believe it's becoming so (Hi, Sam!). Make a separate volume of 18s, migrate data, do what you have to, but don't mix your shelves. It's like crossing the streams. --David Schairer VP/Chief Systems Architect Concentric Network Corp. > > Hi, has anyone out there run into any problems while mixing 18G and 9G > -disk-shelves? > Just wondering since I'm going to ad 2 shelves to one of our 740's tomorrow. > > Our current configuration is as follows: > > First volume has Four 9GB-shelves in 2 raid groups. (I'm adding one 9GB > shelf to this volume) > Second volume has 1 shelf with 18GB disks (1 more 18G-shelf ) > > Anything special to have in mind?? > > > > Best regards > > Mats Oberg > TietoEnator > > > ********************************************************************** This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above. As this e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information, if you are not the named addressee, you are not authorised to retain, read, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. ************************************************************************

1 0

RE: Problem with F630 and qualified drives
by Aiello, Tony 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

Ed, Only devices tested and qualified by NetApp are allowed in the filers. There's no allowance made for "like" drives. Conditions may arrise by using these other disks. There may be mode page settings that are hidden within the vendor specific model, format changes, etc. that could cause problems in device management or reliability. As for editing /etc/qual_devices... Changes will invalidate the file. We supply this file directly from NetApp as a reference, and to allow for second source disks without having to release new software. It is not supplied as a vehicle to alter the matrix of supported devices. Tony -------------------------- mailto:taiello@netapp.com Ph:(408)822-6515 > -----Original Message----- > From: Edward Henigin [mailto:ed@texas.net] > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 5:41 AM > To: Toasters > Cc: Michael Douglass > Subject: Re: Problem with F630 and qualified drives > > > Luke, > > Thanks for the tip. This is what we've figured out so far: > > The Seagate ST15150W and the Compaq ST15150W are the same > drive. However, the "download code revision" (as indicated on > stickers on the drives, and reported by the F630) are different. > The revision # on the Seagate is 9107, and the rev # on the Compaq > is 6213. > > If it weren't for the differing version numbers, I'd be > willing to add the Compaq line to /etc/qual_devices. Since the > Compaq looks *older* than the Seagate, I'm concerned that the > Seagate may be slightly different from the Compaq. I just don't > want data loss. > > Is anyone out there using ST15150W's with a code revision > number of less than 6213? You can see it in the sysconfig -v > output, the first number following the model number (following is > revision #9107): > > 1: SEAGATE ST15150W 9107 Size=4.0GB > (8388315 blocks) > > Ed > > -- > On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 12:26:57AM +1100, Luke Mewburn said: > > > > Take a look at /etc/qual_devices on your filer; that's probably what > > you want (from the look of it). > > > > Your milage may vary, don't blame me if it trashes your > filer, etc, etc. >

5 4

RE: Problem with F540 + 5.3.4R2 (NT authentication)
by Muhlestein, Mark 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

