toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

Re: Anybody running alternative NAS boxes alongside netapps?
by Jason D. Kelleher 25 May '99

25 May '99

In message <Pine.BSF.4.10.9905241404040.332-100000(a)schizo.cdsnet.net>, Jaye Mathisen writes: > >I just got done catching my breath, and wiping the tears out of my eyes >reviewing the latest storage quote from Netapp for my 540. > >Is anybody using some of the other boxes available as adjuncts to the >netapp? I'm going to keep my netapps for some very specific users, but I >believe I can move significant amounts of data (log files, etc). off to >other products, and avoid paying absolutely ridiculous prices... > >My needs are mainly NFS, with just a hint of CIFS (that I can live w/o), >thrown in. > >Thanks in advance. I stopped by the Netforce booth at SANS. Not bad. They had a workgroup server for ~$5000 with a capacity of 80GB as well as higher end systems. I don't know if I'd trust them for critical data, but they're probably worth a look. jason

1 0

subscribe_toasters
by John McLaughlin 25 May '99

25 May '99

John McLaughlin Open System Solutions Senior Sales Representative Phone: 508-359-4248 Email: jmac(a)opensystems.com "Dedicated to Secure Data Access"

1 0

Anybody running alternative NAS boxes alongside netapps?
by Jaye Mathisen 24 May '99

24 May '99

I just got done catching my breath, and wiping the tears out of my eyes reviewing the latest storage quote from Netapp for my 540. Is anybody using some of the other boxes available as adjuncts to the netapp? I'm going to keep my netapps for some very specific users, but I believe I can move significant amounts of data (log files, etc). off to other products, and avoid paying absolutely ridiculous prices... My needs are mainly NFS, with just a hint of CIFS (that I can live w/o), thrown in. Thanks in advance.

1 0

Re: NetBackup + F760s -- any solutions?
by Benjy Feen 24 May '99

24 May '99

Turned out to be simpler than I thought. Our Fast Ethernet card was pegged at half duplex instead of full. Using full duplex allowed the data to stream, and our backup completed in one hour instead of 7. Maybe I should post a summary of things I've said to myself here :) On Mon, 24 May 1999, Bennett Todd wrote: > 1999-05-24-14:17:29 Benjy Feen: > > [...] At this point it needs to write an index which ends up being about > > 76MB. Now the fun begins. The index data isn't streaming at ALL. It writes > > a couple dozen blocks and then pauses, and as we progress into the tape the > > pauses get longer and longer. I'm guessing that the tape is continuously > > rewinding and seeking to the write point, writing a couple of blocks, and > > then starting over again. The index takes about 4 hours to write this way. > I'm not a netbackup expert, in fact I know very little about it, but if I > found a situation like that I'd be looking for a way to write that index file > to disk. Or to send it through a pipe, with something like team[1] to > aggressively buffer the tape output. > > -Bennett > > [1] <URL:ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/pub/FreeBSD/distfiles/team-3.1.tar.gz> > -=- Benjy Feen benjy(a)feen.com http://www.feen.com Specialization is for insects. =-=

1 0

NetBackup + F760s -- any solutions?
by Benjy Feen 24 May '99

24 May '99

Hi -- Just joined the list, and not a moment too soon... I've been tasked with providing a backup solution for a couple of F760s, with an ultimate eye on providing a good solution for a slew of F330s and such. Here's what I've got to work with: a Sun E450 a Sun StorEdge L1000 library with 4 Quantum DLT7000s (Same as ATL P1000) 2 F760s running 5.2.1P2 ; approx 190 GB of disk each NetBackup 3.1.1 We run both CIFS and NFS, and this data is considered extremely critical. Can anyone recommend a cookbook solution for getting successful backups with this set of equipment? I've searched the mailing list archive, but haven't found a "how-to". NDMP seems to be the only way, and I noticed some animosity toward NetBackup's NDMP skills... Thanks! Benjy Feen

