toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

Birds of Feather at Lisa
by Cheryl Cruddace 23 Jul '99

23 Jul '99

Now that we are getting two new F740's and upgrading our F630, I have even more reason to ask....is anyone planning on going to the Lisa Conference in Seattle, November 7-12 AND would be interested in a birds of a feather for NetApp owners? Please don't ask what type of birds those might be. To be truthful I never thought that after taking 8 hours of classes, I would want to hang around with a bunch of computer geeks at night, but I would really like to put some faces with the names I see on this list and compare war stories. Cheryl Cruddace LLNL

1 0

restore from dlt is failing
by Dave Toal 22 Jul '99

22 Jul '99

Folks, I've got Veritas NetBackup 3.1.1 running its NDMP extension, controlling full and incremental backups on a netapp running OnTap 5.2.1, using nrst0a as the dump device -- direct connection from the netapp to a DLT7000. I'm trying to do a restore from tapes where the netbackup images have expired. (I did a "phase 1 import" which reads image headers, so I know which files I'd like off the tape; "phase 2 import" which reads files and rebuilds netbackup database info is failing -- this may be a separate issue.) The correct tape is loaded in the dlt. I'm seeing "RESTORE: Could not initialize media." inbox1> mt -f nrst0a rewind inbox1> mt -f nrst0a status Tape drive: Digital DLT7000 Status: ready, write enabled Format: 85937 bpi 70 GB (w/comp) fileno = 0 blockno = 0 resid = 0 inbox1> mt -f nrst0a rewind inbox1> restore tvf nrst0a b 1 s 33 RESTORE: Tape Block size should be 1024, not 64512. RESTORE: Could not initialize media. inbox1> mt -f nrst0a rewind inbox1> restore tvf nrst0a s33 RESTORE: Tape Block size should be 1024, not 64512. RESTORE: Could not initialize media. inbox1> mt -f nrst0a status Tape drive: Digital DLT7000 Status: ready, write enabled Format: 85937 bpi 70 GB (w/comp) fileno = 0 blockno = 1 resid = 31744 inbox1> Any ideas or suggestions? Dave Toal Thomson & Thomson

2 1

Shelf2 SCSI Drives
by John Tatar 22 Jul '99

22 Jul '99

Does anyone know where I can get shelf2 SCSI drives? I didn't realize when Netapp announced that they were discontinuing some products that they were discontinuing their entire line of SCSI products. Now I can't add disks to the shelf2 that I bought partially filled with disks last year. TIA JT -- =================================================================== John J. Tatar Systems & Network Engineering Section Advanced Computer Applications Group Decision & Information Sciences Division Argonne National Laboratory mailto:tatar@dis.anl.gov or john(a)tatar.com Office: 630-252-3242 Fax: 630-252-5128 Pager: 630-266-1063 ===================================================================

1 0

Budtool
by Jay Orr 22 Jul '99

22 Jul '99

A little off subject, has anyone that uses budtool gotten the 4.6.1 upgrade yet? I tried to use the documentation CD and found it had all windows filenames (i.e. blah~1.htm instead of blahblah.htm) and I couldn't use their web based docs and all their subdirectories and files were messed up the same way so it's a pain to even find the .pdf or .ps files I need. I called them up and they told me I MUST be doing something wrong, and they'll send me another CD. Well, the CD is the same, it's just they presume everyone has access to a PC (I don't), which I thought was quite rude. Anyone else run into this? Is there a way to translate the windows long/short filenames into regular long filenames for unix (we're running Solaris 2.5.1)? Ovbiously they don't believe in ISO9660 CD formats... Nice to see our money is going to such a caring comany.... ----------- Fujitsu - Nexion, St. Louis, MO Jay Orr (314) 579-6517

2 1

RE: Non-NDMP backup solutions?
by Melvin, Grant 22 Jul '99

22 Jul '99

Hi Shaun, Sorry to see that you've "switched away from NDMP", since this is the strategic direction for backups at Network Appliance. I understand your pain though and there's no doubting that we did have issues in our implementation of the NDMP server within the filer. About 8 or 9 months ago we made a concerted effort to resolve these issues and work harder at syncing up with 3rd party backup management software vendors so that their certification efforts would produce solid product solutions as close to our FCS dates as possible. I believe this effort has paid off and that we have fixed our issues in 5.2.*. For 5.3 we ported the NDMP server to run in the Java Virtual Machine & support V3. Results so far have shown some bugs, reported on toasters, but these have been fixed and we have a very stable product. Regarding certification Legato, Veritas & CommVault are all currently testing our 5.2.3 & 5.3.2 maintenance releases, so we seemed to have closed this loop too. > Lastly, we find that backing up a filer to it's local tape drive to be > substantially slower than backing it up across the net to our SGI Origin > 2000 media server. Not only is it faster, it puts less of a load on the > filer as well. If backing up "over the wire" is faster for you then go for it, especially if it puts less load on the filer. I'd be interested in sysstat output for both solutions. We currently recommend that customers use the DLT 7000 where possible since its much faster than the DLT 4000, so a lot of our data is based on writing to the DLT 7000. > I had a DLT4000 drive attached to my filers (an F540 & an F330) and was > backing them up via NDMP with BudTool. When I replaced the F540 with an > F740, I couldn't move the tape over, as F740 had a different SCSI setup, > so we bagan backing it up across a dedicated 100Mb FD link to our SGI > Origin 2000. We found it to be substantially faster than what the F540 > could do to tape, and it got rid of the NDMP hassles. Mind you, we are > not backing it up over NFS, but using BudTool's dump.NetApp class with > NDMP turned off on the filer, so we're still using the filer's dump and > restore, which means we don't lose any ACLs. If BudTool is using the dump.NetApp class then you *are* still using NDMP, but instead of directing the backup stream to local tape, its going out a socket to your SGI Origin system. Writing to the network can yield a better throughput than writing to a DLT 4000, so perhaps the SGI Origin is able to stream to a DLT 4000 faster. > Yesterday, after upgrading it to 5.2.2P1, I tried backing my F330 up > across the network in the same manner as my F740, and found it to be > incredibly faster. It takes BudTool, via NDMP, to a local drive, 16+ > hours to back up a 12GB directory, but I can back it up, using the same > dump and restore, over the net to my SGI, in 1 hour and 43 minutes. The > SGI is writing the data to yet another DLT4000, so it would appear that > the filers are the bottleneck - that they write to tape horribly slow. > So, I don't think I want to do that any more - not when flinging it > across my net gives me such a huge speed up. This is good info & I agree with your analysis that somehow the data path to a DLT 4000 on a SGI Origin seems to be faster than a locally attached DLT 4000. Cheers, Grant =========== grant(a)netapp.com ========== Grant Melvin === === Mgr, FS Recovery Group === === Network Appliance === |\ | __ ___ /\ __ __ === 495 East Java Drive === | \ | |__ | /__\ |__| |__| === Sunnyvale === | \| |__ | / \ | | (R) === California === === 94089 === === Tel:(408)822-6761 =========== Network Appliance ========== Fax:(408)822-4457/4525/4559 -----Original Message----- From: Shaun T. Erickson [mailto:ste@research.bell-labs.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 1999 5:49 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Non-NDMP backup solutions? I keep hearing about backup alternatives that use NDMP. What solutions are there if you *don't* want to use NDMP? We have several reasons for not wanting to use it. We have had nothing but grief because we relied on using NDMP. First, NetApp's implementation had a memory leak that caused backup's to fail after the filer had been up for a month and, if not caught quickly & the filer rebooted, would cause NFS to get flaky, in that it would respond to some requests and ignore others, getting progressively worse until the filer would crash. As a result, we had to reboot the filer on a monthly basis. This lasted for over a year, during which time we were repeatedly told to upgrade to the latest version of Ontap, because it was always supposedly fixed in that release. Because of the frequent upgrades, (which continue to happen, but for other reasons) we frequently ran into problems because of incompatibilities between NetApp's implementation of NDMP and BudTool's. Then, when we'd try to get support, we were always told that the version of Ontap we were running wasn't certified with BudTool, so it was always a major pain to get support. To be fair, BudTool broke NDMP on occasion, as well, with their upgrades. The end result was the same, however. Lastly, we find that backing up a filer to it's local tape drive to be substantially slower than backing it up across the net to our SGI Origin 2000 media server. Not only is it faster, it puts less of a load on the filer as well. So, having switched away from NDMP, for the above reasons, I have no burning desire to switch back, and am looking for backup solutions that do not require it. Although not the scope of this list, I need to back up Sun Solaris, IRIX & NT systems, as well. What is there available? -ste -- Work: (908) 582-7629 Pager: (800) 756-1133 Cell: (908) 672-6456