Puneet's suggestion is valid unless you want to enable quotas. In that case you have to have separate passwd entries for each user. That's because quotas are (currently) based only on UNIX users and groups. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Puneet Anand [mailto:puneet@netapp.com] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 12:53 PM To: Paquette, Trevor Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Problem with F540 + 5.3.4R2 (NT authentication) What does your /etc/paswd file look like ? You would need to set the wafl.default_unix_user to 'pcuser' (w/o quotes) options wafl.default_unix_user pcuser and add an entry for pcuser in your password file. like , pcuser::65534:65534::/: Hope this helps -Puneet ________ "Paquette, Trevor" wrote: > > We have an F540 that we have 're-commissioned' to internal service. > It is running OnTap 5.3.4R2 and because of the support costs, senior > management > has decided not to renew support for it.. (sigh.. not my decision..) > > Anyway.. we want to use it as a disk for internal users within our NT > domain.. > > I've configured the system as the knowledge base suggested.. but the damn > thing will NOT > authenticate users unless they have a local account in the /etc/passwd file. > This contrary to what the knowledge base says.. > > http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/contents/TIP/TIP_643.shtml > http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/contents/FAQ/FAQ_462.shtml > > Output from various commands.. > > The following command shows the system is properly registered in the NT > Domain. > > calna001> cifs sessions > Server Registers as 'CALNA001' in group 'A01AB' > Filer is using en_US for DOS users > WINS Server: 10.1.1.15 > Selected domain controller \\A01DC006 for authentication > Comment: Calgary NetApp File Server > ======================================== > PC (user) #shares #files > > The qtrees for the system (one big volume: vol0) are set properly as ntfs > calna001> qtree > Volume Tree Style Oplocks > -------- -------- ----- -------- > vol0 ntfs enabled > vol0 Common ntfs enabled > > And the shares on the system are setup properly.. > > calna001> cifs shares > Name Mount Point Description > ---- ----------- ----------- > root$ / > A01AB\a01tpaf / Full Control > Common /Common > A01AB\a01tpaf / Full Control > > When I try to mount the share.. I get the following with cifs.trace_login > turned on: > Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: Login attempt by A01AB\a01tpaf from > A05WST99 > Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: User authenticated by DC > Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: PC user name maps to UNIX user a01tpaf > Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: Unix user name not valid > > Proper login attempt, and it is authenticated by the DC.. but then the thing > looks for the user in the local /etc/passwd file.. I do NOT want this to > happen; and I should be able to do this by the knowledge base articles > listed above.. > > Virtual beer for anyone who can solve this.. > > -- > Two rights do not make a wrong. They make an airplane. > > Trevor Paquette | AT&T Canada |Work:(403)705-6390 > TrevorPaquette(a)metronet.ca |600, 205 5th Ave SW | Fax:(403)705-9601 > http://www.metronet.ca |Calgary, AB, Canada |ICBM:51'03"N/114'05"W > Senior Unix Network Architect| T2P 2V7 |Mind:In the Rockies > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael S. Keller [SMTP:mkeller@mail.wcg.net] > > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 8:43 AM > > To: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com > > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: Re: Upgrade to 534R2 - disk firmware > > > > Look in the /etc/disk_fw directory of the root volume or the 534R2 > > tarball. > > > > "Richard L. Rhodes" wrote: > > > > > > I'm currently on 5.2.2 and want to upgrade to latest recommended > > > release: 5.3.4R2. In looking at NOW and for 534R2 I find the > > > following (I have 2 F740 NetApps): > > > > > > 1) I downloaded 534R2 itself . . . .no problem. > > > > > > 2) I need to upgrade firmware from 2.1_a2 to 2.2_a2. I grabbed the > > > microcode from NOW, downloaded it . . . no problem. > > > > > > 3) I need to upgrade my ST118202FC disk drive firmware from FD99 to > > > FDF6. I searched NOW but could find no disk drive firmware. > > > > > > So . . .QUESTION: Where does one get the disk drive firmware? > > > > > > THis is the first time I've ever upgraded my NetApps, so I'm assuming > > > I've missed something simple! > > > > > > THanks > > > > > > Rick > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com > > > Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 > > > f: 330-384-2514

1 0

Problem with F540 + 5.3.4R2 (NT authentication)
by Paquette, Trevor 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