1 1

Homeworkers Needed !
by bretu213＠mindspring.com 22 May '99

22 May '99

Dear Future Associate, You Can Work At Home & Set Your Own Hours. Start earning Big Money in a short time NO Newspaper Advertising! Your job will be to stuff and mail envelopes for our company. You will receive $.25 for each and every envelope you stuff and mail out. Just follow our simple instructions and you will be making money as easy as 1 2 3 For example stuff and mail 200 envelopes and you will receive $50.00. Stuff and mail 1000 and you will receive $250.00. Stuff and mail 2000 and you will receive $500.00 and more Never before has there been an easier way to make money from home! Our Company's Home Mailing Program is designed for people with little or no experience and provides simple, step by step instructions. There is no prior experience or special skills necessary on your part, Just stuffing envelopes. We need the help of honest and reliable home workers like you. Because we are overloaded with work and have more than our staff can handle. We have now expanded our mailing program and are expecting to reach millions more with our offers throughout the US and Canada. Our system of stuffing and mailing envelopes is very simple and easy to do! You will not be required to buy envelopes or postage stamps. We will gladly furnish all circulars at no cost to you. We assure you that as a participant in our program you will never have to mail anything objective or offensive. There are no quotas to meet, and there no contracts to sign. You can work as much, or as little as you want. Payment for each envelope you send out is Guaranteed! Here is what you will receive when you get your first Package. Inside you will find 100 envelopes, 100 labels and 100 sales letters ready to stuff and mail As soon as you are done with stuffing and mailing these first letters, your payment will arrive shortly, thereafter. All you have to do is to order more free supplies and stuff and mail more envelopes to make more money. Our sales literature which you will be stuffing and mailing will contain information outlining our highly informative manuals that we are advertising nationwide. As a free gift you will receive a special manual valued at $24.95, absolutely free, just for joining our Home Mailers Program. Plus you will get your own special code number, so that we will know how much you are to get paid. And to make re-ordering of more envelopes, that our company supplies very simple for you. We are giving you this free bonus because we want you to be confident in our company and to ensure that we will be doing business with you for a long time. Benefits Of This Job: 1. You do not have to quit your present job, to earn more money at home 2. You can make between $2,500 to $4,500 a month depending on the amount of time you are willing to spend stuffing and mailing envelopes 3. This is a great opportunity for the students, mothers, disabled persons or those who are home bodies. To secure your position and to show us that you are serious about earning extra income at home we require a one-time registration fee of $35.00. This fee covers the cost of your initial start up package, which includes 100 envelopes, 100 labels and 100 sales letters and a manual, your registration fee will be refunded back to you shortly thereafter. Money Back Guarantee! We guarantee that as soon as you stuff and mail your first 300 envelopes You will be paid $75.00 and your registration fee will be refunded. Many of you wonder why it is necessary to pay a deposit to get a job. It is because we are looking for people that seriously want to work from home. * If 3.000 people told us they wanted to start working from home and we sent out 3.000 packages free to every one. And then half of the people decided not to work, this would be a potential loss of more than $60,000 in supply's and shipping that we have sent out to people that don't want to work We have instituted this policy to make sure that you really want to work and at least finish your first package. To Get Started Today Please Enclose Your Registration Fee of $35 Check,Cash Or Money Order and fill out the application below and mail to: AHWA CO 425 S Fairfax Blvd., STE 306 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Name_____________________________________________________ Address___________________________________________________ City____________________________________ State______________ Zip Code________________ Telephone Number(s)_________________________________________ E-mail Address______________________________________________ For all orders, please allow seven (7) days for delivery and up to 10 days. Cash and Money Orders will result in faster shipping of your package.

1 0

None
by Claes Bergland 21 May '99

21 May '99

1 0

Please disregard my last message
by Brian Meek 21 May '99

21 May '99

I have to many aliases in my address book that start with Net...

