toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

BudTool NDMP backups dying prematurely.
by Josh Tiefenbach 29 Sep '99

29 Sep '99

I thought I'd toss this one up for grabs, whilst I try to find support people to talk to. I've got a BudTool 4.6, clustered F760, DOT 5.2.1 setup here, and I'm having the dickens of a time getting my filers backed up via NDMP. Ordinarily I have file history turned on. It would appear that because of this, I'm ramming head on into NetApp BugID 9378. I do in fact see a large pause between pass III and pass IV. A 2 hour pause. This is a problem, as 2 hours later, the backup dies with the following message in the logs: Command exceeded maximum allowable run time 14400. ie, 4 hours. Questions I have: * Has anybody found a way to circumvent the multiple-hour pause during a BudTool NDMP backup, _while keeping file history on_ ? * Anybody seen the `killing job after 4 hours' message? Anybody know a workaround? While highly sub-optimal, I have a backup running with no file history right now. I'm concerned that that 4 hour thing is gonna bite me in the butt again. Suggestions? Comments? Shotgun shells to rid myself of this headache? josh -- This is my .sig! There are many others like it, but this one is mine!

3 3

Re: NetApps Backup Strategy
by Michael Salmon 29 Sep '99

29 Sep '99

+----- On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 13:16:54 PDT, Clara Bueno writes: | Greetings, | | My company purchase the Net Apps F720 series. Nevertheless, they have | not used it because the SA's are having problems finding a backup | Application that support Net Apps hardware. | | I heard Legato was planning to release the Net Apps Module, but the | schedule slipped so they will not be releasing it anytime soon. The module has been released although I haven't gotten it to work yet. The installation is pain free at least and the server can at least probe the filer although it report 0 disks. As the license hasn't arrived yet and we are at present between support contracts I haven't complained as yet. As you might expect the documentation was minimal, but hey if it was easy then anybody could do it ;^). /Michael

2 1

RE: NetApps Backup Strategy
by David Stack 29 Sep '99

29 Sep '99

Our backup strategy is currently to back up over NFS to a Sun server running Veritas Netbackup with a DLT tape jukebox on it. It works but it not ideal. We are probably going to buy a couple more jukeboxes, hang them off the F740s and use NDMP to do backups. My only concern is that I've heard rumblings in this mail list that NDMP has a few problems. Short answer: Look into Veritas Netbackup. 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: Clara Bueno [SMTP:cbueno@terawave.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 2:17 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: NetApps Backup Strategy > > Greetings, > > My company purchase the Net Apps F720 series. Nevertheless, they have > not used it because the SA's are having problems finding a backup > Application that support Net Apps hardware. > > I heard Legato was planning to release the Net Apps Module, but the > schedule slipped so they will not be releasing it anytime soon. > > If you have a Net Apps F720, and have a backup solutions. I would > greatly appreciate assistance. > > Thanks, >

2 1

RE: Code Release confusion
by Davis, Barry 29 Sep '99

29 Sep '99

Graydon, Yes we are working on the code release process and it will be much less confusing in the future. We are also working on making a tool available on NOW to compare releases and answer the exact question you are asking...."are all bugs in the x.x.xDxx release fixed in release x.x.x?" Our plans are to have this tool available in November. As for your access to certain releases on the NOW account. We are checking "entitlement" based on service agreements associated with your products. If you feel NetApp is in error, please let tech support know this and they will have our contracts group rectify the problem. We are also making changes to Bugs Online. No promises on a date here yet but we are working on internal processes to allow the release in which a bug was fixed to be visible and accurate. This way you can follow a specific bug # and know what release it was fixed in. FYI....Watch for new UI and "real time" case update capability on the NOW site coming on 10/4/99. -----Original Message----- From: Graydon Dodson [mailto:grdodson@lexmark.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 1:32 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: Private_User(a)lexmark.com Subject: Code Release confusion I know that NetApp has been working on making the code release process easier to understand but I am still having problems. Any work NetApp can make to clean this up would be appreciated. I need to upgrade from 5.2.1P2 to a 5.3* release. My problem is finding the "correct" 5.3* release for my needs. I want something stable, we have had some bad experiences in the past. I also need support for the Legato Networker client. Legato states that 5.3D11 is the minimum supported release. Obviously I probably want something newer & more stable like 5.3.2R1 So I do a bit of research on NOW, and things just get more confusing. 5.3: No way to tell if this contains all the bug fixes in 5.2.1P1 5.3D*: The "D" releases (5.3D10 5.3D11) seem to have been built from 5.3 and may therefore not include all the fixes from the previous "D" release. 5.3.1: Again no way to tell if 5.3.1 includes all the bug fixes in 5.3D11 5.3.1D*: The first "D" releases (5.3.1D2 5.3.1D4 5.3.1D6) are built from 5.3.1 But later "D" releases (5.3.1D8 5.3.1D10 5.3.1D11 ...) are built from their preceding "D" release so their fixes ARE cumulative, unlike the earlier 5.3.1D* releases. 5.3.2: The NOW webserver refuses my NOW account access to this release I can get no data on it except the limited stuff in the pubs. 5.3.2R1: This is the release that Tech Support has told me for over a month now will become "recommended later this week". Still there is no way to tell what bugs are fixed in this release, all the documentation talks about is bugs fixed in 5.3.2, not 5.3.2R1. Of course what is important to me is if all the bugs fixed in 5.3D11 are also included in 5.3.2R1. I have found no way to verify this. 5.3.2D*: These "D" releases are built upon the previous "D" release so their fixes should be cumulative. There is no way to tell (unless you want to trust the file dates) if these releases are "newer" that the "R" release or if they contain the same fixes as the "R" release. Using "Bugs Online" is hopeless, most of the bugs I try to look up (11002, 13087, 10733, ...) return "not found", and when they are found, there is no info about which "R" release they are in. (if any) What I REALLY need to know is if all the 5.3D11 fixes are in 5.3.2R1 and the 5.3.2D* releases. It is impossible to determine this from NOW. If NetApp wants to help lower calls to the help line making this information available online would help. Graydon Dodson grdodson(a)lexmark.com Lexmark International Inc.

1 0

NetApps Backup Strategy
by Clara Bueno 29 Sep '99

29 Sep '99

Greetings, My company purchase the Net Apps F720 series. Nevertheless, they have not used it because the SA's are having problems finding a backup Application that support Net Apps hardware. I heard Legato was planning to release the Net Apps Module, but the schedule slipped so they will not be releasing it anytime soon. If you have a Net Apps F720, and have a backup solutions. I would greatly appreciate assistance. Thanks,

2 1

Novell 5/NT 4.0 and Netapp filers
by Mike Ball 28 Sep '99

28 Sep '99

We are looking at implementing Network Appliance filers into a shared NT and Novell environment. I understand as long as "Client for Microsoft Networking" is loaded on the Novell clients and as long as the Novell users are being authenticated by the NT domain when they cross over to access the filer, the Novell users will be able to store/retrieve their files on the Netapp. My question is has anyone using Novell 5 in this environment ran into any issues with the filer? Thank you, Mike

1 0

timing of upgrading disk fw
by Jay Soffian 27 Sep '99

27 Sep '99

I have a question about the timing on upgrading disk firmware. With the recent DOT's when you do a DOT upgrade, after you reboot and a disk firmware upgrade is needed, DOT warns you at boot time, at which point you can do a disk_fw_update. This is when I've upgraded disk firmware. However, the NOW documentation isn't clear if this is the appropriate time to upgrade the disk firmare. So, my question is, when is the best time to upgrade the disk firmware: 1) After you've run install_netapp, but before you've run 'download'. 2) After you've run download. 3) After you've rebooted on the new DOT version. Also, are there any cluster considerations associated with the choice of timing? I noticed when upgrading a cluster this weekend that I received downrev messages from the NetApps until both partners had the same disk firmware. j. -- Jay Soffian <jay(a)cimedia.com> UNIX Systems Engineer 404.572.1941 Cox Interactive Media

2 2

RE: tech support waits
by Davis, Barry 27 Sep '99

27 Sep '99

I would like to introduce myself. I am Barry Davis, the new Director of E-Service at NetApp. My sole purpose in life is to make the NOW site as effective as possible in allowing customers to be self sufficient. The responsibility for fixing our data integrity problems is considered a major impediment to this, and, as such, I am taking the lead on resolving the issues. I have recently made a couple of moves to start to solve the problems that you and others have seen with our contact and site information. I have two people who are attacking this problem from two different angles. As with any fast growing corporation, we have some processes that no longer work effectively and we need to change them to ensure accurate information is entered at the time of order. In addition, we are focusing resources on identifying and fixing existing inaccuracies. This effort will take another couple of months to complete. However, we will always be reliant on the customer to keep the site records up to date as the systems move, and the user profiles up to date as the responsible people at your site change. We will verify your information when you contact us and soon we will be allowing you to review and update this information on the NOW site. Another major change underway is the implementation of a new Web interface to NetApp's case management system. This change is scheduled to cut over on 10/4 and will allow customers to update case information on a real time basis. I'm confident you will see constant improvement over time and I welcome your feedback. Good sites need a community of users who are willing to comment on what is working and criticize what is not. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Davis [mailto:jdavis@cs.arizona.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 7:29 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: tech support waits On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Shaun T. Erickson wrote: > NetApp's customer database, or perhaps the people who maintain it, seem > incapable of tracking proper contact info on multiple customers within a > single company at a single given site. I wonder if some major snafu struck the customer database recently. The time before last that I called, they had me listed -- in a different state. And at a different university. And at a different phone. The whole record for me was pretty much bogus and the phone person ended up reentering most of it.

3 2

RE: CIFS, UNIX and ACLs
by Norman, Paul 27 Sep '99

27 Sep '99

If there was some way to make the release happen sooner, trust me, I'd do it. Unfortunately we can't, so the only choice we have is to ship it when its ready. We did a triage on the bugs and did some heavy soul searching to see if we could defer some work. Its not just severity that determines if a bug needs to be included. We look at the call records against the bug. Every time someone calls into CS its logged and included in the bug report. The 5.3 codeline is still on EA and we really want to make it GA. We have a weekly report that gets circulated with every customer call against 5.2 and another with calls against 5.3. The criteria for moving into GA has doubled between 5.2 release and 5.3 release. There just aren't any easy answers. Our goal is that each time we put out a release we can quantitatively see that its the highest quality release we've ever done. Each time we set the bar higher and then work like the devil to reach it. 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: Graham C. Knight [mailto:grahamk@ast.lmco.com] > Sent: Sunday, September 26, 1999 1:24 PM > To: Norman, Paul > Cc: 'Eyal Traitel'; Day, Matt; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: CIFS, UNIX and ACLs > > > "Norman, Paul" wrote: > > > > So expecting to see something in November would be a reasonable > > assumption. > > > > I'm not sure how this relates to other shops, but here at > Lockheed we will be in a Y2K configuration freeze starting > November 1. Lots of other companies I know about are in the > same boat. You might want to keep that in mind when it comes > to OS release dates as Y2K approaches. > > Graham >

2 1

version
by Mark D Fowle 27 Sep '99

27 Sep '99

What is the current release rev level of 5.3.2 ? Mark Fowle Unix/Metaphase/Oracle Administration Caterpillar - BCP

1 0

RE: CIFS, UNIX and ACLs
by Norman, Paul 26 Sep '99

26 Sep '99

First thing, all postings to Toasters are "non-official". If you want a sanctioned response to a query send it to support(a)netapp.com. Many folks in NetApp monitor Toasters and try to help out when we can, but its run by customers for the benefit of customers. Its your list, not NetApp's. This is just one aspect of the unique relationship NetApp has with its customers. NetApp may be a small computer company at a $400 Million run rate today, but we have a vision. Our Vision isn't just growing to be a billion dollar company although we certainly intend to do that. The fanatics here at NetApp, myself included, intend to convert the computing world into Appliance Fanatics. So if you own a NetApp box you're part of the team and NetApp folks treat you as such rather than just a customer. NetApp people are not allowed to talk about un-announced products in public forums. We are supposed to have NDAs in place before discussing future offerings. In fact we generally refer to all future releases by code name rather than actual name in case the numbers change. Matt's response was a minor slip of the lip...err finger? NetApp has changed the way we release software. We will not be generating "P" releases which were rollups of "D" patch releases. Instead we intend to issue periodic (quarterly) maintenance releases which rollup most, but not all D patches. The good news is that maintenance releases go through full regression testing. [Wait, let me get into my flame suit] Yes, I know we have released product only to find a serious bug in some feature which customers hit almost instantly after upgrading. I know sometimes it feels like we didn't test the simple things, but believe me, we test the heck out of each release. We've dramatically increased the size of our QA group in the last year. In my 29 years in the computer business I've never seen a sharper, more dedicated bunch of people. We've managed to accumulate the best talent in the Valley, not just in QA but throughout all of the company. We really take it to heart when a release has bugs. We've increased out test coverage and raised the bar on the quality requirements for each successive release. Now I said not all D patches get into a maintenance release. This is why we ask customers running a D patch release to check with CS before, REPEAT BEFORE, they upgrade to any newer release. Some D patches are not considered ideal solutions to a problem and we'd prefer to rewrite things rather than patch them. Rewriting takes longer and it sometimes isn't possible to get it done in time to make the maintenance release. Maintenance releases do not add major new functionality. In general maintenance releases are bug fixes and minor enhancements to existing features. We do allow new hardware options such as a roll of a NIC card or a larger capacity disk, but we wouldn't for instance allow an increase in the maximum capacity a filer can support. Occasionally there are minor improvements, for instance improving the scalability of NIS to handle very large environments or adding vif support to gigabit interfaces, but you won't see dramatic changes like changing the admin interface to eliminate rc_toggle_basic commands although a minor enhancement like history editing could happen. The big changes come in major releases. Bet you are wondering when the heck this Marketing dweeb is actually going to answer the question. So without breaking the rules I think I can say the following. The last maintenance release for 5.3 codeline was early August, therefore the next maintenance release should be out in about three months since that's the new system. So expecting to see something in November would be a reasonable assumption. You could assume it won't have any major new features but may contain new hardware options and perhaps minor enhancements. Being realistic, plans can change, so although you could assume the above will happen, you shouldn't count on it. 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: Eyal Traitel [mailto:r55789@email.sps.mot.com] > Sent: Saturday, September 25, 1999 2:57 AM > To: Matt Day > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: CIFS, UNIX and ACLs > > > Matt, > > Could you state an non-official due date for 5.3.4 ? > What will we see (fetures) ? > > Eyal. > > > > > Matt Day wrote: > > > Michael van Elst <mlelstv(a)xlink.net> wrote: > > >On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 12:33:17PM -0700, Sam Schorr wrote: > > >> We tried to do this but there is a known bug in OnTap > that prevents Samba > > >> from correctly opening a CIFS share on the filers. > > > > > >this is interesting, are there any details about this bug ? > > > > Samba's client isn't officially supported by Netapp, and there is at > > least one bug that fouls up smbclient pretty badly (bug #12563). > > But that bug, and all the other smbclient problems that I'm > aware of, > > will be fixed in the upcoming 5.3.4 release. I just tried smbclient > > 2.0.5a against a filer here running a 5.3.4 test build and every > > command seemed to work. Be aware, though: that's about all the > > smbclient testing we've ever done, so no guarantees. > > > > I think smbfs should be OK, too, but I haven't tried it in > quite a while. >

3 2

RE: Backup formats
by Norman, Paul 25 Sep '99

25 Sep '99

I didn't see a response to this, which is a bit unusual as the FSR guys are pretty quick to talk to folks on Toasters. As long as I'm here let me take a crack at answering. FAServer is the original name of filers before we moved to the Fxxx nomenclature. there were 400, 450, 1300, 1400 and perhaps other FAServers that I don't know about. They were this Darth Vader black pedestal sort of things that looked really cool. I just took a look on the web and couldn't find a picture of one, although if you read some of the older tech reports I am sure you'll see them mentioned. When our new facility is fully built we plan on having a little Filer Museum with samples of all the older machines - hopefully they'll also have a web based tour you can take to see where it all started. 1) The original BudTool used an rsh mechanism to get the filer to kick off a dump/restore. By piping the output back to BudTool, Budtool could effectively get a dump stream routed wherever it liked. Budtool put some header info on the stream, but otherwise it was just dump/restore. So the answer to (1) is its regular dump/restore format, which is a Unix derivative. It will restore to a filer or to a Sun machine with UFS restore but on the Sun you lose all the Windows attributes since Sun doesn't know what they are. Initially when folks just had one filer they needed to know they could get at their data if the filer broke, hence the Sun compatibility. Nowadays people aren't nearly as concerned about being stranded. 2) NDMP actually uses dump/restore as the underlying mechanism to handle the data, so its format is the same as dump/restore with a bit of header info. It tracks inodes which are logical pointers but not pointers to physical disk locations, so you can dump from any filer and restore to any other filer to your heart's content. 3) I think I just answered this. FAServer is like doing an "rsh filer.name dump" piped to a tape. NDMP uses a different protocol to invoke dump and direct the stream elsewhere. I think people are pushing you toward NDMP most new development (features/functions) will be done on NDMP as it is an industry standard and it works on other hardware vendors gear too. 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: Jay Orr [mailto:orrjl@stl.nexen.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 1999 9:44 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Backup formats > > > Hi all! > > I remember a spate of conversation about backup formats. > Currently we have > two F330's now running 5.3.2r1 and have two sun servers > running budtool. > One is at 4.6, the other is 4.6.1. > > I found out as of 4.6.1 that they are no longer supporting the > "dump.FAServer" dump. I have never been able to find > documentation on what > exactly this is (nor could the tech I spoke with at legato), > but that is > how the filers have been backed up. > > Now, if someone could be kind enough to answer a few confused > questions : > > 1) is the FAServer dump like a tar snapshot? One selling > point on other > backup software I've been pitched is that NDMP can only be > restored to the > toaster, it's a non-standard format and can't be restored to > a host then a > toaster. > > 2) Does NDMP save info of where on the hard disk it is? I > thought I read > that somewhere, which means you can't backup one filer then > restore it on > another... > > 3) Can someone give me a comparison of the different methods > of backing up > a toaster? I.e. what is FASserver and NDMP? > > Thanks! > > ----------- > Fujitsu - Nexion, St. Louis, MO > Jay Orr (314) 579-6517 >

1 0

RE: CIFS, UNIX and ACLs
by Mohler, Jeff 25 Sep '99

25 Sep '99

Matt, Could you state an non-official due date for 5.3.4 ? What will we see (fetures) ? Eyal. --- Although Ive not seen anything specific..I put in a note about an X-10 controller to control other "appliances" with. It was not met favorably. *grin* --- Jeff 'ThisIsWhyImNotAProgrammer' Mohler Professional Services Engineer

1 0

Re: CIFS, UNIX and ACLs
by Matt Day 25 Sep '99

25 Sep '99

Michael van Elst <mlelstv(a)xlink.net> wrote: >On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 12:33:17PM -0700, Sam Schorr wrote: >> We tried to do this but there is a known bug in OnTap that prevents Samba >> from correctly opening a CIFS share on the filers. > >this is interesting, are there any details about this bug ? Samba's client isn't officially supported by Netapp, and there is at least one bug that fouls up smbclient pretty badly (bug #12563). But that bug, and all the other smbclient problems that I'm aware of, will be fixed in the upcoming 5.3.4 release. I just tried smbclient 2.0.5a against a filer here running a 5.3.4 test build and every command seemed to work. Be aware, though: that's about all the smbclient testing we've ever done, so no guarantees. I think smbfs should be OK, too, but I haven't tried it in quite a while.

3 2

F330 & ONTAP versions
by Reidenbach, Edward 25 Sep '99

25 Sep '99

Jay, Thanks for the inquiry. As a matter of company policy, we do not comment about unannounced products. This said, the following information should give you some understanding of our plans. The F330 was officially EOA'ed on 4/30/98. The end of support (EOS) date for software compatible with the F330 is 2 years from that date or April 30, 2000 What EOS for software means is that NetApp will test all new releases of software for compatibility with the EOA'ed platform for two years after that platform's EOA date. In the case of the F330, if NetApp releases new software before April 30, 2000, it will be tested for compatibility with the F330. Ed > -----Original Message----- > From: Jay Orr [mailto:orrjl@stl.nexen.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 09, 1999 9:34 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: F330 & ONTAP versions > > > I was talking with a tech today fixing problems I experienced > upgrading > our F330 from 4.2a to 5.3.2r1, and I asked if this was the > last release > for the F330's, since after February you can't purchase a > software support > for these filers. He said he hadn't heard about the > end-of-support on the > F330's, but mentioned that 5.4 is scheduled for Feb. > > My question is, will 5.4 be available for the F330's or is 5.3.2r1 the > last release that'll work on the F330s ?? > > ----------- > Fujitsu - Nexion, St. Louis, MO > Jay Orr (314) 579-6517 >

1 0

RE: CIFS, UNIX and ACLs
by Muhlestein, Mark 24 Sep '99

24 Sep '99

There is no way to manage NT security from UNIX clients that I am aware of, either from NetApp or a third party. We have an outstanding RFE on that issue (14140, which I have updated to include your request), but no shipping version of OnTap supports that functionality. You can do it easily from an NT client, of course. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 4:22 PM To: Sam Schorr Cc: 'Michael van Elst'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: CIFS, UNIX and ACLs On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 02:58:10PM -0700, Sam Schorr wrote: > Michael, Hi Sam, > I do not have the specifics on the bug. It came out ina conversation with a > Netapp engineer that ranged over a number of topics. We had been told that > 5.3.2 had support for Samba, but that turned out not to be true. If you did > use Samba to connect to a CIFS share on a 5.3.2 box, you would not be able > to see any file extensions or directory ACLs. well, with Samba2.0.5 and ONTAP 5.1.2, I cannot even open a session. > As for your setup to allow WinNT ACL access, I guess I'm not quite clear on > why this would be a problem. As I pointed out, we allow users to upload > files and directories using the NFS mount, which the netapp translates to > Unicode and does the necessary ACL mappings to handle the shift to CIFS as > long as the parent directory has been defined as a CIFS share. The Unicode > support is part of 5.2.3 and 5.3.2, but that may be an issue for you. Let me clarify the problem a bit more. The NT application is IIS4.0 with Frontpage extensions. Two (or more) NT-accounts need to access the files on a website: an anonymous account that is used by IIS4.0 when somebody browses through the site and one or more dedicated frontpage accounts that are allowed to modify the site. This is done by creating appropriate access control lists for all files and directories in the particular webspace. The webspace is also accessible from a UNIX host via NFS which performs the initial configuration and also hosts other applications that write to the webspace. Files created this way are owned by the frontpage account but do not have access lists, instead the filer does the usual UNIX mode -> ACL translation. The written files must be accessible by the annonymous user which means that the appropriate access lists must be created. There is no way to make it work with the translated UNIX modes. Currently we do this by running a slow script on the NT box, but I would prefer to handle all these maintenance tasks on the UNIX side. Setting access lists can be done by speaking the NT dialect of the SMB protocol to the filer, which unfortunately happens to be undocumented. I am now searching for a piece of software, commercial product or even some other kind of information that lets me do this. Regards, Michael van Elst > > Hope I've been of some help. > > --srs > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] > Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 2:29 PM > To: Sam Schorr > Cc: 'Michael van Elst'; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: CIFS, UNIX and ACLs > > > On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 12:33:17PM -0700, Sam Schorr wrote: > > Michael, > > Hi Sam, > > > We tried to do this but there is a known bug in OnTap that prevents Samba > > from correctly opening a CIFS share on the filers. > > this is interesting, are there any details about this bug ? > > > We had to revert to > > using NFS mounts, but this has not caused any problems for NT access. > > Essentially, we are allowing people to ftp files into > > directories/subdirectories that are primarily accessed through CIFS shares > > from a Linux system. I don't know what you may lose doing it this way - > we > > haven't had any issues. > > My problem is to prepare files and directories for WinNT clients. > I can easily create the directories and write files using NFS, > but I cannot set WinNT access lists which are important for > the application. > > Regards, > Michael van Elst > > > > > > --srs > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] > > Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 5:10 AM > > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: CIFS, UNIX and ACLs > > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > I'm looking for a method to access a CIFS share residing on a NetApp- > > Filer from a UNIX client. In particular I am interested in maintaining > > NTFS-style ACLs. > > > > Is anybody doing this successfully ? > > > > Regards, > > -- > > i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 721 6635 330 > > Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 721 6635 349 > > Vincenz-Priessnitz-Str. 3 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ > > D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: > hostmaster(a)xlink.net > > [ Xlink Internet Service GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe > ] > > [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Prof. Michael Rotert > ] > -- > i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 721 6635 330 > Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 721 6635 349 > Vincenz-Priessnitz-Str. 3 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ > D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: hostmaster(a)xlink.net > [ Xlink Internet Service GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe ] > [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Prof. Michael Rotert ] -- i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 721 6635 330 Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 721 6635 349 Vincenz-Priessnitz-Str. 3 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: hostmaster(a)xlink.net [ Xlink Internet Service GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe ] [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Prof. Michael Rotert ]

1 0

RE: CIFS, UNIX and ACLs
by Sam Schorr 24 Sep '99

24 Sep '99

Michael, I do not have the specifics on the bug. It came out ina conversation with a Netapp engineer that ranged over a number of topics. We had been told that 5.3.2 had support for Samba, but that turned out not to be true. If you did use Samba to connect to a CIFS share on a 5.3.2 box, you would not be able to see any file extensions or directory ACLs. As for your setup to allow WinNT ACL access, I guess I'm not quite clear on why this would be a problem. As I pointed out, we allow users to upload files and directories using the NFS mount, which the netapp translates to Unicode and does the necessary ACL mappings to handle the shift to CIFS as long as the parent directory has been defined as a CIFS share. The Unicode support is part of 5.2.3 and 5.3.2, but that may be an issue for you. Hope I've been of some help. --srs -----Original Message----- From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 2:29 PM To: Sam Schorr Cc: 'Michael van Elst'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: CIFS, UNIX and ACLs On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 12:33:17PM -0700, Sam Schorr wrote: > Michael, Hi Sam, > We tried to do this but there is a known bug in OnTap that prevents Samba > from correctly opening a CIFS share on the filers. this is interesting, are there any details about this bug ? > We had to revert to > using NFS mounts, but this has not caused any problems for NT access. > Essentially, we are allowing people to ftp files into > directories/subdirectories that are primarily accessed through CIFS shares > from a Linux system. I don't know what you may lose doing it this way - we > haven't had any issues. My problem is to prepare files and directories for WinNT clients. I can easily create the directories and write files using NFS, but I cannot set WinNT access lists which are important for the application. Regards, Michael van Elst > > --srs > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] > Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 5:10 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: CIFS, UNIX and ACLs > > > Hello everyone, > > I'm looking for a method to access a CIFS share residing on a NetApp- > Filer from a UNIX client. In particular I am interested in maintaining > NTFS-style ACLs. > > Is anybody doing this successfully ? > > Regards, > -- > i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 721 6635 330 > Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 721 6635 349 > Vincenz-Priessnitz-Str. 3 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ > D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: hostmaster(a)xlink.net > [ Xlink Internet Service GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe ] > [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Prof. Michael Rotert ] -- i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 721 6635 330 Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 721 6635 349 Vincenz-Priessnitz-Str. 3 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: hostmaster(a)xlink.net [ Xlink Internet Service GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe ] [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Prof. Michael Rotert ]

2 1

RE: CIFS, UNIX and ACLs
by Sam Schorr 24 Sep '99

24 Sep '99

Michael, We tried to do this but there is a known bug in OnTap that prevents Samba from correctly opening a CIFS share on the filers. We had to revert to using NFS mounts, but this has not caused any problems for NT access. Essentially, we are allowing people to ftp files into directories/subdirectories that are primarily accessed through CIFS shares from a Linux system. I don't know what you may lose doing it this way - we haven't had any issues. --srs -----Original Message----- From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 5:10 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: CIFS, UNIX and ACLs Hello everyone, I'm looking for a method to access a CIFS share residing on a NetApp- Filer from a UNIX client. In particular I am interested in maintaining NTFS-style ACLs. Is anybody doing this successfully ? Regards, -- i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 721 6635 330 Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 721 6635 349 Vincenz-Priessnitz-Str. 3 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: hostmaster(a)xlink.net [ Xlink Internet Service GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe ] [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Prof. Michael Rotert ]

2 1

Code Release confusion
by Graydon Dodson 24 Sep '99

24 Sep '99

I know that NetApp has been working on making the code release process easier to understand but I am still having problems. Any work NetApp can make to clean this up would be appreciated. I need to upgrade from 5.2.1P2 to a 5.3* release. My problem is finding the "correct" 5.3* release for my needs. I want something stable, we have had some bad experiences in the past. I also need support for the Legato Networker client. Legato states that 5.3D11 is the minimum supported release. Obviously I probably want something newer & more stable like 5.3.2R1 So I do a bit of research on NOW, and things just get more confusing. 5.3: No way to tell if this contains all the bug fixes in 5.2.1P1 5.3D*: The "D" releases (5.3D10 5.3D11) seem to have been built from 5.3 and may therefore not include all the fixes from the previous "D" release. 5.3.1: Again no way to tell if 5.3.1 includes all the bug fixes in 5.3D11 5.3.1D*: The first "D" releases (5.3.1D2 5.3.1D4 5.3.1D6) are built from 5.3.1 But later "D" releases (5.3.1D8 5.3.1D10 5.3.1D11 ...) are built from their preceding "D" release so their fixes ARE cumulative, unlike the earlier 5.3.1D* releases. 5.3.2: The NOW webserver refuses my NOW account access to this release I can get no data on it except the limited stuff in the pubs. 5.3.2R1: This is the release that Tech Support has told me for over a month now will become "recommended later this week". Still there is no way to tell what bugs are fixed in this release, all the documentation talks about is bugs fixed in 5.3.2, not 5.3.2R1. Of course what is important to me is if all the bugs fixed in 5.3D11 are also included in 5.3.2R1. I have found no way to verify this. 5.3.2D*: These "D" releases are built upon the previous "D" release so their fixes should be cumulative. There is no way to tell (unless you want to trust the file dates) if these releases are "newer" that the "R" release or if they contain the same fixes as the "R" release. Using "Bugs Online" is hopeless, most of the bugs I try to look up (11002, 13087, 10733, ...) return "not found", and when they are found, there is no info about which "R" release they are in. (if any) What I REALLY need to know is if all the 5.3D11 fixes are in 5.3.2R1 and the 5.3.2D* releases. It is impossible to determine this from NOW. If NetApp wants to help lower calls to the help line making this information available online would help. Graydon Dodson grdodson(a)lexmark.com Lexmark International Inc.

1 0

WinNT NFS clients + toasters - can't create files
by John Stoffel 24 Sep '99

24 Sep '99

Guys, I'm working with people to figure out why they can't write their files from the WinNT 4.x PC side to directories in Toasters (running 5.2.1). I've confirmed their problem as well on my PC and a seperate toaster as well. On the PC, I can NFS mount the filesystem without any problems, and I can view/open files on there as well. But if I try to create a new file, or save changes to an existing file, I just get the following error on the PC: Check the drive to make sure the door is closed and it contains the correct disk or CD. (G:\JOHN\FOO.DOC) I'm running NetManage NFS version 7.0.2, do I need a newer version of this software possibly? One thing I've found out is that if I make the directory the files are in world writeable, then people can update files without any problems. But if the mode is only 775, even the owner of the file can't save changes from the PC (inside Word 97) to that file he owns. I know the group authenication is correct because the files get the right owner and group membership when they are created in a world writeable directory. We only have the NFS license for our toasters, maybe we need to spring for and get the CIFS license as well to take care of this problem, but we'd like to find a solution before going that step. Thanks for any help or suggestions, John John Stoffel - Senior Unix Systems Administrator - Lucent Technologies stoffel(a)lucent.com - http://www.lucent.com - 978-952-7548 john.stoffel(a)ascend.com - http://www.ascend.com

1 0

Veritas netbackup 3.2 and Ontap 5.3.2(D3)
by Menachem Kaiser 24 Sep '99

24 Sep '99

Hi, Has anyone started using Veritas netbackup version 3.2 with Ontap 5.3.2(D3) or just plain Ontap 5.3.2. Before upgrading our backup software, we would like to here from other sites that have experienced this upgrade. Thanks Manny

4 4

Backup formats
by Jay Orr 23 Sep '99

23 Sep '99

Hi all! I remember a spate of conversation about backup formats. Currently we have two F330's now running 5.3.2r1 and have two sun servers running budtool. One is at 4.6, the other is 4.6.1. I found out as of 4.6.1 that they are no longer supporting the "dump.FAServer" dump. I have never been able to find documentation on what exactly this is (nor could the tech I spoke with at legato), but that is how the filers have been backed up. Now, if someone could be kind enough to answer a few confused questions : 1) is the FAServer dump like a tar snapshot? One selling point on other backup software I've been pitched is that NDMP can only be restored to the toaster, it's a non-standard format and can't be restored to a host then a toaster. 2) Does NDMP save info of where on the hard disk it is? I thought I read that somewhere, which means you can't backup one filer then restore it on another... 3) Can someone give me a comparison of the different methods of backing up a toaster? I.e. what is FASserver and NDMP? Thanks! ----------- Fujitsu - Nexion, St. Louis, MO Jay Orr (314) 579-6517

1 0

RE: IIS and Netapp Compatibility
by Sam Schorr 22 Sep '99

22 Sep '99

Jay, Yes, we are doing this very thing. We have 12 IIS servers (and several others) using regular UNC path calls to user content created and stored on 2 F740's and 2 F760's. You do not, and should not, use mapped drives as these only persist with a user logged into your IIS servers. The IUSR#### NT Account user that IIS runs under will be the security context for access to the UNC. All you need do is make a share on the filer through the documented Server Manager function, make sure the NT user account IIS runs under has at least Change rights to the share, then use that in you IIS setup or ASP's, dll's, whatever. -----Original Message----- From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 1:51 PM To: Jay Querusio Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: IIS and Netapp Compatibility On Tue, Sep 21, 1999 at 01:03:15PM -0400, Jay Querusio wrote: > Hi, > > Is anyone using IIS as a front end to the Netapp. We would like to have IIS > through a mapped drive serve ASP, JavaScript, and Html pages that are stored > on the Netapp. Can this be done and is anyone doing it now? We are using a F740 as storage for two IIS4.0 Webservers (and a couple of Apache/Solaris webservers). IIS refers to the websites via UNC paths, not with a mapped drive. > If so, does anyone know if there are any bench mark tests out there that we > could try? Sorry, no. > We are currently running 5.3D20 We are using ONTAP 5.12. -- i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 721 6635 330 Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 721 6635 349 Vincenz-Priessnitz-Str. 3 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: hostmaster(a)xlink.net [ Xlink Internet Service GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe ] [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Prof. Michael Rotert ]

1 0

RE: Remote Backup Options
by Melvin, Grant 22 Sep '99

22 Sep '99

Hi Menachem, I think this link is what you are looking for. http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/contents/TIP/TIP_605.shtml <http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/contents/TIP/TIP_605.shtml> Cheers, Grant

1 0

RE: Remote Backup Options
by Melvin, Grant 22 Sep '99

22 Sep '99

Hi Benjy, Veritas added support for 3-way NDMP backups to NetBackup (NBU) 3.2. Data ONTAP has supported 3-way NDMP backups since we supported NDMP v2 in 4.x. HOWEVER, during certification of NBU 3.2 & 5.3.2 we recognized that 3-way restores weren't functioning completely in *every* scenario that we tested with NBU & we tracked this down to issues on *both* sides. These issues are being addressed, but won't be certified/supported until a follow-on release of Data ONTAP is released (currently scheduled for the end of October '99). Cheers, Grant -----Original Message----- From: Benjy Feen [mailto:benjy@feen.com] Sent: Monday, August 02, 1999 10:23 AM To: Steve Kappel Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Remote Backup Options Steve: Since you seem to know both sides of the NDMP debate here, let me ask you: is there ANY NetBackup/NetApp configuration which allows 3-way NDMP backups? On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Steve Kappel wrote: > >Speaking of remote backup, my backup team tells me that Veritas backups of > >Filers via NDMP don't work with the current release (5.3.x) of DOT. Any > >word on when (date please) this will be fixed? If already fixed, can > >someone let me know so I could get the appropriate version from Tech. > > OnTap 5.3.2 will be qualified for local (not 3-way) backup/restores > with NetBackup 3.2 very soon. 5.3.2 should be out "any day now". > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > Steve Kappel steve.kappel(a)veritas.com > VERITAS Software steve.kappel(a)iname.com (Personal) > Benjy Feen benjy(a)feen.com There is no spoon.

2 1

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