3 2

Clustered Takeover Time
by Jeffrey Skelton 22 Jul '99

22 Jul '99

If I have a clustered pair of 760s, how long does it take for one to take over in the event of a failure of the other? Thanks. --jeff

2 2

RE: Netgroups
by Mohler, Jeff 22 Jul '99

22 Jul '99

I didnt vi edit the file, just forgot the - in the message.. BUT..I found why it did not load. A host in the group was not resolving right, and Ive let the group know who is responsible for it..know. -----Original Message----- From: Gordon Keegan [mailto:lgk011@dma.isg.mot.com] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 1999 9:11 AM To: Mohler, Jeff Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Netgroups > Ive defined some large netgroups to save me some brain twisting in my > /etc/exports file on my 760. > > /vol/volx access=Netgroup > That's basically the syntax that works for us. You may need to do something like: /vol/volx -access=Netgroup (leading "-" in front of list of export options) -- Gordon Keegan, M10-10 Phone: (508) 261-4696 Motorola ING Fax: (508) 261-5757 20 Cabot Boulevard Mansfield, MA 02048 email: lgk011(a)dma.isg.mot.com

1 0

Netgroups
by Mohler, Jeff 22 Jul '99

22 Jul '99

Ive defined some large netgroups to save me some brain twisting in my /etc/exports file on my 760. /vol/volx access=Netgroup Should export to that volume all hosts in group Netgroup...yes? Its not likin what im typin.

2 1

RE: Non-NDMP backup solutions?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 22 Jul '99

22 Jul '99

On 07/20/99 15:48:35 you wrote: > Sorry to see that you've "switched away from NDMP", > since this is the strategic direction for backups > at Network Appliance. Network Appliance better figure out real quick that NDMP should remain solely *a* strategic direction for backups, not *the* strategic direction. Support for it is still in the early stages and a new standard could come along tomorrow that everyone will want to start using. Too much focus on NDMP will alienate customers and prevent important resources from being allocated to the support and software for other backup strategies, as has happened in the past. I don't mean to jump on your personally if you simply misspoke, Grant, but I think the point had to be made. Bruce

1 0

RE: Non-NDMP backup solutions?
by Benn, Paul 22 Jul '99

22 Jul '99

> Anyone know if the two DLT4000's in a Breece Hill Q7 can be replaced > with two DLT7000's? That would speed things up even further for me. I > suppose I'll have to give Breece Hill a call ... In a past life, I was able to upgrade two of our Q2-15's to DLT-7000. The drives came complete with drive trays making for a painless upgrade. Your reseller should be able to get the drives for you. You may have to get the part numbers form Breece Hill, though. Good Luck Paul Benn Network Appliance

1 0

RE: Clustered Takeover Time
by Watanabe, Steven 21 Jul '99

21 Jul '99

The amount of time can be broken down into two components. First is the failure detection time, currently 60 seconds, which is the amount of time before one node declares the other one down. Secondly is the resource takeover time, the amount of time that it takes to bring the partner's resources online. These include disks, networking, replaying the logs, starting the services for the partner (e.g. cifs). This amount of time is variable based on the load of the node doing the takeover and the configurations/resources of the down node. We are working actively to decrease both of these times in a future release. Steve Watanabe NetApp Cluster Group > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffrey Skelton [mailto:jss@NET2PHONE.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 1:07 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Clustered Takeover Time > > > > If I have a clustered pair of 760s, how long does > it take for one to take over in the event of a > failure of the other? > > Thanks. > --jeff >

1 0

RE: Netapp hang and Security on NT2000b3
by Mohler, Jeff 21 Jul '99

21 Jul '99

Youre right David. I suppose that my experience with another software vendor that's wasted a year attempting development for a freeware *NIX..at the expense of fixing the current release software bled over. Ive NOT seen anything like that with NA or NC appliances -----Original Message----- From: Dave Hitz [mailto:hitz@netapp.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 10:27 AM To: Michael Salmon Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Netapp hang and Security on NT2000b3 > > > While/after playing around (setting) with the security features on the > > > just defined files and directories the netapp server will hang. > > > Only reboot of the sever will revive it. ... > > I would not expect NetApp to spend more than a _few_ man hours on this > > problem, while they continue to hammer out solid released for solid software > > platforms. > > > > While I agree it should not hang, theres no way to tell what NT2000 feature > > is not working properly. ... > I think that you missed the point Jeff, the W2K machine can halt and > catch fire for all I care but the filer should at worst have degraded > performance, regardless of the provocation. That's why we pay more for > filers than for an Alpha PC. There is an old saying in networking: Be conservative in what you send. Be liberal in what you receive. It is absolutely unacceptable for a filer to hang simply because someone sends it garbage data. It's true that W2K is till in Beta (alpha?), but we believe that we have done everything necessary to support W2K (if you are running a recent enough release), and we are very interested in hearing about problems that people have. Dave

1 0

None
by Kinney, Roger 21 Jul '99

21 Jul '99

unsubscribe toasters

1 0

F520 configure & upgrade questions
by Gordon Keegan 21 Jul '99

21 Jul '99

We've got a 520 with 2 shelves of 9GB drives that we'd like to add more drives to. I need to find out things like "do I have to add more shelves in pairs?" and "can 18GB drives and 9GB drives coexist in harmony" and some other related questions. Can someone point me to where on the NOW site I can find this out? Thanks in advance! -- Gordon Keegan, M10-10 Phone: (508) 261-4696 Motorola ING Fax: (508) 261-5757 20 Cabot Boulevard Mansfield, MA 02048 email: lgk011(a)dma.isg.mot.com

2 1

Jumbo Frames
by Richard L. Rhodes 21 Jul '99

21 Jul '99

<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>Hi Y'all, I just received my NetApp systems and started playing with them. So far so good. I did have one disappointment, the gigabit ethernet driver doesn't support jumbo frames. I had assumed from some of my reading in a NetApp press release that it did (my fault, I didn't ask and should have). I'm wondering if anyone might know if/when jumbo frame support might be comming. Thanks Rick <FontFamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>I<FontFamily><param>Courier New</param><smaller><smaller> <nofill> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 f: 330-384-2514

1 0

Re: Netapp hang and Security on NT2000b3
by Michael Salmon 21 Jul '99

21 Jul '99

+----- On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:20:21 CDT, "Mohler, Jeff" writes: | One of our customers is doing some evaluations of netapp. | While evaluating the new server he was using Windows(NT)2000. | He has defined some directories and files on the server from the NT. | While/after playing around (setting) with the security features on the | just defined files and directories the netapp server will hang. | Only reboot of the sever will revive it. | The customer claims he can recreate the problem at will. | Has anyone encountered such problems. | Do any of you have any words of wisdom? | The customer dos not like to accept the fact that win2000 is not yet | formally supported. he claims that win2000 talks CIFS, and even if MS is | doing wrong things at most the filer should complain but for sure not | hang... | --- | | Geesh..talk about a loose-loose situation. | | I would not expect NetApp to spend more than a _few_ man hours on this | problem, while they continue to hammer out solid released for solid software | platforms. | | While I agree it should not hang, theres no way to tell what NT2000 feature | is not working properly. | I think that you missed the point Jeff, the W2K machine can halt and catch fire for all I care but the filer should at worst have degraded performance, regardless of the provocation. That's why we pay more for filers than for an Alpha PC. /Michael

3 2

Netapp hang and Security on NT2000b3
by Itzik (Itzhak) Meirson DSc 20 Jul '99

20 Jul '99

One of our customers is doing some evaluations of netapp. While evaluating the new server he was using Windows(NT)2000. He has defined some directories and files on the server from the NT. While/after playing around (setting) with the security features on the just defined files and directories the netapp server will hang. Only reboot of the sever will revive it. The customer claims he can recreate the problem at will. Has anyone encountered such problems. Do any of you have any words of wisdom? The customer dos not like to accept the fact that win2000 is not yet formally supported. he claims that win2000 talks CIFS, and even if MS is doing wrong things at most the filer should complain but for sure not hang... Thanks Itzik

1 1

Upgrading F330 from 3.14 to 5.2.2P1
by Mike Ball 20 Jul '99

20 Jul '99

I am going to be upgrading a F330 filer from Data Ontap version 3.14 to 5.2.2P1. I know the firmware needs to be upgraded to version 1.9_i, memory to 128mg, and the NVRAM to 2mg. From talking to Network Appliance technical support, they stated it should not be a problem as long as the system is booted from the 5.2.2P1 boot disks and "booted without rc". Once I am booted up with 5.2.2P1 and exported the proper permissions to mount the filer as root, I will then be able to untar the 5.2.2P1 image over to the F330 and run download. What I am trying to find out is if anyone else has done a big a jump from a 3.x version of Ontap to a 5.x version of Ontap and if there where any problems you encountered. Thank you, Mike Ball

1 0

RE: Backup alternatives (again)
by Yu, David 20 Jul '99

20 Jul '99

Lewis: Please see below. David > -----Original Message----- > From: Sherbak, Tim > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 8:10 AM > To: Yu, David > Subject: FW: Backup alternatives (again) > > > Hi David, > I don't know as you monitor this dl- so thought I would pass it along. > Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lewis [mailto:lsa@netline.net.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 7:40 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Backup alternatives (again) > > > Hi everyone, > > This is a first time posting from someone new to NatApps, so > please bare with > me. I hve been subscribed to the list for a while and read > the archive to get > up to speed on passed discussions. > > I would appreciate it if list members could make suggestions > about what > alternative backup solutions are available and what kind of > (un)recommendations this group puts on these alternatives. > > This is a follow on from from previous discussions regarding > the use of > Budtool. I have taken over responsability for the backups as > Shiona Mceill > (former list contributer is on maternity leave). > > Due to our lack of success with the implementation of Budtool > and their recent > demise from the UK market, we have decided not to pursue this > solution. > > We have looked at Netbackup from Veritas. Any comments? Veritas introduced NDMP support for NetApp last year with 3.1.1 of NetBackup. NetBackup 3.2 is out now and adds support for NT, HP-UX, and AIX in addition to the Solaris support introduced with 3.1.1. Backups are to tape drives attached to the NetApp filer, and with 3.2, support for backup from Filer 1 to Filer 2's tape drive was implemented. Certification is done by Veritas, so support for some functionality may be staged. > > We are currently looking at Quick Restore from Workstation > Solutions. Any > comments? Workstation Solutions has been a very aggressive vendor and delivered a backup solution for NetApp very quickly. Backup to local tape drives, filer to filer backup (described above), and backup of Unix and NT server data to a filer's tape drive are all supported. Support is for DataONTAP 5.2 currently. A lot of different operating systems platforms are supported. For more details, please see: http://www.worksta.com/ > > As for platforms and configuration: We have 3+ F720 on 2 sites (ONTAP > 5.1.2R3). 3 suns running SunOS 5.7, ATL L500 Library (DTL > 7000 drive) and > potentially in the future a large number of linux boxes. > > NDMP has up until now been the preferred option as it seems > to be the way > forward with the NetApps. However, all that I have seen so > far indicates that > NDMP support in existing backup tools is a bit of a bolt > inclusion that does > not sit well with existing products or product architecture. Most of the NDMP solutions for NetApp utilize the dump/restore functionality in DataONTAP and the SCSI passthrough facility in NDMP for robotics control. While it's true that this fits in better with certain backup software architectures than others, remember that NDMP itself will still evolve. Over time, the standard will change and be extended to provide more flexibility and better support for various architectures. > > In order to configure the multiplatform network, dubious (built in) > workarounds have to be made to get the system to work. These > vary from > additional links being wired into the library (locally > attached to a NetApp), > so that the unix data can be backed-up, to dummy library > configuration for not > local (library) attachments to NetApps. > > All in all, any comments? Hopefully you will be able to tell > me that I don't > have a clue what I am on about and that it is all > straightforward. Somehow I > doubt this to be entirely the case, seeing the hoops we jumps > through with > budtool. > > here's hoping, > Lewis > > > > >

5 5

RE: Non-NDMP backup solutions?
by Benn, Paul 20 Jul '99

20 Jul '99

> So, having switched away from NDMP, for the above reasons, I have no > burning desire to switch back, and am looking for backup solutions that > do not require it. Although not the scope of this list, I need to back > up Sun Solaris, IRIX & NT systems, as well. > > What is there available? If you want to back up a CIFS enabled filer and maintain UNIX- as well as NT-style file permissions, you'll need to use an NT backup solution. A UNIX backup solution will not retain the NT-style file permissions. If you use Legato NetWorker (supports the above mentioned OS's) with a UNIX based NetWorker server, you'll need to "front end" the filer with an NT server loaded with the NetWorker client (detailed in the below mentioned document). It's rumored that UNC paths can be used with NetWorker v5.5 (instead of mapped drive letters as documented in the below mentioned white paper). This white paper might be somewhat helpful: http://www.netapp.com/technology/level3/3052.html Regards, Paul Benn Network Appliance

1 0

Scaling
by chris＠cecil.muscat.com 20 Jul '99

20 Jul '99

I've been doing some benchmarking on our filer (f540, dot4.3r4 256+8, 26 4g discs) and I'm trying to work out how things will scale on more recent filers. For our workload the filer pegs out doing around 1k nfs ops. This is slightly under half the sfs1 results. Is it fair to assume that given that data point that we can just scale the current models sfs2 results down by 1.25 to get the right sort of numbers? I know that sfs1/2 results are different but they do seem to be in the same ballpark. Workload is lots of small random reads which to me says number of spindles is going to be the critical factor which probably won't scale. Chris -- Chris Good - Muscat Ltd. The Westbrook Centre, Milton Rd, Cambridge UK Phone: 01223 715006 Mobile: 07801 788997 http://www.muscat.com

1 0

RE: Backup alternatives (again)
by Mohler, Jeff 19 Jul '99

19 Jul '99

1 0

FW: Backup alternatives (again)
by Yu, David 19 Jul '99

19 Jul '99

Jeff: We are aware that this is a widespread customer need. We have had some preliminary contact with ADSM, but discussions are still in the exploratory stage. Customers are the most effective catalyst in accelerating a joint solution. Please let your ADSM sales reps know of your need. This will reinforce the message that NetApp and ADSM have heard from the field. David -----Original Message----- From: Mohler, Jeff [mailto:jeff.mohler@wilcom.com] Sent: Monday, July 19, 1999 5:39 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Backup alternatives (again) Ok..it's been a number of months..so it's time to ask my favorite question. ADSM support. Ive lost a truckload of potential Filer placements in our company (other than the four heads I have in clusters now) due to this missing backup ability, and Id like to know if theres an update on this.

1 0

RE: Netapp hang and Security on NT2000b3
by Mohler, Jeff 19 Jul '99

19 Jul '99

1 0

RE: Netapp hang and Security on NT2000b3
by Muhlestein, Mark 19 Jul '99

19 Jul '99

We have fixed a number of issues with Windows 2000 clients. Microsoft completely rewrote the client network redirector for Windows 2000, and it is quite different over the wire. Make sure the customer is running at least Windows 2000 beta 3 as a client, and you should make sure they are using the correct ONTAP version. Contact Netapp customer support to get information on what to use. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Itzik (Itzhak) Meirson DSc [mailto:imeirson@xpert.com] Sent: Monday, July 19, 1999 10:43 AM To: $netapp Subject: Netapp hang and Security on NT2000b3 One of our customers is doing some evaluations of netapp. While evaluating the new server he was using Windows(NT)2000. He has defined some directories and files on the server from the NT. While/after playing around (setting) with the security features on the just defined files and directories the netapp server will hang. Only reboot of the sever will revive it. The customer claims he can recreate the problem at will. Has anyone encountered such problems. Do any of you have any words of wisdom? The customer dos not like to accept the fact that win2000 is not yet formally supported. he claims that win2000 talks CIFS, and even if MS is doing wrong things at most the filer should complain but for sure not hang... Thanks Itzik

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters