toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

Shelf firmware
by tkaczma＠gryf.net 05 Oct '99

05 Oct '99

Is there a way to update the shelf firmware? I wondered so I searched NOW, but I couldn't find any meaningfull references. Is there any reason to do so? Tom

1 0

Re: Backup restore times
by Stoltz 05 Oct '99

05 Oct '99

The "substantial time increase" you mention is most likely caused by the creation of the snapshots before each individual backup. With large numbers of directories, this can really add up (as it has for us). We've been waiting on Netapp to fix bug #15998, which will allow us to directly dump the pre-existing snapshots *and* have /etc/dumpdates updated correctly :P You can work around it by manually editting /etc/dumpdates and stripping out the .snapshot portion of "/vol/<volume>/.snapshot/<identifier>" but we were hoping they'd have fixed it by now. Anyway, dumping the pre-existing snapshots speeds things up immensely with large numbers of dump requests. Hope that helps. Bug #15998 TITLE: ndmpd updates the dumpdates table incorrectly when dumping pre-existing snapshots DESCRIPTION: In 5.3, if a dump of a pre-existing snapshot (such as /vol/vol0/.snapshot/hourly.0) is used, the dumpdates table is updated without the ".snapshot/hourly.0". It should only show: /vol/vol0/ 0 Sun Jan 1 00:00:00 1999 However, ndmpd prints out /vol/vol0/.snapshot/hourly.0 0 Sun Jan 1 00:00:00 1999 In message <37FA25BA.82769EDE(a)lucent.com>, Dave Heiland writes: > >We're using Netbackup to backup our F760 filer via NDMP to a directly connecte >d >STK robot. Full backups take about 8 hours - we tell Netbackup to backup the >entire filer. Thats just about ok, but the problem is that restores of user >files can also take up to 8 hours which is a bit long. The problem may get ev >en >worse as we might be moving from 70-80GB of user space to about 200GB, which >would mean any restores would stop the night's backup and take far too long. > >Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to rearrange the backups to reduce >this time?. We've considered backing up individual directories, but the backu >p >time increases substantially. > >Dave >-- >David J. Heiland Lucent Technologies Tel: +44 (0)1666 83-2504 >dheiland(a)lucent.com CIO Department Malmesbury, England

1 0

Backup restore times
by Dave Heiland 05 Oct '99

05 Oct '99

We're using Netbackup to backup our F760 filer via NDMP to a directly connected STK robot. Full backups take about 8 hours - we tell Netbackup to backup the entire filer. Thats just about ok, but the problem is that restores of user files can also take up to 8 hours which is a bit long. The problem may get even worse as we might be moving from 70-80GB of user space to about 200GB, which would mean any restores would stop the night's backup and take far too long. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to rearrange the backups to reduce this time?. We've considered backing up individual directories, but the backup time increases substantially. Dave -- David J. Heiland Lucent Technologies Tel: +44 (0)1666 83-2504 dheiland(a)lucent.com CIO Department Malmesbury, England

1 0

RE: Two volumes with same name, DOT 5.2.1, how do I fix?
by David Stack 04 Oct '99