1 0

Re: ndmpcopy
by Jason D. Kelleher 21 May '99

21 May '99

Hmmm... Looks like part of your message got garbled. I'll have to put on my Postmaster hat later and look into that... >ac220 is the 220, nac330 is the 330 and nac330-bak is the private 100mb >network connection between the two. > >Here is my command: > >ndmpcopy nac220:/vol/vol0/testdir nac330:/vol/vol0/testdir -sa root:pass >-da root:pass -d nac330-bak I'd guess that the NetApp's aren't routing over the private connection. Try specifying the interfaces in the ndmpcopy command, like this: ndmpcopy nac220-bak:/vol/vol0/testdir nac330-bak:/vol/vol0/testdir -sa root:pass -da root:pass I'm not sure what the -d you're using is for, but I've used ndmpcopy to move ~6GB/hr over a 100mb-full connection from an F330 to an F740. >One other piece of info--the 220 is used to store Netnews data. When >I am testing I have not turned news off, so the data is continually >changing. When I do the actual transfer news will be turned off. But No it's not. The ndmpcopy is doing a dump on the source filer, so the data is comming out of a snapshot. >I can't turn it off for my testing. > >1. Is my ndmpcopy command correct? > Looks good to me, just explicitly state the interfaces you wish to use. >2. Is it abysmally slow because the news is still up? Don't know. How loaded is the filer? jason

2 1

dump to tape collisions?
by Joanna Gaski 20 May '99

20 May '99

During some testing I found that when a dump is already in progress to our filer's local tape library (one drive), another dump can be run. (Okay, so I as at home and thought that the previous dump would have finished.) Both dumps were apparently running, thinking that they were successfully writing to the same tape. An mt status command run during this period showed that the drive was ready, but checking the status several times showed that writing was occurring (block numbers were changing). Also, the fileno number increased several more times than it should have. The behaviour I would expect is that is a dump is already running, another attempt to dump to the tape would result in a device busy message. Did I witness one dump clobbering another? The filer is an F740, the library is a Qualstar 6110, and Data OnTap is version 5.2.1. Thanks for any insight.

2 1

Script to see which machines have open sockets to Fantomas
by Brian Meek 20 May '99

20 May '99

It also prints how many sockets each machine has open. This is handy to find out which frontlines are running new or old DispatchWeb code. netstat |grep 54321|awk '{print $5}'|awk -F. '{print $1}'|sort|uniq -c

1 0

native file locking
by Jason Middlebrooks 20 May '99

20 May '99

Is there a way to turn on Native File Locking on the netapp filers or is all the locking simply rely on the how the clients lock the files? Thanks, Jason

2 1

ndmpcopy slower than tar, huh?
by Lisa Malgeri 19 May '99

19 May '99

Hello, I am moving 20 GB of data from a 220 to a 330. A support engineer at Network Appliance suggested using ndmpcopy. I acquired this software and compiled it on a Solaris 2.5.1 machine and am now testing. I have a 190 MB directory that I copied from the 220 to the 330 in 9 minutes using GNU tar over the public 10mbs network. I then tried to copy the same data using ndmpcopy. It took 1 hour 6 minutes! I set up a direct ethernet connection between the two filers running at 100mbs full duplex. From a Solaris 2.6 workstation on the public network I kicked off the ndmpcopy. nac220 is the 220, nac330 is the 330 and nac330-bak is the private 100mb network connection between the two. Here is my command: ndmpcopy nac220:/vol/vol0/testdir nac330:/vol/vol0/testdir -sa root:pass -da root:pass -d nac330-bak One other piece of info--the 220 is used to store Netnews data. When I am testing I have not turned news off, so the data is continually changing. When I do the actual transfer news will be turned off. But I can't turn it off for my testing. 1. Is my ndmpcopy command correct? 2. Is it abysmally slow because the news is still up? Thanks for any help. Lisa Malgeri

1 0

None
by Kinney, Roger 19 May '99

19 May '99

unsubscribe toasters roger.kinney(a)netapp.com

1 0

None
by dtm＠blue.hex.net 19 May '99

19 May '99

unsubscribe toasters dtm(a)hex.net

1 0

Re: Network Appliance makes the news...
by Andrew Hobson 18 May '99

18 May '99

On Mon, 17 May 1999 20:48:23 -0400, Jay Soffian <jay(a)cimedia.com> said: > Maybe we're just not a big enough NetApp customer. We have an F540, > and F630 and an F740. None of them have ever given us the least bit > of trouble. We do have a goodly number of Netapps, but I suspect we have a different mix of NFS ops. Maybe our bugs are in a different part of the code. :-) Of course, I'm more Netapps means more hardware, and more opportunity for foulups, but we've received cards that were bent so badly we couldn't put them in. The box didn't appear damaged at all. Drew

2 1

Re: Network Appliance makes the news...
by Jim McCoy 18 May '99

18 May '99

sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com writes: >As to what happened, the most *likely* scenario for any signficant >downtime of the Netapp is double disk failure. That is, one disk >failed, and during reconstruction they lost another. I beg to differ. YahooMail has had significant problems with all sorts of unpleasant little bugs which has led to downtime for the system and in two cases actual data loss. Since the beginning of this year we have apparently run into every possible failure mode of these systems, except for a dual disk failure, and I can assure you that there are all sorts of reasons that an event like this could occur. Reading the tea leaves on this one I would guess that they also run into bug 1549 and were forced to run a wack on a filer (props to John E. for the fast wack, if it were not for that single improvement I can assure everyone at NetApp reading this that Yahoo would be using EMC boxes right now...) >If they were running a cluster, most likely there would have been >no interruption in service. You get what you pay for. I'm sure >their Apache (or whatever) web servers have crashed more than their >filers have. How I wish we would get what we paid for... We run a hacked version of Apache and have probably had a total of 30 minutes of system downtime due to this Apache problems this year (mostly due to a memory leak I think that we introduced into our version.) Contrast that with a total of 36 hours of system downtime since January due to filer failures. If NetApp expects us to pay twice as much per MB of storage and run a cluster then they are going to start getting into the realm where an EMC box begins to look like a better deal, and when it comes to system reliability NetApp still has a long way to go to reach the sort of reputation that EMC has in the industry. NetApp had a very serious problem with quality control on hardware and QA within the engineering department was so useless as to be non-existent. We have been given assurances that this specific problem as been recognized and is being addressed. Only time will tell. >There doesn't seem to be much of a story here. But there is a story here, and one which needs to be addressed. NetApp charges a large premium over the raw costs of the disks and hardware to hook them together compared to what I could rig up with a PC and a few raid controllers, as a customer I would like to know that I am getting some value for this addtional cost. When that "value-add" proves to be a mirage I think that I have a justifiable reason to be pissed off. Critical Path was just the first customer to admit that NetApp was the source of the downtime, the prompt attention we have received from NetApp (even when there was nothing they could do) is the only thing which prevented Yahoo from being the first one to attribute responsibility for system downtime to NetApp in a press release. jim mccoy Yahoo! Inc.

5 4

Re: Network Appliance makes the news...
by Tripp Cox 18 May '99

18 May '99

On 17 May 1999 20:54:25 -0400, Andrew Hobson wrote: >Of course, I'm more Netapps means more hardware, and more opportunity >for foulups, but we've received cards that were bent so badly we >couldn't put them in. The box didn't appear damaged at all. I recall several instances of buggy hardware and sloppy hardware QA dating back to early-mid 1997. I'd like to think things have improved since then. We had to replace all of our SCSI controllers in a slew of F540s, we had bad EMUs in a couple of F630s, and a heck of a time with the short-lived EFBs of the F520s. Not to mention a plethora of bad disks (new equipment) and shelf pairs bent beyond any utility. I also recall having to reseat a small microchip within the casing of an EFB. Of course, Jan and I managed to hose Netapp's lab equipment so bad on one trip to San Jose that a stream of curious engineers visiting the sick equipment couldn't recover it before the day was over. Maybe we're not the best test case. :) Of course the point to all of this being that it generated a great deal of service downtime that we never should have had to endure. Tripp

1 0

Re: Network Appliance makes the news...
by Andrew Hobson 18 May '99

18 May '99

On Mon, 17 May 1999 12:50:58 -0700, "Jim McCoy" <mccoy(a)yahoo-inc.com> said: > sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com writes: >> As to what happened, the most *likely* scenario for any signficant >> downtime of the Netapp is double disk failure. That is, one disk >> failed, and during reconstruction they lost another. > I beg to differ. I just about to write this exact same email. We've had the same experiences with filer failers and quality control. We're having the same thoughts about the cost when you want non-stop computing. Netapp is great for the 98% uptime market. They aren't ready to play in the 99.99% uptime market, at least in my view. I used to be a Netapp enthusiast, but no longer. I'd sleep better if our customers' email was moved off of filers. Drew "Speaking from experience, but not speaking as a representative of MindSpring" Hobson -- "He's a love machine, sir." -- Waylon Smithers

2 2

Re: Network Appliance makes the news...
by Jeff Newton 18 May '99

18 May '99

Ok, I'll bite. What is a "wack"? Cheers, > In the immortal words of Jim McCoy (mccoy(a)yahoo-inc.com): > > > Reading the tea leaves on this one I would > > guess that they also run into bug 1549 and were forced to run a wack on a > > filer (props to John E. for the fast wack, if it were not for that single > > improvement I can assure everyone at NetApp reading this that Yahoo would be > > using EMC boxes right now...) > > Out of morbid curiosity, which is bug 1549? I have had to run wack > in recent memory, and it was a...sobering experience. > > -n > > ------------------------------------------------------<memory(a)blank.or g> > I've got more than one membership / to more than one club > and I owe my life / to the people that I love. (--Ani DiFranco) > <http://www.blank.org/memory/>---------------------------------------- -- ---- Jeff Newton Unix Systems Administrator PMC-Sierra Inc.

2 1

32-bit uptime counter?
by Brian Tao 17 May '99

17 May '99

Still running good ol' 4.2a on an F230: Sun Apr 18 21:00:00 EDT [statd]: 9:00pm up 497 days, 1:10 407777519 NFS ops, 0 CIFS ops, 0 HTTP ops Sun Apr 18 22:00:00 EDT [statd]: 10:00pm up 497 days, 2:10 408458997 NFS ops, 0 CIFS ops, 0 HTTP ops Sun Apr 18 23:00:00 EDT [statd]: 11:00pm up 42 mins, 409036765 NFS ops, 0 CIFS ops, 0 HTTP ops Mon Apr 19 00:00:00 EDT [statd]: 12:00am up 1:42 409494263 NFS ops, 0 CIFS ops, 0 HTTP ops This looks like 2^32 ticks elapsed (about 42949673 seconds)... is this one of the counters being increased to 64 bits? -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

2 1

Re: Running CIFS
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 17 May '99

17 May '99

On 05/05/99 15:53:45 you wrote: > >In message <7F608EC0BDE6D111B53A00805FA7F7DA03A83938(a)TAHOE.netapp.com>, "Muh >lestein, Mark" writes: >>A mixed qtree already works exactly as you want it to. In a mixed qtree the >>security of a file is based on the last security-setting operation. If an A >>CL is >>set which denies you access, but you still need to do something with a file, >>then as root you can change the security on any files/dirs in that qtree (using >>chmod, chown, or chgrp), which changes the security-style to UNIX. After that, > > Ok, so far I've read this alot. No maybe I'm missing something > 'cause I get the following errors trying to put it into practice. What errors? These are exactly correct. > Here's a test on a directory w/ NTFS permissions allowing only full > control to the owner: In other words, you've told NTFS that Administrator can't read the directory or change permissions. All Administrator can do is assume ownership. >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [130] # >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [130] # ls -ald test_dir >drwx------ 2 kelleher users 4096 May 5 14:47 test_dir >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [131] # >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [131] # ls -al test_dir >test_dir: Permission denied >total 8 This is correct; root on UNIX will map as Administrator in the NT realm, so it can't read the directory. >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [132] # >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [132] # chown 755 test_dir >chown: test_dir: Not owner Firstly, you should have done chmod, not chown. Secondly, this would be correct... Administrator (root) does not have permission to change the file permissions. >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [133] # >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [133] # chown root test_dir >chown: test_dir: Not owner >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [134] # This should have suceeded, if I understand the model correctly. I'm not sure why it didn't; perhaps it's a bug? > I can however su to the UNIX user, chmod it, and then get access to > the file: > >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [134] # su kelleher >jagular% >jagular% chmod 755 test_dir >jagular% >jagular% exit >jagular% root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [135] # >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [135] # ls -al test_dir >total 72 >drwxr-xr-x 2 kelleher users 4096 May 5 14:47 . >drwxr-xr-x 25 kelleher users 32768 May 5 15:25 .. >-rwx------ 1 kelleher users 0 May 5 14:47 test_file >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [136] # >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [136] # > > Is this what you mean? This all makes sense. >>those files follow regular UNIX rules, which allows root full access. If the >>user wants to put an ACL back on afterwards, no problem. >> >>We have found that using ACLs in a mixed qtree can be helpful in a number of >>situations. That's because ACLs are enforced even for NT Admins and root. For >>example, we found that some files were being accidentally deleted by root/Admin >>users, so we put an ACL on those files which allows only READ access to all >>users. That prevents deleting, even by root or NT Admins. Of course, if we >>actually want to delete the files we just change the permissions to allow that, >>since in a mixed qtree both root and NT Admins have a special dispensation >>tochange the permissions. > > Sounds like the problem is too many people with root/Admin access. > Your solution only requires these people to take an extra step > (give themselves the permissions) before they accidentally mess > something up. If I were you I'd work on getting rid of their > access. (Not that it's an easy thing to do.) In my experience many people are unwilling to take this approach, for reasons I can't quite fathom. They would much rather let incompetent people continue to work for them and spend effort trying to keep them from shooting themselves in the foot rather than spending the time to make them competent and/or getting another employee. Bruce

2 1

ISP_2100: cmd opcode 0x28, retry count 0: command timeout, aborting request error
by Mike Ball 17 May '99

17 May '99

Can anyone shed some light on the error below? It looks like it is just a media error which was recovered from, but I wanted verification. Thank you, Mike Wed May 12 00:13:03 EDT [isp2100_timeout]: 8.45 (cmd opcode 0x28, retry count 0): command timeout, aborting request Wed May 12 00:13:03 EDT [isp2100_timeout]: isp2100_reset_device: device 8.45 (1.45)

1 0

determining patch revision level..
by Kane, Kevin 17 May '99

17 May '99

Can anyone tell me how to determine the patch level of the OS? Does a response of 5.2.1 from the "version" command mean that I have generic 5.2.1 with no P releases? TIA Kevin A. Kane Manager - Engineering Computing Infrastructure Aspect Telecommunications Direct: 978 250-7933 Business Fax: 978 250-7998 Pager: 888 799-4866 Home: 978 388-1875 Mobile: 508 783-2695 Email: Kevin.Kane(a)aspect.com Pager Email: Kevin.Kane.Pager(a)aspect.com

4 3

Re: determining patch revision level..
by Robert Palermo 17 May '99

17 May '99

Yes you are running the generic 5.2.1 as it were. If you had a patch release the console command "version" would report 5.2.1P2 for example. There are other trailing characters such as D8 and such but the system should report the actual patch version if you are running it. > From: "Kane, Kevin" <Kevin.Kane(a)Aspect.com> > To: "'toasters(a)mathworks.com'" <toasters(a)mathworks.com> > Subject: determining patch revision level.. > Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 12:51:18 -0400 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > Can anyone tell me how to determine the patch level of the OS? Does a > response of 5.2.1 from the "version" command mean that I have generic 5.2.1 > with no P releases? > > TIA > > Kevin A. Kane > Manager - Engineering Computing Infrastructure > Aspect Telecommunications > Direct: 978 250-7933 > Business Fax: 978 250-7998 > Pager: 888 799-4866 > Home: 978 388-1875 > Mobile: 508 783-2695 > Email: Kevin.Kane(a)aspect.com > Pager Email: Kevin.Kane.Pager(a)aspect.com > >

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters