toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

"ypset" needs added to common command set
by Mike Ball 19 Oct '99

19 Oct '99

I would like to see the "ypset" command added to the common Data Ontap command set. We have several Netapps where we need to use the "ypset" command but in order to run the command and make it permanent, you have to go into rc_toggle_basic mode. For a permanent fix we have to add "rc_toggle_basic", "ypset nisserver", "rc_toggle_basic" to the rc file. Is there any plans to make "ypset" part of the common Data Ontap command set? Thank you, Mike

2 1

Re: mailboxes on toaster
by George Kahler 19 Oct '99

19 Oct '99

Greetings... armijo(a)cs.unm.edu writes: > > > > Please include any other suggestions. > > > > ok, > > assuming the toaster is the bottleneck, you may also want to turn off atime > updates, make sure the toaster is homed on each network on which it has > clients, would adding more nvram benefit help? are you running 100tx-fd, or > better? for that matter, is network, cpu, or disk i/o the real > bottleneck? Guys, much appreciate all of your responses to my question regarding maildir and mbx. The filer (520) has been smoking for a year now but us being a university depending on government funding it is hard to get new iron in here. I was looking for a quick and relatively pain-free fix; mbx seemed like a good candidate. The nvram/ram is maxed out at 8/256 and network is on 100/full. Disk shortage is another problem because I can't get the proper Seagate 9 GB SCSI disks to keep the OS happy. (some time ago I was asking those of you that run ST39173 what firmware rev they are using; no response) I am being told now, that a new filer from Dell might be an option at MUCH cheaper price. Q: anyone out there that has experience with Dell filers? are they just reselling the NetApp filers ? Thanks, George ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- George Kahler e-mail: george(a)yorku.ca Sr. Systems Administrator humans: (416) 736-5257 x.22699 Computing Services, York University machines: (416) 736-5830 Ontario, Canada, M3J-1P3

3 2

Re: Legato Networker Clientpak for Netapp filers
by Michael Salmon 19 Oct '99

19 Oct '99

+----- On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 09:38:17 +0200, "Schepers, Jan" writes: | Hello people, | | currently there is a Legato Networker Clientpak available | for Network Appliance Filers. Check: | | http://www-ftp.legato.com/Products/html/clientpak_for_netapps.html | | In our environment the Networker server is running on HP-UX but | Legato claims that it is available for W/NT and Solaris only. | | The first question is whether somebody wants to share experience | with the clientpak? I have recently installed it but I haven't had enough experience yet to send any info to the list. The manual doesn't mention that the backup is started using rsh, not nsrexecd so your hosts.equiv must include the backup server. | Secondly, Networker is a client/server application so did anybody | ever try the C/S combination Netapp/HP-UX rather then Netapp/Solaris? | Did it work? Why not? What were the problems? The server can be whatever you like but you must have a sparc/solaris or intel/nt machine if you want to install the s/w or recover files. I don't think that this s/w in it's current state will convince anyone to buy a toaster. BTW na_recover is not pleasant, I consider it to be at best alpha quality in it's user interface. I think that I should be paid for using this software rather than having to pay for a client license. /Michael

1 0

Legato Networker Clientpak for Netapp filers
by Schepers, Jan 19 Oct '99

19 Oct '99

Hello people, currently there is a Legato Networker Clientpak available for Network Appliance Filers. Check: http://www-ftp.legato.com/Products/html/clientpak_for_netapps.html In our environment the Networker server is running on HP-UX but Legato claims that it is available for W/NT and Solaris only. The first question is whether somebody wants to share experience with the clientpak? Secondly, Networker is a client/server application so did anybody ever try the C/S combination Netapp/HP-UX rather then Netapp/Solaris? Did it work? Why not? What were the problems? The outcome of the above may help convert somebody to NA. TIA - Yann