04 Oct '99

John, I had this very same problem but do you think I can remember what I did? Of course not. I put a call into Netapp and they cleared it up for me. What's listed in the manual and what I think I did was: vol rename vol0(1) vol1 Your listing does not show the (1) for the foreign volume but I seem to remember that when I did a vol status there was a vol0(1) for the foreign volume. Dave **************************************************************************** ************* EMail: dstack(a)nortelnetworks.com Phone: 403-232-4752 Fax: 781-8850 ESN:765 Addr : Nortel Networks Ltd.; 2924 11 St. NE; Calgary, AB; T2E 7L7;Canada **************************************************************************** ************ > -----Original Message----- > From: John Stoffel [SMTP:john@casc.com] > Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 8:19 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Two volumes with same name, DOT 5.2.1, how do I fix? > > > Hi guys, > > We're running DataOnTap 5.2.1 on a bunch of F330s. One of them had a > disk failure this weekend, and since I was in for a power shutdown, I > figured I'd just swap in a spare disk from a returned filer (upgrade > to an F740). > > The problem is the before the old F330 was returned, we never did any > of the disk commands to make all the disks into spares. We just > copied the data off and shutdown the system. > > So I took one of these disks from the old Filer and did the usual disk > swap, disk swap procedure to put it into the Filer with the failed > disk. And now comes the problem. The Filer sees the new disk and > scans it in, but hey! It's got volume info on it, and it won't > initialize the disk and just use it on the new filer. > > Sigh... I've tried using the command 'disk fail 8a.4' but it won't let > me because it's part of a volume. > > So I look at the volume status and I get this: > > swtoast> vol status > Volume State Status Options > vol0 online normal root > vol0 offline foreign > partial > > Yup, *two* volumes, both named 'vol0' and I can't get rid of the > foreign one. If I just do 'vol status vol0' I get the online volume > listed. What I want to do is just a volume destroy, or a disk > initialize without any questions asked. But I can't figure out how to > do this. > > Any hints? I do have a call into NetApp, but I've been on hold for > about 15 minutes already... > > Thanks, > 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

2 1

Autosupport email changes in 5.3
by Graydon Dodson 04 Oct '99

04 Oct '99

I have recently upgraded a filler to 5.3.2R1P1. This weekend it sent an autosupport email after a successful disk scrub, "ERROR_FREE_DISK_SCRUB". This seems odd to me since nowhere in the autosupport(8) man page is this documented. In fact it explicitly states that autosupport email is ONLY generated for system failures, weekly status and boots from disk. Since we use autosupport email to trigger actions from our administrators does anyone know of a way to suppress this specific autosupport email? Thanks. Graydon Dodson grdodson(a)lexmark.com Lexmark International Inc.

1 0

case #79131, Very Poor Backup performances: 1Gb/H with Veritas Netbackup through NFS
by Pierre Maubert 04 Oct '99

04 Oct '99

Hi, We have several F330 in TIF, 2 of them have an enourmous number of small files: over 3.5M for one single volume. We have increase the maxfiles value to 4328504. We have currently a significative degradation of backup performances on these 2 servers: backup are done at 1.5Gb, on both server, wheras we reach 5Gb/h for the 3 others. Servers are all running Dataontap5.2.3, and are all identical. F330, 128Mb Ram, 24*4Gb disks, I wonder what kind of fine tuning can be done to speed up the backup. -- Regards, Pierre . +------------------------------------------------------+ | Pierre Maubert, Sys_Admin Texas Instruments France | | email:p-maubert@ti.com Tel: +33 49322.2681 | | Fax: +33 49202.4669 Pager: 0606498982 | +------------------------------------------------------+

2 1

Re: Windows Terminal Servers??
by Luke Mewburn 01 Oct '99

01 Oct '99

"Nail, Larry" writes: > Is anyone else using files to store home directories & profiles for Windows > Terminal Servers? Yes. Our NetApps are being used to store our home directories which are shared between: 5 Sun Enterprise servers via NFS 15 SGI workstations via NFS about 100 NT workstations via CIFS 4 NT Terminal Servers via CIFS (~ 125 users) We did have roaming profiles for a while, being saved back to the user's home directory. We've recently converted the Terminal Servers back to mandatory profiles because with ~ 2500 user accounts the local profile store on the Terminal Servers was filling up. Also, some users were complaining that their quotas were filling up with profile junk. Personally, I had no problem with it, but as a sysadmin, I don't have a quota problem ;-) I seem to recall that there might have been a couple of Terminal Server bugs that needed to be worked around (I could ask our NT guys), but there should be sufficient information in TechNet about this.

1 0

Windows Terminal Servers??
by Nail, Larry 01 Oct '99

01 Oct '99

Is anyone else using files to store home directories & profiles for Windows Terminal Servers? ------------------------------------------ Lawrence D. Nail Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer Senior Server Administrator PC Workstation Support Mixed Signal Products http://www1.msp.sc.ti.com/nail/ <http://www1.msp.sc.ti.com/nail/>

1 0

Can anyone send his cache hit rate for his NetCache (+site details) ?
by Eyal Traitel 01 Oct '99

01 Oct '99

1 0

RE: BudTool NDMP backups dying prematurely.
by Melvin, Grant 30 Sep '99

30 Sep '99

Hi Paul, > We were told by NetApp that they are working on a fix, > but the bug hasn't even shown up in the NOW database yet... YMMV. I believe this bug is reported as 17997 - dump fails to handle directory names with a null dos_name. and is now online. Cheers, Grant -----Original Message----- From: ptaylor(a)catalystsg.com [mailto:ptaylor@catalystsg.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 10:59 AM To: Josh Tiefenbach Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: BudTool NDMP backups dying prematurely. We had this problem for a while, and we were told to upgrade to DoT 5.3.2D4, and Budtool 4.6.1. This stopped the pauses, but introduced a buffer overflow that makes the netapp dump core whenever it hits a "null DOS condition" while trying to back up. We aren't really sure what a "null DOS condition" is, but it makes us unhappy when we hit it. We were told by NetApp that they are working on a fix, but the bug hasn't even shown up in the NOW database yet... YMMV. Paul Taylor Sr. Systems Engineer Catalyst Solutions Group 215-841-5540 On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Josh Tiefenbach wrote: > 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! >

1 0

Re: NetApps Backup Strategy
by Michael Salmon 30 Sep '99

30 Sep '99

+----- On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:42:29 EDT, John Stoffel writes: | | [ Talking about the Legato NDMP module for NetApps ] | | Michael> The module has been released although I haven't gotten it to | Michael> work yet. The installation is pain free at least and the | Michael> server can at least probe the filer although it report 0 | Michael> disks. As the license hasn't arrived yet and we are at | Michael> present between support contracts I haven't complained as | Michael> yet. As you might expect the documentation was minimal, but | Michael> hey if it was easy then anybody could do it ;^). | | I guess this is a step in the right direction, and since I'd love to | move this way can we ask you to keep good notes and let us know what | you have to do to make it work? | | I'm personally running Solstice Backup 5.1 (SUN OEM version) on my | backup servers, and my Toasters are running DOT 5.2.1 right now, so I | realize I'll have to upgrade both sides to make this work, though I'm | hoping that I can get away with only upgrading the toasters. Upgrading the toasters should be enough, you may not need to buy a license in that case as I think that clientpack licensing came in networker 5.5. /Michael

1 0

RE: CIFS, UNIX and ACLs
by Norman, Paul 30 Sep '99

30 Sep '99

Why do I get the feeling that after I answer this question, the next one will be what color underwear I have on? OK, Most of the systems are SUN running Solaris, usually the latest version but some may have older revs. There are probably a few SunOS systems too. We have PCs running Win9X, NT, and Linux. Linux is recent addition but we seem to have quite a few around recently. There is an HP running HP-UX. We have a few SGI boxes but they aren't usually used in testing. Oh ya, there are a number of Dec Alpha systems running Digital UNIX. I don't recall seeing any other gear, but then I don't spend my days traipsing around the labs because I actually have a job in Product Marketing. > -----Original Message----- > From: Eyal Traitel (r55789) [mailto:r55789@email.sps.mot.com] > Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 2:15 AM > To: Norman, Paul > Cc: 'Graham C. Knight'; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: CIFS, UNIX and ACLs > > > Hi again Paul. > > We would like to ask for what are the testing that you do before a > release is made? > Against which OSs and applications you test it ? > > We feel that this information is somewhat lacking from the NOW... > > > Eyal. > >

4 3

Re: Novell 5/NT 4.0 and Netapp filers
by Luke Mewburn 29 Sep '99

29 Sep '99

"Mike Ball" writes: > 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? Our department is primarily an NFS shop with an NT domain for the PCs running NT Workstation or NT Terminal Server that want to access the same home directories via CIFS. This works extremely well for us. However, our University is a Novell shop, so some of our users have to have access to Netware volumes in other departments or faculties. What we've discovered is (some of this is from slightly hazy memory; I'm the UNIX and filer admin, I only use PCs occassionally): * you should really have an NT domain to authenticate the CIFS sessions. As long as the users have the Netware client configured to synchronise passwords things should be ok on that front (log in once, and one password gets you to your NT and Netware drives) * depending on which system type you access more frequently (NT or Netware objects), you may want to tweak the `Network Services Order' (or whatever it's called) in the Control Panels -> Network section. Because our PCs are primarily accessing CIFS drives, we move Microsoft's requestor above the Netware one. We found that browsing objects through Network Neighbourhood that are of the `lower priority' type can take a while, especially if the primary `tree' is big and/or slow. * I've found the Netware client to be slow and buggy, when compared to the standard NT domain client. Due to (misguided, IMHO) university policies about `single sign-on through the central Netware NDS', we will be trialling the use of NDS for NT as a replacement for our NT domain; this may (assuming it works) make it easier for users with respect to password/account details. That would mean we wouldn't have to install the Netware client on most machines either (see above). Luke.

1 0

RE: File locking, sendmail and toasters
by Mohler, Jeff 29 Sep '99

29 Sep '99

I'll hit the WWW on that, a little learnin never hurt *grin* Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Nick Christenson [mailto:npc@sendmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 1:33 PM To: jeff.mohler(a)netapp.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: File locking, sendmail and toasters > Could you not use ProcMail for local delivery (dot locking)? > > No..im not a NetApp engineer, but in past lives that's what Ive done before when > presented with mailspools via NFS. In a general sense with general NFS implementations, that's not enough by itself to be sure you're safe. You certainly want to use file locking rather than lockd, but using files isn't a sufficient condition to be sure that your mail won't get messed up. Note, though, that you can "get away" with doing a naive NFS based mail implementation and statistically never see problems, but there is usually a race condition in there somewhere. -- Nick Christenson npc(a)sendmail.com

1 0

RE: File locking, sendmail and toasters
by Mohler, Jeff 29 Sep '99

29 Sep '99

Could you not use ProcMail for local delivery (dot locking)? No..im not a NetApp engineer, but in past lives that's what Ive done before when presented with mailspools via NFS. -----Original Message----- From: Nick Christenson [mailto:npc@sendmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 1:06 PM Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: File locking, sendmail and toasters > Nick Hilliard (nick(a)iol.ie) said, on [990929 13:54]: > > > > If you need to have text-based NFS-mounted client mailboxes, the only > > reliable option is to use a mailbox format which doesn't require locking, > > such as Maildir. > > Amen. > The only thing I've ever seen that didn't immediately give me the willies is: > > http://www.earthlink.com/about/papers/mailarch.html Just for reference, I was lead author of that paper. Running mail over NFS is doable if you're really, really careful. You will definitely want to replace the rpc.lockd locking mechanism with something better. This means modifying every program anyone uses to touch the mailbox (have to do that if you go with maildir as well). If I understand your system and requirements, which is in doubt, I don't think this is a solution I would recommend for your situation. Hope this helps. -- Nick Christenson npc(a)sendmail.com

2 1

File locking, sendmail and toasters
by Stephen C Woods 29 Sep '99

29 Sep '99

We have a medium sized environment with several discrete mail domains. The mailservers for the domains are (for historical reasons) all of a different type (HP-UX, Solaris, AIX and SGI) but are all running sendmail-8.8.8. Now in the documentation from sendmail they specificly recomend AGAINST running the mail server on a machine that is an NFS client for the user mailbox filesystem. Is anyone out there actually doing this? With a ~500 workstation, 5 mailserver environment (we'll still have multiple different mail directories one for each mail domain)? With a mixed (HP, SUN, AIX, SGI, NEXT, Linux) environment? <scw> postmaster(a)seas.ucla.edu ----- Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASnet; 2567 Boelter hall; LA CA 90095; (310)-825-8614 Finger for public key scw(a)cirrus.seas.ucla.edu,Internet mail:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU

5 4

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

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