toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

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

Problem with F630 and qualified drives
by Michael Douglass 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

First, we are running: NetApp Release 5.2.3: Sat Jul 17 04:35:28 PDT 1999 We have a minor problem that we are hitting with an F630 of ours. The drives that we have historically used is as follows: 1: SEAGATE ST15150W 9107 Size=4.0GB (8388315 blocks) The spares that we have in-house are purchased from Compaq, the exact same drive, except that the label has COMPAQ in place of SEAGATE. When we try to use the drive, it gives us the following error: The following drive has not been qualified by Network Appliance. For a list of qualified drives, please contact Network Appliance. 8b.1: COMPAQ ST15150W 6213 At this point it halted itself. 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? Failing that, what drives can we put in this box? -- Michael Douglass Texas Networking, Inc. Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable for a feature. -- from some indian guy

1 0

RE: Budtool and NetWorker
by Clawson, Simon 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

We were contracted by a reseller's rep before the end of last year. She told us we would be entitled to a free upgrade from budtool to legato networker. We already have BT in place and running, so I am assuming we just swao one license for another. A netapps rep told me he believed Legatto only aquired budtool for the NDMP functions it offers, therefore, I cant see it appearing in the product to heavily. Simon -----Original Message----- From: dnb(a)ccs.neu.edu [mailto:dnb@ccs.neu.edu] Sent: 12 January 2000 00:08 To: Jay Orr Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Budtool and NetWorker Jay Orr <orrjl(a)stl.nexen.com> writes: > Has anyone that uses Budtool to backup gotten any details about the option > to upgrade to NetWorker? I spoke to our local Legato rep about this right before Y2k and he was a wealth of "don't know yet" answers. He was sure they would have an "upgrade" program for exisiting customers, but not for a while. Apparently they are going to avoid an EOL for Budtool until the end of '00 and still sell it as a separate product until then. In the meantime, they are supposedly integrating Budtool into their standard Legato framework. He made it sound like Budtool would be a module as part of their usual stuff. It sounds like the folks in the field haven't heard yet because they haven't figured it out at the Legato homebase either. He suggested I contact his inside sales person, but I have not done that. Summary: nice soothing noises, but no real information Respectfully, David N. Blank-Edelman Director of Technology College of Computer Science Northeastern University

1 0

Re: OT: address abuse
by jrg＠acm.org 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

On Fri 14 Jan, 2000, Brian Tao <taob(a)risc.org> wrote: >Did the document refer to a product with a name similar to Intel's (I can't really be sure, neither Word'97 or StarOffice will display it correctly...) Sales people, if you actually bother to read anything here, do remember that: 1) We're (mostly) technical people here, and are going to have done our due diligence in picking current and planning future systems 2) We might already have some of your product in our current infrastructure 3) We've probably already looked at your product's marketting materials (You can bet we've all looked at the companies present in NTAP's general sector: http://biz.yahoo.com/research/indgrp/comp_storage_dv.html, any company that pops up in NTAP related news stories, and those listed in their own SEC filings.) 4) We might even have had sales calls and done product evaluations 5) If not, you might one day find yourself sitting across the table from us trying to do a sales call. So do think twice before presuming that we wish to receive a blatant and unrequested sales pitch! James.

1 0

OT: address abuse
by mds＠gbnet.net 14 Jan '00

14 Jan '00

Just a quicky. I was spammed today, personally, by someone representaing a certain TLA (3 letter...) storage company, in the guise of a TLA (2 letter) storage company. It was unsolicited and involved a large enclosed document. I'm just wondering if they got my details from my involvement on the toasters list, and whether anyone else received such an item as well. If so, please holler. -- -Mark ... an Englishman in London ...

5 4

RE: OT: address abuse
by mds＠gbnet.net 14 Jan '00

14 Jan '00

On Thu 13 Jan, 2000, "Robert Black" <bobbl(a)netapp.com> wrote: > > Good question Mark, > > Is it possible for someone/anyone to query the mathworks majordomo > server to get a listing of 'toasters'. I'm not totally familiar > with security relative to majordomo setups! Certainly it's possible in general, though I believe that the toasters list is locked down. At least I think I tried it once in a fit of ennui and curiosity and was politely informed to get lost. 8) I think the addresses may have ben harvested by lurking, or trawling the archive site - so people who've never spoken up probably won't have been sent this. I would also like to think that even this stupidity has its limits and that the party in question didn't email NetApp employees. Though I'm not placing bets, and would be amused if any NetApp worthies were hit too. > bobbl > > PS. I didn't receive said document There is hope! >-- End of excerpt from "Robert Black" -- -Mark ... an Englishman in London ...

3 2

RE: OT: address abuse
by Robert Black 14 Jan '00

14 Jan '00

Good question Mark, Is it possible for someone/anyone to query the mathworks majordomo server to get a listing of 'toasters'. I'm not totally familiar with security relative to majordomo setups! bobbl PS. I didn't receive said document

2 1

address abuse
by s gressel 14 Jan '00

14 Jan '00

There was another bloke from the UK with an email address from (a large three letter storage only company) that asked to be on the list a few days ago. Wonder if there is any connection ;) -----Original Message----- From: mds(a)gbnet.net [mailto:mds@gbnet.net] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 8:05 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: OT: address abuse Just a quicky. I was spammed today, personally, by someone representaing a certain TLA (3 letter...) storage company, in the guise of a TLA (2 letter) storage company. It was unsolicited and involved a large enclosed document. I'm just wondering if they got my details from my involvement on the toasters list, and whether anyone else received such an item as well. If so, please holler. -- -Mark ... an Englishman in London ... --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.

1 0

Re: OT: address abuse
by mds＠gbnet.net 14 Jan '00

14 Jan '00

On Thu 13 Jan, 2000, Brian Tao <taob(a)risc.org> wrote: > On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, mark wrote: > > > > Just a quicky. I was spammed today, personally, by someone > > representaing a certain TLA (3 letter...) storage company, in the > > guise of a TLA (2 letter) storage company. It was unsolicited and > > involved a large enclosed document. > > Did the document refer to a product with a name similar to Intel's > current low-end consumer CPU? :) I and at least two others have Strangely yes, it did. > received the same spam. At first I thought it was because I'm on the > <certain TLA's> mailing list too, but now it just looks like address > harvesting of this list. What terribly stupid and unethical behaviour on the part of this TLA storage company. Evidently they are in sore need of new trade if they feel the need to resort to low tactics like this. My opinion of them sinks yet further.. > -- > Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) > "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't" >-- End of excerpt from Brian Tao -- -Mark ... an Englishman in London ...

1 0

Re: NFS UDP xfer size
by mds＠gbnet.net 13 Jan '00

13 Jan '00

On Tue 11 Jan, 2000, "Michael S. Keller" <mkeller(a)mail.wcg.net> wrote: > tkaczma(a)gryf.net wrote: > > > > On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Michael S. Keller wrote: > > > > > I have one machine tightened to 512-byte > > > transfers because of poor performance at bigger transfer sizes. > > > > I think you really have to look into your network. > > There's not much to check. It goes in one switch port and out another on > the same switch. The interfaces show no errors. I do have the filer > trunked (EtherChannel) and my news clients have hand-tuned MAC addresses > to reduce contention, since the switch does "dumb" switching based on > MAC addresses instead of loads. There's still something rotten in the state of Denmark if you're having to restrict the packet size so very tightly. The increase in interrupt servicing and buffer-handling at either end, relative to even ethernet mtu sized packets is about 3-fold, so seeing *increased* performance as a result is indicative of something seriously wrong somewhere in there. Out of interest, can you say what clients, what switches and what settings you're using in each? Just in case any of us have seen problems with those vendors before it might be worth enumerating exactly what client box, interface, OS and patch levels (within reason, hme/wfe, ip, udp, tcp, rpc, nfs, etc. patches) you're using. Ditto for switch, blades, firmware etc.. You said earlier that you're using Sol2.6, and the trunking suggests you're using qfe's, presumably in UEx000 boxes, but I'm sticking my neck out here. You have piqued my curiosity though! >-- End of excerpt from "Michael S. Keller" -- -Mark ... an Englishman in London ...

4 7

Sun "ge" driver for Solaris 2.8 Early Access?
by beepy＠netapp.com 13 Jan '00

13 Jan '00

Faint hope that someone may have Solaris 2.8 Early Access compatible "ge" driver for the Sun GbE card... Original package does not install? The one I used for 2.7... Sigh.

2 1

Re: NetApp and RDBMS (Oracle/Sybase)
by Richard L. Rhodes 13 Jan '00

13 Jan '00

On 10 Jan 00, at 21:04, Thomas Leavitt wrote: > Dear all... we are researching the purchase of a Network Applicance F740, > for which one of the primary uses would be service of a commercial RDBMS > (either Sybase or Oracle). Until I looked into this last week, I was unaware > this was possible and officially supported... I'm very enthusiastic about > the possibility - so far, feedback on this has been generally positive. I'm > looking for as many people as possible to help validate... > > Thomas > Hi THomas, Last year I purchased 2 F740's for 2 Oracle database servers. While I haven't put them into production yet, I have databases running on them and have done many, many, many imp runs of the db's I need to transfer. Here are my thoughts on this subject: 1) Reliable - so far. They have been rock solid reliable (not that I've had them for real long). 2) Easy to configure. I didn't go to any classes, just read the manual. 2 subjects took some extra work to figure out: qtrees and way snapshot space is allocated. 3) Remotely supportable. I needed disk subsystems that I could put in remote locations and support from a central site. I was greatly disappointed with the remote support capability with every raid system I looked at. The Netapps remote support capabilities, while not perfect is top notch. 4) Fast writes. writes to the nvram is very fast as long as your write rate doesn't overflow the nvram. The nvram is divided into 2 halfs. While one half is accepting writes the other half is being flushed to disk. After the half receiving writes is full, the sides switch. The now full side starts writing to disk and the other side accepts the writes. The problem is if your write load fills up one side before the other side is done being written to disk. At this point you can't get any more write performance out of it. Did I explain this well? It's kind of like Oracle log switches in archive log mode. If Oracle wraps around the logs, but the next log hasn't been archived yet, well, you know, Oracle comes to a halt until the archiving is done. 4) Performance I'm getting? For sequential writes, like when I create an oracle tablespace, I get between 15-20 MB/s. Random writes are around 1.5-2ms from the disk benchmark I used for testing. But I'm not sure of this number. I use AIX systems and the disk benchmark (stkio from stk) works, but IBM does some strange things with NFS that make benchmarking tough - at least it appears that way. From what I can find out, NFS writes aren't supposed to be buffered on the clinet, but it sure looks like AIX is doing something like buffering on the NFS client. I'm still looking into this. The sequential write rates are not as good as some raid systems. I had a HD raid system here that did sequential writes at 35-40MB/s, but it took HD people a full month to get it to the place I could test with it - fast, but completely unsupportable! This is an area where Netapp needs to do more work in order to sell netapps as db disk subsystems. They need to start running/publishing standard disk benchmarks - treating the netapp as a disk subsystem instead as a NFS server. See the next comment below for more . . . . 5) Be carefull in interpreting NetApps benchmarks. THey are NFS benchmarks, NOT disk I/O benchmarks. Check carefull what's in the NFS benchmarks - It's some type of simulated load of a development environment with some percentage mix of reads, writes, catalog access, etc. This in NO WAY describes a db load. I'm not faulting NetApp here, there very clear on their web site on what the benchmarks are and what they represent. I just found it difficult translating NFS ops/s into MB/s or disk i/o's per second. Again, they need to start running/publishing "disk" benchmarks to better sell a netapp as a db disk subsystem. I'd like to see them publish some info like Performance Computing puts in their mag when they test a raid system. 6) There is extra load on your db server due to NFS - this can't be avoided. In general though, other when I'm streaming 20MB/s, the NFS load isn't too bad. At 20MB/s streaming, my RS/6k-F50 (4 processor, 1gb) is running 25-30% in the NFS client (BIOD's). During more normal processing it's barely noticable. 7) The one problem I do have, is that during a high sequential write load, like creating an Oracle tablespace, the high sequential write rate locks out other processes from doing I/o to the netapp. For example, during a create of a 2gb db file, If I (in another window) try and do anything that does I/O, I can wait for 5/10/15 seconds for the command to come back. I'm not sure why this is, but I think this is a problem in AIX, NOT the netapp - because if during the massive sequential writes I try and access the netapp from another computer I get great response. AIX must be queing NFS I/O's or something - which doesn't make sense! 8) I love the way you tune your Oracle db file layout for the netapp - you just don't worry about it. The NetApp automatically sripes things. This makes life real easy. 9) The Netapp makes the normal disk monitoring in unix more difficult. On vmstat/iostat you get wait-for-I/O when the processes are waiting for blocked i/o. At least on AIX, NFS I/O doesn't show up as wait-for-I/O in vmstat or iostat. SOmetimes I see little processor being used and little I/O to the netapp, and I find myself scratching my head wondering what's happening. When I run the same thing on a "normal" disk system I see that it's all wait-for-I/O, in other words, a very heavy random read/write environment. 10) I'm impressed with netapp as a company. They let employees answer to the mailing list - I know of no other company that does this. These people have even admitted to problems and mistakes (this is a strength, not a weakness)! The salesman/techrep I worked with were good. The salesman was a salesman, but not pushy like some I've met. The the tech rep was top notch. They seem to let their product do the selling. I've sat in too many sales meetings (ibm, ems, hds, etc) where they sell you their company and give hype about their products. You know the kind of meeting . . . . you walk out and you really don't know any more about their products than when you went in - lots of words, little real info! I felt that we got straight answers about their products. I think this also seen on their web site. Your can download very detailed info on performance, design, uses, etc. I asked for a copy of their manuals - they gave me a 1 day pass to the paid support area on their web site. I downloaded the manuals and spent a lot of time reading them. 11) I don't like the cost of the netapp. I had prices for raid systems that cost a good bit less than a same sized Netapp. I think this mainly due to che charge for sftw. This is a half knock against netapp. Your paying for a NFS server, but for my use as a db disk subsystem, I don't look at it that way. I needed and purchased a disk subsystem for a database system. For a db disk subsystem, netapp is being compaired against RAID systems, not other NFS servers. 12) Don't broadcast that your running a db on a NFS mounted system unless your willing to take the time and explain everything. It's so AGAINST everything that's taught about db disk subsystem design. 13) A goof I made - AIX supports jumbo packets for gigabit ethernet. I read a old press release from netapp that indicated support for this. It turned out that jumbo packets aren't supported. 14) It still buggs me that you can't edit config files on the netapp through the console. Your have to mount the netapp to a system and edit the files from that system. This makes no sense to me. Even a stupid line editor would be better than nothing! Final thoughts - I like my netapps very much. I wish they cost less. I recomment them very highly for db's. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 f: 330-384-2514

9 15

Re: netapp mount points, copy times
by Dave Toal 13 Jan '00

13 Jan '00

Folks, These are the results of cp's between vols mounted on two mount points, and on two pairs of mount points. I saw much worse performance from the latter test -- the cp between one pair ran to completion while the other cp (different files, same two vols, different mount points on the same server) hung until the first was done. To take advantage of multiple mount-point nfs ops on a single pair of vols, then, I'd need two interfaces on the client box, one for each pair of mount points? Or is there something I can do on the netapp, equivalent to setting the number of active nfsd? Dave dev3(uhura)root wrote: > Skip, > > I ran some test cp's from sanihome mounted on dev-eval. Same tcp > parameters as production saegis. > > sanihome:/vol/vol0 is mounted on /test/s1 and /vol/nfs_archive is > mounted on /test/s2 > > # time cp /test/s1/dtoal-bigfile /test/s2/dtoal-bigfile > > real 49.9 > user 0.0 > sys 2.7 > # > > Now, if I start two simultaneous cp's, one from s1 to s2 and the > other from s2 to s1, performance goes way down. I ran these in two > separate windows: > > # time cp /test/s1/dtoal-bigfile /test/s2/dtoal-tmp > > real 1:37.8 > user 0.0 > sys 2.8 > # > > # time cp /test/s2/dtoal-bigfile /test/s1/dtoal-tmp > > real 1:39.5 > user 0.0 > sys 4.8 > # > > With both cp' > processes running simultaneously, against the same mount point, time to > complete is about 2x a single cp. > > This also happens if you do a copy to the *same* mount point: > > # time cp /test/s1/dtoal-bigfile /test/s1/dtoal-bigfile2 > > real 1:34.1 > user 0.0 > sys 2.0 > # > > Which means i/o against that mount point is happening serially. > > I thought that if I set up four separate mounts and copied one > file between each *pair* I'd get performance similar to the first case. > Turns out not. These two copies were started at the same time: > > # time cp /test/s1/dtoal-bigfile /test/s2/dtoal-third-big-file > > real 1:14.6 > user 0.0 > sys 2.7 > # > > # time cp /test2/s2/dtoal-tmp /test2/s1/dtoal-fourth-big-file > > real 2:26.1 > user 0.0 > sys 2.3 > # > > /test/s1 and /test2/s1 are both /vol/vol0; /test/s2 and /test2/s2 > are both /vol/nfs_archive. I had `while sleep 1 do ls -l` running in a > separate window, and I watched the second copy essentially hang until the > first was done -- after the first was done, the second took off. > > This is not the behaviour I expected to see from the netapp. > > Dave

1 0

Re: NetApp and RDBMS (Oracle/Sybase)
by Richard L. Rhodes 12 Jan '00

12 Jan '00

On 11 Jan 00, at 18:42, Michael S. Keller wrote: > > 4) Performance I'm getting? For sequential writes, like when I > > create an oracle tablespace, I get between 15-20 MB/s. Random writes > > NFS v2 and v3 handle writes differently. Which version do you use, do > you use UDP or TCP and with what packet sizes? I don't remember the specifics of all the combinations I tried, but I played with v2, v3, udp and tcp. I'm currently running v3 over udp with (i think) 32k blocksize. Performance didn't vary much reguardless of the settings - this supprised me. This is running across giga-bit ethernet with it's 1500 byte packet size limit. When My F740 is running at 15-20mb/s it's cpu is bouncing around between 80% to 100%, so I think this is the practical sequential i/o load it can handle. > How many mount points do you use? I've got about 6 mount points, but I have all the db files under one mount point. > NFS will block if you run everything > through one mount point. I don't understand this, but then there's so much I don't understand about NFS. This is something else Netapp needs to consider when selling a Netapp as a db disk subsystem. Were fairly good at using disk subsystems, but we have little experience with NFS. Anyway, are you saying that a NFS mount point can only have one outstanding i/o across it at any point? From what I read each biod could have one outstanding i/o although the manual didn't say anything about mount points. Thanks Rick ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 f: 330-384-2514

4 3

Procom offering of NAS
by Dawn Hamel 12 Jan '00

12 Jan '00

Does anyone have experience with the Procom offering of a NAS device? Has anyone evaluated it?? Thanks, Dawn SAS Institute

1 0

NOW web site
by Jay Orr 12 Jan '00

12 Jan '00

Has there been any progress in eliminating Javascript from the NOW website yet, so people can use LYNX or other text based browsers to access the site? I remember Netapps said they would work on it a few months ago, just wondering if anyone knows the status... ----------- Jay Orr Systems Administrator Fujitsu Nexion Inc. St. Louis, MO

3 4

Re: NetApp and RDBMS (Oracle/Sybase)
by Thomas Leavitt 12 Jan '00

12 Jan '00

Just a note: thank you all for your responses and the dialog so far. Very educational. The stuff about distributing the load over multiple NFS points, in particular, I think is one of those valuable little tidbits that you can't find out except by talking to people with practical experience. I feel much more comfortable with the concept, knowing that numerous others whom I can speak with are doing this. Regards, Thomas Leavitt -- Thomas Leavitt -- thomas.leavitt(a)clickrebates.com; 408-591-3342 Co-Founder/COO, ClickRebates.Com, Inc. (www.clickrebates.com) Get Paid What You're Worth! Sign up for our pre-launch guest list and refer your friends! Or use our working prototype at www.clickrebates.org to "Surf for a Higher Cause" (earn money for charity)

1 0

Jump to page:

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