We have an F540 that we have 're-commissioned' to internal service. It is running OnTap 5.3.4R2 and because of the support costs, senior management has decided not to renew support for it.. (sigh.. not my decision..) Anyway.. we want to use it as a disk for internal users within our NT domain.. I've configured the system as the knowledge base suggested.. but the damn thing will NOT authenticate users unless they have a local account in the /etc/passwd file. This contrary to what the knowledge base says.. http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/contents/TIP/TIP_643.shtml http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/contents/FAQ/FAQ_462.shtml Output from various commands.. The following command shows the system is properly registered in the NT Domain. calna001> cifs sessions Server Registers as 'CALNA001' in group 'A01AB' Filer is using en_US for DOS users WINS Server: 10.1.1.15 Selected domain controller \\A01DC006 for authentication Comment: Calgary NetApp File Server ======================================== PC (user) #shares #files The qtrees for the system (one big volume: vol0) are set properly as ntfs calna001> qtree Volume Tree Style Oplocks -------- -------- ----- -------- vol0 ntfs enabled vol0 Common ntfs enabled And the shares on the system are setup properly.. calna001> cifs shares Name Mount Point Description ---- ----------- ----------- root$ / A01AB\a01tpaf / Full Control Common /Common A01AB\a01tpaf / Full Control When I try to mount the share.. I get the following with cifs.trace_login turned on: Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: Login attempt by A01AB\a01tpaf from A05WST99 Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: User authenticated by DC Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: PC user name maps to UNIX user a01tpaf Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: Unix user name not valid Proper login attempt, and it is authenticated by the DC.. but then the thing looks for the user in the local /etc/passwd file.. I do NOT want this to happen; and I should be able to do this by the knowledge base articles listed above.. Virtual beer for anyone who can solve this.. -- Two rights do not make a wrong. They make an airplane. Trevor Paquette | AT&T Canada |Work:(403)705-6390 TrevorPaquette(a)metronet.ca |600, 205 5th Ave SW | Fax:(403)705-9601 http://www.metronet.ca |Calgary, AB, Canada |ICBM:51'03"N/114'05"W Senior Unix Network Architect| T2P 2V7 |Mind:In the Rockies > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael S. Keller [SMTP:mkeller@mail.wcg.net] > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 8:43 AM > To: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Upgrade to 534R2 - disk firmware > > Look in the /etc/disk_fw directory of the root volume or the 534R2 > tarball. > > "Richard L. Rhodes" wrote: > > > > I'm currently on 5.2.2 and want to upgrade to latest recommended > > release: 5.3.4R2. In looking at NOW and for 534R2 I find the > > following (I have 2 F740 NetApps): > > > > 1) I downloaded 534R2 itself . . . .no problem. > > > > 2) I need to upgrade firmware from 2.1_a2 to 2.2_a2. I grabbed the > > microcode from NOW, downloaded it . . . no problem. > > > > 3) I need to upgrade my ST118202FC disk drive firmware from FD99 to > > FDF6. I searched NOW but could find no disk drive firmware. > > > > So . . .QUESTION: Where does one get the disk drive firmware? > > > > THis is the first time I've ever upgraded my NetApps, so I'm assuming > > I've missed something simple! > > > > THanks > > > > Rick > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com > > Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 > > f: 330-384-2514

2 1

Upgrade to 534R2 - disk firmware
by Richard L. Rhodes 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

I'm currently on 5.2.2 and want to upgrade to latest recommended release: 5.3.4R2. In looking at NOW and for 534R2 I find the following (I have 2 F740 NetApps): 1) I downloaded 534R2 itself . . . .no problem. 2) I need to upgrade firmware from 2.1_a2 to 2.2_a2. I grabbed the microcode from NOW, downloaded it . . . no problem. 3) I need to upgrade my ST118202FC disk drive firmware from FD99 to FDF6. I searched NOW but could find no disk drive firmware. So . . .QUESTION: Where does one get the disk drive firmware? THis is the first time I've ever upgraded my NetApps, so I'm assuming I've missed something simple! THanks Rick ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 f: 330-384-2514

4 3

Re: problems mixing 18/9 GB disks?
by Graydon Dodson 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

David Schairer <njal(a)concentric.net> writes: > It will kill your performance, not now, but once you get things > filled up. This has not historically been part of NetApps docs > but I believe it's becoming so (Hi, Sam!). > > Make a separate volume of 18s, migrate data, do what you have to, > but don't mix your shelves. It's like crossing the streams. I too would like to understand this comment. We have a F630 with three 9G shelves and three 18G shelves on the same FC-AL chain. We never mix drive sizes in the same volume, but have had no problems at all with them sharing the same FC-AL or filler. What kinds of problems do you feel this configuration would have? We also have a heavily loaded F760 that I will soon be adding a 36G shelf on the same channel as some 18's. If there are any performance implications with this I need to know now. Thanks. Graydon Dodson (606) 232-6483 grdodson(a)lexmark.com Lexmark International Inc.

1 0

RE: problems mixing 18/9 GB disks?
by Barrett,Eric 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

http://now.netapp.com/NOW/cgi-bin/bol?Display=13880&Type=Detail Though it's not clear from the description on that page, the problem occurs only when mixing different-sized disks in a single VOLUME. Having different-sized disks on the same filer, even on the same SCSI or fibrechannel adapters, is not a problem, as long as the different disks are kept in different volumes. Also, there's no performance impact when right-sizing an oversized spare, i.e. using a spare 18GB disk as a replacement for a failed 9GB disk. > -----Original Message----- > From: dnb(a)ccs.neu.edu [mailto:dnb@ccs.neu.edu] > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 10:00 AM > To: David Schairer > Cc: mats.oberg(a)tietoenator.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: problems mixing 18/9 GB disks? > > Howdy- > Could I ask for a little more clarififcation about this (either from > you or the folks at NetApp)? The way I read this message was he was > going to add 9G disks to a volume composed of 9GB disks and and 18GB > disks to a volume composed of 18GB disks. Are you saying that: > > a) having both 9GB and 18GB disks on the same *filer* is bad? > b) mixing 9GB and 18GB drives in the same *volume* is bad (I would > guess this would be true if one didn't watch out for the parity > & spare drive gotchas)? > c) having a volume served from two different *shelves* is bad > (can't believe this is the case)? > > Thanks! > > Respectfully, > David N. Blank-Edelman > Director of Technology > College of Computer Science > Northeastern University > >

1 0

Re: problems mixing 18/9 GB disks?
by dnb＠ccs.neu.edu 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

David Schairer <njal(a)concentric.net> writes: > It will kill your performance, not now, but once you get things > filled up. This has not historically been part of NetApps docs > but I believe it's becoming so (Hi, Sam!). > > Make a separate volume of 18s, migrate data, do what you have to, > but don't mix your shelves. It's like crossing the streams. Howdy- Could I ask for a little more clarififcation about this (either from you or the folks at NetApp)? The way I read this message was he was going to add 9G disks to a volume composed of 9GB disks and and 18GB disks to a volume composed of 18GB disks. Are you saying that: a) having both 9GB and 18GB disks on the same *filer* is bad? b) mixing 9GB and 18GB drives in the same *volume* is bad (I would guess this would be true if one didn't watch out for the parity & spare drive gotchas)? c) having a volume served from two different *shelves* is bad (can't believe this is the case)? Thanks! Respectfully, David N. Blank-Edelman Director of Technology College of Computer Science Northeastern University

2 1

problems mixing 18/9 GB disks?
by Öberg Mats 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

Hi, has anyone out there run into any problems while mixing 18G and 9G -disk-shelves? Just wondering since I'm going to ad 2 shelves to one of our 740's tomorrow. Our current configuration is as follows: First volume has Four 9GB-shelves in 2 raid groups. (I'm adding one 9GB shelf to this volume) Second volume has 1 shelf with 18GB disks (1 more 18G-shelf ) Anything special to have in mind?? Best regards Mats Oberg TietoEnator

3 2

Budtool and NetWorker
by Jay Orr 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

Has anyone that uses Budtool to backup gotten any details about the option to upgrade to NetWorker? I got info from PDC about things, but other then the usual marketing hype as to how wonderful everything is the only substantial detail about upgrading and costs are : "Companies that buy BudTool can upgrade to the NDMP Connection and a similarly configured NetWorker Server within one year after general availability, at no additional cost." Ok, what about existing customers? I looked on their web site, about the same marketing fluff with no substance. Before many companies consider migrating, the very first question will always be "HOW MUCH??". My question too - we all try to avoid the fight of the budgets. ;p ----------- Jay Orr Systems Administrator Fujitsu Nexion Inc. St. Louis, MO

7 14

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