1 0

RE: now.netapp.com now needs javascript/cookies?
by Graydon Dodson 18 Oct '99

18 Oct '99

I don't want to feed a flame war here, but I agree that NOW access should NOT require java/javascript. GUI browsers aren't the only tools used to access this site, Some of us automate, (one of the major advantages of a CLI) and have perl scripts for pulling info from the site. Cookies complicate these programs, java/javascript makes them unworkable. > Michael Ryan wrote: > >a toaster tidbit: NOW uses cookies not only to manage Session state in IIS but >also to maintain Authentication and Authorization across our newly expanded >backend. That's why the Cookies have domain ".netapp.com" and not >"now.netapp.com." Using cookies for authentication/authorization is a bad idea. The NOW site is basically insecure to start with (no SSL, all authentication info sent in the clear). The only value the cookies have is to avoid presenting multiple login challenges to the user as they move from server to server. But this can lower security even further because a "cracker" may not need to guess a username:password, just a currently valid cookie. P.S. I don't care what you do with the corporate site (www.netapp.com) but for us folks who pay for the support site, it would be nice if "easy to use" was a priority. My $0.02 Graydon Dodson grdodson(a)lexmark.com Lexmark International Inc.

1 0

RE: now.netapp.com now needs javascript/cookies?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 18 Oct '99

18 Oct '99

On 10/18/99 10:59:17 you wrote: >that said, IMHO, i think it's key for NTAP to review and >architect, again, how NOW should handle general interactions with modern text >browsers (including the absence of javascript). Why review and architect *again*? Surely these issues were forseeable before, and yet obviously you didn't care. Did you even bother to *ask* the customer base and research this before hand? No. So either admit that you guys made a mistake, or stop paying lipservice. BTW, while you are rearchitecting, rip out IIS. You will be better off in the long run. Bruce

1 0

RE: now.netapp.com now needs javascript/cookies?
by Ryan, Michael 18 Oct '99

18 Oct '99

a toaster tidbit: NOW uses cookies not only to manage Session state in IIS but also to maintain Authentication and Authorization across our newly expanded backend. That's why the Cookies have domain ".netapp.com" and not "now.netapp.com." i hear the input about lynx and the ability to script. while modern lynx supports cookies -- e.g. release 2.8.1rel.2 libwww-FM 2.14, not all installations do. that said, IMHO, i think it's key for NTAP to review and architect, again, how NOW should handle general interactions with modern text browsers (including the absence of javascript). thanks for the feedback. //michael -----Original Message----- From: Pete Ehlke [mailto:pde@listserv.music.sony.com] Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 6:41 PM To: Luke Mewburn Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: now.netapp.com now needs javascript/cookies? Luke Mewburn (lukem(a)cs.rmit.edu.au) said, on [991017 20:43]: > Since when has now.netapp.com needed JavaScript & Cookies? > Since someone decided that IIS/ASP was a Good Thing(TM). And, AFAICT, the cookies aren't used at all for the only technical reason for using them, keeping state. I smell the presence of marketroids and user tracking. Pfeh. > I find this unacceptable: > > a) I have JavaScript (& Java) disabled on my GUI browser > because it increases the reliability and security. > > b) My text browser (lynx) doesn't support JavaScript. > As do a fair number of the people who use NOW, I'd wager. > With NetApp's drive to encouraging customers to using now.netapp.com > as a method to lodge support calls, I remind them that until this > point I could do everything (manage my filers, submit calls, look > at bug reports/new releases) via a text based connected *if* I needed > to. > So could I. And if I ever need information from NOW in the middle of the night, while I'm hunched over a dead filer in a colo cage, with nothing but a vt100 at my disposal, I'm going to pitch a pretty serious fit. This is a technical resource, folks, not just another opportunity for your marketing department to count hits. -- Pete Ehlke Sys Admin type @ Sony Music entertainment "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action." -- Ian Fleming

1 0

Re: group issues
by Robert L. Millner 18 Oct '99

18 Oct '99

t> Or you can use different group names with the same gid and everything will t> work fine. This is what we do. ;) We use NIS for everything. The degeneracy state of group.bygid map should be causing you subtle problems somewhere. The 1k limit is inherent in the NDBM code that NIS relies on. You can change this limit and recompile if you have access to the source for libc/ypbind/ypserv/ndbm on ALL platforms you support but that is a major pain in the ass. Is netapp planning to support LDAP based access to passwd, group, etc... at some point[1]? Solaris and Linux have been able to do this for a while and RedHat 6.1 even comes with the packages. It doesn't suffer that limit and purports to perform better[2]. Rob 1. I realize that this would be an un-official word on the toasters list. 2. I have not tested this myself yet. The traditional NIS server is single threaded and really slow. LDAP parsing and record searching is a more expensive process than a simple NDBM lookup but the server should perform better against multiple clients.

3 2

now.netapp.com now needs javascript/cookies?
by Luke Mewburn 18 Oct '99

18 Oct '99

Since when has now.netapp.com needed JavaScript & Cookies? I find this unacceptable: a) I have JavaScript (& Java) disabled on my GUI browser because it increases the reliability and security. b) My text browser (lynx) doesn't support JavaScript. With NetApp's drive to encouraging customers to using now.netapp.com as a method to lodge support calls, I remind them that until this point I could do everything (manage my filers, submit calls, look at bug reports/new releases) via a text based connected *if* I needed to. Next thing we know the initial release of new features will only be available via Windows and/or Web based GUI interfaces. Memo to NetApp: if you do this, you will lose customers. Luke. (Afraid of the slippery slope to brain damaged interfaces because of PC magazine perceptions that filers ``need'' a GUI..)

10 9

Re: group issues
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 18 Oct '99

18 Oct '99

On 10/15/99 21:50:34 you wrote: > > >Or you can use different group names with the same gid and everything will >work fine. This is what we do. ;) We use NIS for everything. No, you can't. Been there, done that; it won't work for everything, and you will eventually run into NIS trouble (see other message). The best thing to do is live with the 16 group limit until a new standard version of NFS supports access lists, or wait for LDAP to become more widely adopted. I think it *is* on Netapp's agenda, but most vendors are slow to adopt it. Bruce

2 1

Re: now.netapp.com now needs javascript/cookies?
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 18 Oct '99

18 Oct '99

> CLI will be out in the next few years, no matters where your nostalgia goes. As I've said before (about Wellfleet/Bay/Nortel routers): Having a GUI is fine. Having a GUI *only* is terrible. Some of us swear by command line interfaces. They enable you to use any kind of terminal, and to work from home or over a slow dialup line. Yes, clearly, the use of GUIs is increasing. However, for us, a product which offers management via a GUI only starts off with a significant disadvantage (or disincentive for purchase, if you wish). Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

1 0

group issues
by mcbride2＠us.ibm.com 16 Oct '99

16 Oct '99

I am having an issue regarding the number of groups and, the numbers of users per group at our site. We have 3 toasters running 5.2.1P2 being administered by a solaris 2.5.1 server. We have about 75 unix style qtrees for both NFS and CIFS protocols. I have a requirement that several users need to be in more than 16 groups. I believe modifying the Solaris kernel will not only slow down the access, but may present problems on the filer. Also, I require to have more than 1024 characters needed per group entry. I have tried creating sub-groups and a master group within the group file(see below) - I cannot get this to work. Maybe I need to upgrade my Solaris NIS server? example: project1:*:100:usera,userb... project2:*:101:usery,userz mstproject:*:102:project1,project2 I would think someone has encountered this problem before. I would appreciate any feedback regarding these issues. Mike McBride IBM Global Services Unix and NT Server Support mcbride2(a)us.ibm.com (760) 634-6239

3 2

RE: Model 1400 and Y2K
by Norman, Paul 16 Oct '99

16 Oct '99

Graham, Jeff is incorrect. The information on the NOW web site is correct. FAServers, including the 1400, can not run 5.x code line of Data ONTAP. The NetApp Y2K statement is available on the web: http://www.netapp.com/y2k.html It includes a section on FAServers: FAServer® models 400, 450, 1300, and 1400 have not been tested for Y2K compliance. All of these models ceased production in October 1995 and support in April 1998. If you have one of these models, contact your Network Appliance Sales Representative or the Installed Base Group to purchase an upgrade to current filer products. The Y2K statement on the web also includes my name as the corporate contact for Y2K queries. So please feel free to e-mail/call me if you need further clarification. Paul Norman, Product Manager Direct: (408) 822-6288 Network Appliance E-Mail: pnorman(a)netapp.com 495 East Java Drive Corp: (408) 822-6000 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Web: WWW.NetApp.Com > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Sloan [mailto:jeffs@netapp.com] > Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 11:50 AM > To: 'Graham C. Knight'; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Model 1400 and Y2K > > > The highest OS the FAServer 1400/450 can run is 5.1D3, and only with a > little tweaking. There is currently no OS release that makes > the 1400 Y2K > compliant. > > Jeff Sloan > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-dl-toasters(a)netapp.com > > [mailto:owner-dl-toasters@netapp.com]On Behalf Of Graham C. Knight > > Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 11:26 AM > > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: Model 1400 and Y2K > > > > > > > > Does anyone know if a model 1400 > > can be made Y2K compliant? The NOW > > website does not include this model > > in it's list of systems that can run 5.x > > > > Thx, > > Graham > > >

1 0

mailboxes on toaster
by George Kahler 15 Oct '99

15 Oct '99

Hey folks, I'm looking for information that would help us alleviate a bottleneck with mailboxes and home directories on toaster(s). Yah, we still run sendmail and our inboxes are in the old Unix style format (one file per user, multiple messages per file). I heard some of you mention Maildir and I also came across information on mbx format. It doesn't look like I would have to do much to switch over to mbx vs. Maildir. Q: Will mbx buy me performance on the toaster ? Q: Is Maildir a better choice ? Please include any other suggestions. Thanks, George ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- George Kahler e-mail: george(a)yorku.ca Systems Administrator humans: (416) 736-5257 x.22699 Computing Services, York University machines: (416) 736-5830 Ontario, Canada, M3J-1P3

5 5

SUMMARY:Impact of adding disk to filer
by Frank Smith 15 Oct '99

15 Oct '99

Just in case anyone was curious, the consensus was that it should have little or no impact to add a disk to a volume, and that is the way it actually turned out. Physically adding the drive to the shelf froze it for 10-15 seconds, prompting my initial concern and question. The 'vol add vol0 1' command took upwards of 5 minutes to zero the disk, but the actual increase in volume size was instantaneous after the zeroing completed. There was no noticeable increase in CPU or NFS ops during the zeroing or addition (although our traffic is rather bursty in nature, but I did not see any sudden big numbers in CPU or ops). -- Frank Smith fsmith(a)hoovers.com Systems Administrator Voice: 512-374-4673 Hoover's Online Fax: 512-374-4501

1 0

Model 1400 and Y2K
by Graham C. Knight 15 Oct '99

15 Oct '99

Does anyone know if a model 1400 can be made Y2K compliant? The NOW website does not include this model in it's list of systems that can run 5.x Thx, Graham

2 1

Impact of adding disk to filer
by Frank Smith 15 Oct '99

15 Oct '99

What will happen if I add a disk to a volume (NetApp C720)? I learned the hard way that adding the drive to the shelf interrupted all NFS ops for 15 seconds, the docs said it would take that long to add it as a hot spare, but didn't mention that the filer would completely freeze while it did it. If I add a disk to a volume, what will it do to performance, and for how long? I don't mean long-range gains from having the data spread over more spindles, I mean what immediate impact will it have on current NFS clients. Will it just be a temporary increase in CPU as it spreads the data or will it freeze for some period of time, and if so for how long? Current sustained load on the filer is several hundred NFS ops/sec, and any pauses cause significant problems on the client systems, so I want to have a better understanding of what will happen when I give the vol add command before I actually do it. Thanks, Frank -- Frank Smith fsmith(a)hoovers.com Systems Administrator Voice: 512-374-4673 Hoover's Online Fax: 512-374-4501

4 3

RE: Forcing a halt/reboot without "halt -d"
by David Stack 12 Oct '99

12 Oct '99

We had this same problem in the past (coincidence that we both work for the same company?) and were told that it was bug 10186. We're now running version 5.2.3D1 and haven't had the problem in a month or so. Dave **************************************************************************** ************* EMail: dstack(a)nortelnetworks.com Phone: 403-232-4752 Fax: 781-8850 ESN:765 Addr : Nortel Networks; 2924 11 St. NE; Calgary, AB; T2E 7L7;Canada **************************************************************************** ************** > -----Original Message----- > From: Luke Mewburn [SMTP:lukem@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au] > Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 8:47 AM > To: Arden, Bruce [HAL02:8883:EXCH] > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Forcing a halt/reboot without "halt -d" > > "Bruce Arden" writes: > > I have just had to reboot our filer for the second time in about 3 > > months. Both times the reboot failed with the error: > > > > A CIFS I/O operation may be hung. Shutdown the system using halt > > -d > > and report this incident to NetApp. > > > > But I don't want to do a "halt -d". This causes a core dump which > > means that the filer may be down for about 10 mins. Is there a way > > of forcing a halt without using the -d switch (halt on its own just > > gives the CIFS error message again). I'm currently running 5.3.1D5. > > > > - Bruce > > > > PS The problem that caused me to reboot was that I was getting the > > error "Cannot find logon server" from PCs trying to connect to the > > filer. The reboot fixed this. Any ideas? > > A suggestion which won't solve your problems, but may help the boot > time: move savecore to the end of /etc/rc; it speeds up availability > after a boot at the potential expense of corrupting your coredump. > > PS: I have seen the ``can't halt because filer is wedged on CIFS > users'' problem on older 5.x releases (can't remember exact numbers), > but I think we've been OK since 5.3 (now running combination of > 5.3D19 and 5.3.2D4, with the latter on our more loaded systems). I > know this contradicts your experience (since you're running 5.3.1D5), > but you never know; 5.3.2Dx may have fixed something related to this. :-/

5 4

Re: Forcing a halt/reboot without "halt -d"
by Luke Mewburn 12 Oct '99

12 Oct '99

"Bruce Arden" writes: > I have just had to reboot our filer for the second time in about 3 > months. Both times the reboot failed with the error: > > A CIFS I/O operation may be hung. Shutdown the system using halt > -d > and report this incident to NetApp. > > But I don't want to do a "halt -d". This causes a core dump which > means that the filer may be down for about 10 mins. Is there a way > of forcing a halt without using the -d switch (halt on its own just > gives the CIFS error message again). I'm currently running 5.3.1D5. > > - Bruce > > PS The problem that caused me to reboot was that I was getting the > error "Cannot find logon server" from PCs trying to connect to the > filer. The reboot fixed this. Any ideas? A suggestion which won't solve your problems, but may help the boot time: move savecore to the end of /etc/rc; it speeds up availability after a boot at the potential expense of corrupting your coredump. PS: I have seen the ``can't halt because filer is wedged on CIFS users'' problem on older 5.x releases (can't remember exact numbers), but I think we've been OK since 5.3 (now running combination of 5.3D19 and 5.3.2D4, with the latter on our more loaded systems). I know this contradicts your experience (since you're running 5.3.1D5), but you never know; 5.3.2Dx may have fixed something related to this. :-/

3 2

Forcing a halt/reboot without "halt -d"
by Bruce Arden 12 Oct '99

12 Oct '99

I have just had to reboot our filer for the second time in about 3 months. Both times the reboot failed with the error: A CIFS I/O operation may be hung. Shutdown the system using halt -d and report this incident to NetApp. But I don't want to do a "halt -d". This causes a core dump which means that the filer may be down for about 10 mins. Is there a way of forcing a halt without using the -d switch (halt on its own just gives the CIFS error message again). I'm currently running 5.3.1D5. - Bruce PS The problem that caused me to reboot was that I was getting the error "Cannot find logon server" from PCs trying to connect to the filer. The reboot fixed this. Any ideas? -- Bruce Arden arden(a)nortelnetworks.com Nortel, London Rd, Harlow, England +44 1279 40 2877

2 1

Re: Autosupport, 5.2.3 upgrade, diskscrub and wackz
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 12 Oct '99

12 Oct '99

On 10/11/99 07:41:30 you wrote: >The volume could be offline, that's for sure, but why the machine ? This is the result of a less-than-thorough multivolume implementation plan. Originally, there only *was* one volume, so taking the whole filer down wasn't an issue. Presumably when mutlivolume was to be implemented, Netapp decided it was more important to get that out the door than to spend more time and resources modifying a better wack interface to run on an offline volume while the system remained up. Note that this is also different from a request for a completely online wack on an active filesystem, or allowing a filesytem to remain online read-only while being wacked. I still question the utility of the latter, but it might be good as part of an automated process strategy (just as snapshots are created for dump). Anyway, these are all very different enhancements. Netapp will have to decide which ones to implement, and which ones to implement first. Bruce

2 1

Client pack fo NetApp - implementation ???
by Itzik (Itzhak) Meirson DSc 11 Oct '99

11 Oct '99

I wonder how is the backup performed by the new client for NetApp... 1. Is the backup done from a special snapshot or from the "live" files? 2. When defining the NetApp client what directive should be used? I might have missed this information from the docs I have seen. Thanks in advance, Itzik

1 0

Re: Autosupport, 5.2.3 upgrade, diskscrub and wackz
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 11 Oct '99

11 Oct '99

On 10/10/99 12:12:52 you wrote: > > "sirbruce" == sirbruce <sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com> writes: > > sirbruce> The problem is that with a changing filesystem, such > sirbruce> programs could easily report a problem when in fact > sirbruce> there is none. There are some ways around this. > >Huh? If the filesystem is made immutable, it isn't a changing >filesystem. e.g, on a Unix host, this _should_ be safe: > >unmount filesystem. >mount filesystem read-only. >run fsck on filesystem. >remount filesystem read-write. Sure, but for many environments, read-only is not an option. It may be for you, but for others it's still downtime. >Why should I expect downtime? A failed disk is a problem, but it >doesn't cause downtime. A failed power-supply is a problem, but it >also doesn't cause downtime. A failed head is a problem, but in a >cluster, no downtime (well, 60 seconds downtime). NA has designed the >filer to stay up in the face of these problems. So if NA has a check >list of problems and it is working its way down the check list to keep >filers up in the face of these problems, then "file-system >health-check and fix" needs to be added to that list. Sure, it isn't a >common occurance, but clearly it happens often enough for NA to have >written wack and constantly improved it over the years. I'm arguing >that the next improvement is to allow wack to be run on an on-line >filer. Upgrading your software/firmware/disk firmware is more common. So is adding new cards into the system. Yet you expect downtime on those. So if what was most common was the measure of importance, then these should be worked on before an on-line wack. I agree online wack is a good thing to have, but I guess I'm satisfied in seeing Netapp concentrate on other bugs and features first. I wasn't arguing that it shouldn't be done. Bruce

4 3

Re: Autosupport, 5.2.3 upgrade, diskscrub and wackz
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 11 Oct '99

11 Oct '99

On 10/10/99 02:59:52 you wrote: > > "alexei" == alexei <alexei(a)mindspring.net> writes: > >> this rather distressing. The filer really needs a way to perform a >> filesystem health check w/o downtime. > > alexei> Like running fsck on a mounted filesystem? Some things are > alexei> better done in a quiesced state... > >The filer is not a Unix host serving NFS. I expect more out of it. I >didn't say it needed to correct errors while serving content, I said >it needed to be able to do a health-check. If you go back to my >original message, I mentioned that if it required an immutable >filesystem to do this, then you should be able to tag a filesystem >(not just an export) read only. The raid scrubbing is indeed meant to be such a check, although it is not filesystem-based. >You can btw, run fsck on a mounted filesystem. Solaris happily runs >'fsck -n' on a mounted file system (yes, I know, it will also happily >run 'rm -rf /' which doesn't mean you should do it - lot's of rope and >whatnot). Linux will run e2fsck after making some noise. I don't see >any reason why this would be dangerous on a filesystem mounted read >only. The problem is that with a changing filesystem, such programs could easily report a problem when in fact there is none. There are some ways around this. Personally, while I think this should be on Netapp's agenda, there are more important things as well. Wack has been improved and now runs much faster than before. You should expect some downtime to happen when problems occur; having parity inconsistencies is *not* a normal occurrance and should not happen often. Bruce

3 2

Releasing file locks on the Netapp
by Brian Tao 10 Oct '99

10 Oct '99

Is there a way to force the Netapp to forget about specific locks? I know how to get the Netapp to forget about *all* locks from a particular client, but I don't always want that. My specific problem is with the FrontPage extensions on Solaris (using Apache as the web server). Once in a while, the extensions think there is another instance running. It determines this by attempting to lock a file called vti_pvt/service.lck . I can run lock_dump on the Netapp and see the inode and client- side pid that was granted the lock, but in some cases that pid is no longer extant. All the FP documentation I've seen says "kill off the hung process", which doesn't apply here. I've been able to work around the problem each time simply by renaming/removing the service.lck file, but I thought I should at least investigate the possibility of removing entries from the Netapp's table of locks. -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters