toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

Re: A few general bitches and moans. (turning back into what would peoplr like in a very-low-end filer?)
by mds＠gbnet.net 06 May '99

06 May '99

On Wed 5 May, 1999, tkaczma(a)gryf.net wrote: > > The price differences between SCSI and IDE are not that significant > anymore, but I was wondering why someone didn't come up with and IDE Wrongo. SCSI is still way more expensive than EIDE. It's just the EIDE disk are meant for cheap-and-cheerful low-requirements users and SCSI occupies the middle-high disk market. But we're talking about a VLE filer here, so we can make different assumptions, maybe. > appliance. The argument that I would come up with is that you can only > have 2 devices on one bus, much too few for a RAID 5 set. This also Bzzt. Irrelevant, add more busses because EIDE busses are also quite cheap. > applies to your request for a 3 disk appliance. The power of striping > comes from the number of drives. The more drives you add the smaller the > parity overhead. With 3 drives 33.3 ... % is "wasted" on parity. With 14 > drives the "waste" goes down to about 7%. Parity overhead in terms of space maybe, but computation goes up linearly at best and might go up higher (reconstructing blocks from parity when a disk blows). Tradeoff time. > > > (And no, I'm not interested in the philosophical war of IDE vs SCSI. > > Fact: IDE is currently cheaper than SCSI. Fact: I want this box to be > > cheap. Check and mate. :)) I agree. But I'd do things slightly differently. > No mate, and probably not even check. SCSI drives are not THAT much more > expensive anymore. You must remember that you can have only 2 IDE drives Oh yeah they are. Here in the UK I spent 360quid on an UW 9GB Seagate (end user price) where a 10GB UDMA EIDE drive cost 190quid (end user price). > on the bus, among other limitations. The money you save in drives will > probably be made up in the complexity of the controllers and software. > Everything costs money, the drives are only a fraction of the cost. I've seen PCI-EIDE controllers advertised for about the same as SCSI host adapters, but I'd put them together on the motherboard with an integral network interface (10/100Base-TX). Performance on the SCSI is a bit better but not *that* much better. I'd bet that a good board designer could easily put 3 EIDE controllers on a PCI bus, giving you (4 devices per EIDE controller, last time I counted) 12 disk connections. The motherboard could have the EIDE connections, one cheap integral SCSI host adapter for tapes, one network interface and one set of battery-backed memory (just back up all memory - don't have separate NVRAM, we're talking small and compact here). Given a K6-3 or Celeron and DOT this baby would cost quite a bit less in parts costs than the latest and greatest filers, but wouldn't be an embarrassment to NetApp (of that I'd be quite quietly confident). You could make the mboard quite small and make the whole thing into a single rack-mount shelf/deskside tower style thing, with the disks presented at the front and the power-supply, motherboard access, serial-line, floppy drive, network connector and SCSI connector round the back. >-- End of excerpt from tkaczma(a)gryf.net

4 3

TEST ONLY - DELETE THIS!
by Whitman, Michael 06 May '99

06 May '99

Just a one time TEST -----Original Message----- From: tkaczma(a)gryf.net [mailto:tkaczma@gryf.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 8:00 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: A few general bitches and moans. I agree with you on many points, but ... On Tue, 4 May 1999, Jaye Mathisen wrote: > o CIFS support has got some big holes. > > - The inability to belong to multiple domains. > Not all my domains trust each other. Oops, now the filer > is essentially unusable for some of them. Can NT boxes do this? > - Even the ability to have a different network interface belong to a > different domain would be useful. Not a panacea, but at least > useful. Can NT boxes do this as well? > o The general suckiness of NFS now being insufficient to backup the filer > with CIFS. Probably not a solveable problem, but it still sucks. If NFS sucks so much use CIFS only. Apparently they both suck in some ways that are different from another because you ARE using them to complement each other. > Heck, I saw some very scary numbers from consensys for their IDE raid > product, use IDE drives instead of scsi in this bad boy, and cut them > costs down. WD makes 7200 RPM drives now, at 18GB's a pop, and 5 of 'em > fit in a 3 high bay. The price differences between SCSI and IDE are not that significant anymore, but I was wondering why someone didn't come up with and IDE appliance. The argument that I would come up with is that you can only have 2 devices on one bus, much too few for a RAID 5 set. This also applies to your request for a 3 disk appliance. The power of striping comes from the number of drives. The more drives you add the smaller the parity overhead. With 3 drives 33.3 ... % is "wasted" on parity. With 14 drives the "waste" goes down to about 7%. > (And no, I'm not interested in the philosophical war of IDE vs SCSI. > Fact: IDE is currently cheaper than SCSI. Fact: I want this box to be > cheap. Check and mate. :)) No mate, and probably not even check. SCSI drives are not THAT much more expensive anymore. You must remember that you can have only 2 IDE drives on the bus, among other limitations. The money you save in drives will probably be made up in the complexity of the controllers and software. Everything costs money, the drives are only a fraction of the cost. > Nothing like not having the right serial cable wired up, and > having to type all those stupid commands by hand when you make a booboo, > and plus the grief of having to boot off two floppies. Well, instead of Flash cards carry a serial cable and write macros in your terminal program so you don't have to type commands by hand. Try a terminal program like Telemate or Telix. I assume you're a PC user. > o Or add an option to read rc from disk 3 on a DOS formatted floppy. But it reads it from the drive array, so what's the point? > o Fine, you don't want to use something like PCMCIA cards, then since > Netapp only allows its network cards, allow tftp of the rc file from > one of the interfaces. Why? You should have it on your drives. Besides, you can upload it using the console connection. > I guess the CIFS stuff is what's torquing me off right now the most, I > don't want to have to slap a bunch of storage on some NT boxes when I have > this filer sitting there perfectly suited (in theory) to do the job..., > and I refuse to purchase 1 filer per domain. Can your NT boxes be each in two different domains at the same time? Talk to B. G. III for using such a decrepid protocol as lanmanager. Tom

1 0

Re: Hardware for F330
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 05 May '99

05 May '99

> >- Does anybody know of narrow disks that can be purchased today and which > >will work with 4.3.3D2? (I have come to point that I no longer care if the > >disks are Netapp approved - I just want to have a reasonable chance of the > >disks working.) > > Netapp has other narrow approved disks they can sell you. You should buy > those. We seem to have some conflicting information here. The Norwegian vendor claims that there are *no* narrow disks in the Netapp price list any more - ie. no new narrow disks (of any kind) can be obtained from Netapp. The best that the Norwegian vendor can do is to get us refurbished narrow disks. We are only moderately interested in this... Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

1 0

Upgrading F630 from DOT 4.3.4D5 to 5.2.2
by Ozzie Sabina 05 May '99

05 May '99

The problem with our Gigabit NIC which my collegue Jay Soffian has mentioned on the list as of late is continuing to bite us with increasing frequency. Because of this, and the conversation on the list that this has been fixed in the 5.x releases, we want to upgrade that filer ASAP. I know that we need to upgrade our filer firmware to 2.1_a1 (we're currently at 1.8_a1). What I have questions about are the firmware revisions on the disks, SCSI adapters, etc.: 1. I'm most concerned about the disks. This is typical of what is reported about our disks from a sysconfig -v: 0: SEAGATE ST19171W 0023 Size=8.3GB (17783112 blocks) I believe that the "0023" is the firmware revision. I know that in some cases, this has to be upgraded along with the machine's firmware. The documentation of what requirements the different DOT versions have for disk firmware is pretty much non-existant on NOW (or I can't find it). Is this something I'd do after upgrading the DOT version (as http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/docs/ontap/rel512/html/upgrade/fb37.htm seems to hint at ), or something I should do beforehand? 2. The SCSI adapter reports "Firmware Version 2.26". Is this something that would need to be upgraded? Is it even something that can be upgraded? 3. In addition, there are firmware versions reported on what I guess are the shelves themselves: EMU 0: P/N 500408 S/N 2550270236 Firmware Rev 1.19 Is this something we can/need to upgrade as well? 4. Other than that, is there anything else that we should check on beforehand? (We more than meet the memory requirements). Thanks, Oz

1 0

RE: A few general bitches and moans.
by Chen, Ray 05 May '99

05 May '99

Re: SCSI protocol efficiency vs. IDE protocol efficiency: A good point. I'll add another one. One has to think beyond the protocol design and also think about protocol implementation. Even with SCSI drives, not all drives are the same. Some do a better job of implementing the SCSI protocol than others. In a prior life, the workstation I/O folks were qualifying low and mid-cost SCSI drives to ship with the workstations instead of the ~$1000 high-end SCSI drives we were putting in our servers. They found that the lower-cost drives couldn't keep up with the higher-cost drives when you tried things like striping a bunch of the drives together on a bus. When you're pushing SCSI hard, all it takes is something simple like the drive not releasing the bus quickly enough and your performance starts to degrade. (And then there are mechanical issues, too, like how well the enclosures damp vibrations so that the drives don't interfere with each other when seeking.) And I don't even want to talk about data corruption under heavy and demanding workloads. Disk drives are no different from any other commodity product. You get what you pay for. The question is whether or not the extra cost is worth the extra benefit. I use el-cheapo EIDE drives on my PC at home. I'm comfortable with that because I know the I/O workload against the drive is going to pretty minimal so the drive should be just fine. If I wanted to do high-performance I/O and I cared about my data, I'd be using expensive server-class disk drives. I would also eat the extra cost if I could afford it and buy qualified drives directly from my system vendor as opposed to from a 3rd-party (either that or make really certain that my drives were running the same firmware revision as the system vendor's drives. Firmware revisions do matter.). Ray Chen rcc(a)netapp.com > The real issue with SCSI vs IDE is bus utilization. > > The SCSI protocols were designed such that the bus could be > freed for other > users, in-between the time the request for data was sent to > the drive, and the > time data was returned. Thus commands for data could be sent > to several > drives, before the time the first drive could reply with the > requested data. > > The IDE protocols were designed for simplicity, it results in > the bus being > allocated to one request, for the duration of a single > request. It wastes time > for simplicity. > > Due to the sporatic disk access behavior of workstations, IDE > and SCSI drive > perform similarly. > > However, do to the much more consistant but varied disk > access of file servers, > the SCSI bus out-performs the IDE bus due to its time > efficiency. The only > mechanism to combat the IDE bus efficiency would be to have > one IDE bus for > each drive. Having one IDE bus per drive, would eliminates > the minor cost > advantage that IDE drives have over SCSI drives. > > Note: Another issue that has not been mentioned, is system > uptime. I have not > seen an IDE drive that has been adapted to support > hotplugging. This is > critical for online maintenance. > > -- > Matthew Lee Stier * Fujitsu Network Communications > Unix Systems Administrator | Two Blue Hill Plaza > Ph: 914-731-2097 Fx: 914-731-2011 | Sixth Floor > Matthew.Stier(a)fnc.fujitsu.com * Pearl River, NY 10965 > > >

1 0

Re: Running CIFS
by Jason D. Kelleher 05 May '99

05 May '99

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. Here's a test on a directory w/ NTFS permissions allowing only full control to the owner: 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 root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [132] # root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [132] # chown 755 test_dir chown: test_dir: Not owner 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] # 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? >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.) jason

1 0

RE: Anybody have any comment on this article, as relating to FCAL reliability?
by Chen, Ray 05 May '99

05 May '99

Speaking not as a NetApp employee but rather as a generic filesystem engineer, I'd say that the fundamental point being raised by the article is valid -- "Is Ultra-SCSI an attractive alternative to FC?" However, if I were being polite, I'd also say that the article was somewhat misleading, dishonest, and inaccurate. If I were being blunt and honest, I'd say ... ah, never mind :-). Personally, I do think there's an open issue as to whether Ultra-SCSI is good enough for small servers with reasonable capacity requirements and I suspect that issue will be driven by cost. If Ultra-SCSI adapters and drives have significantly better price/performance ratio, then Ultra-SCSI will win on the low end and FC will win on the high end. If they're about even, I suspect FC will win. Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaye Mathisen [mailto:mrcpu@internetcds.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 1:26 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Anybody have any comment on this article, as relating to FCAL > reliability? > > > > (Long night tonight waiting on formatting RAID array.s :() > > > > I do not have an FC-AL arrays at this time, although I know it > is something that is rolling out. > > The comments on reliability concern me a bit, at least for > me, my NetApps > have been "plug" and go. > > No muss, no fuss. > > http://www.performance-computing.com/features/9903sra.shtml > > Just curious if people are having trouble with their FC-Al > disks on their > Netapps... >

1 0

RE: Running CIFS
by Muhlestein, Mark 05 May '99

05 May '99

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 ACL 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, 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 to change the permissions. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Jason D. Kelleher [mailto:kelleher@susq.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 11:13 AM To: Muhlestein, Mark Cc: 'Mark D Fowle'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: Running CIFS In message <7F608EC0BDE6D111B53A00805FA7F7DA03A83931(a)TAHOE.netapp.com>, "Muh lestein, Mark" writes: >There is a document on the NOW site that should help: > >http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ > >This is primarily for 5.3, but it is also useful for earlier releases. It h >as a >lot of explanations of our approach, a security FAQ, and a bunch of other >(hopefully useful) security-related stuff. > >Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com This is nice. Especially since the System Administrator's Guide doesn't talk about the usermap.cfg file. (Even though the sample file refers you to it. Just 'cause the filer is _usually_ simple to setup and maintain is no excuse for poor/missing documentation.) I've been trying to setup access to a "mixed" quota tree such that no NT admin as access to it, but a UNIX root user can over-ride NTFS permissions. I know this sounds weird, but there are _way_ too many NT admin accounts floating around. That's why I don't want NT admins to have access to (read: be able to screw up) the filer. But because I'm one of those "pesky UNIX admins" I can't get and admin account, so I need root to be able to over-ride NTFS permissions. Is this even possible? I'm not having much luck. jason >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark D Fowle [mailto:Fowle_Mark_D@CAT.com] >Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 6:58 AM >To: toasters >Subject: Running CIFS > > >I am trying to set up a mixed environment on 2 720's. I have created a test > share and a usermap.cfg file that has >domain\user unix-user mapped out. My problem is that only 2 our 7 peo >ple > can get access to the share. What >else might I be missing? > >Mark Fowle >Caterpillar - BCP >fowelmd(a)cat.net

1 0

Re: Running CIFS
by Jason D. Kelleher 05 May '99

05 May '99

In message <7F608EC0BDE6D111B53A00805FA7F7DA03A83931(a)TAHOE.netapp.com>, "Muh lestein, Mark" writes: >There is a document on the NOW site that should help: > >http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ > >This is primarily for 5.3, but it is also useful for earlier releases. It h >as a >lot of explanations of our approach, a security FAQ, and a bunch of other >(hopefully useful) security-related stuff. > >Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com This is nice. Especially since the System Administrator's Guide doesn't talk about the usermap.cfg file. (Even though the sample file refers you to it. Just 'cause the filer is _usually_ simple to setup and maintain is no excuse for poor/missing documentation.) I've been trying to setup access to a "mixed" quota tree such that no NT admin as access to it, but a UNIX root user can over-ride NTFS permissions. I know this sounds weird, but there are _way_ too many NT admin accounts floating around. That's why I don't want NT admins to have access to (read: be able to screw up) the filer. But because I'm one of those "pesky UNIX admins" I can't get and admin account, so I need root to be able to over-ride NTFS permissions. Is this even possible? I'm not having much luck. jason >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark D Fowle [mailto:Fowle_Mark_D@CAT.com] >Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 6:58 AM >To: toasters >Subject: Running CIFS > > >I am trying to set up a mixed environment on 2 720's. I have created a test > share and a usermap.cfg file that has >domain\user unix-user mapped out. My problem is that only 2 our 7 peo >ple > can get access to the share. What >else might I be missing? > >Mark Fowle >Caterpillar - BCP >fowelmd(a)cat.net

1 0

RE: Running CIFS
by Muhlestein, Mark 05 May '99

05 May '99

There is a document on the NOW site that should help: http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ This is primarily for 5.3, but it is also useful for earlier releases. It has a lot of explanations of our approach, a security FAQ, and a bunch of other (hopefully useful) security-related stuff. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Mark D Fowle [mailto:Fowle_Mark_D@CAT.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 6:58 AM To: toasters Subject: Running CIFS I am trying to set up a mixed environment on 2 720's. I have created a test share and a usermap.cfg file that has domain\user unix-user mapped out. My problem is that only 2 our 7 people can get access to the share. What else might I be missing? Mark Fowle Caterpillar - BCP fowelmd(a)cat.net

1 0

Re: NetApp Warranty
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 05 May '99

05 May '99

On 05/05/99 11:11:34 you wrote: >Is there a way to purchase this level of support? We have some >non-critical F540s that _if_ they fail, I'd like to get them fixed, >but it doesn't have to happen same day and I don't have a problem >paying for the parts. > >The only hardware support I'm aware of covers cost of repair, so it is >priced accordingly. I'm looking for a more cost-effective level of >support on these non-critical filers. Sorry... I should have said that I'm not speaking from authority here; I was just trying to reconcile what the rep supposedly said with what the web site supposedly said. Either could be wrong and there really could be 1 year of hardware support. As to if you can just purchase software/phone support for additional years, I don't know, but I would assume you can. Surely Netapp wants you to buy more support, yes? I suppose it's possible that any extension includes hardware support too. Bruce

2 1

Re: F540 F520...
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 05 May '99

05 May '99

On 05/04/99 23:43:32 you wrote: >Hmmmm, I have an F540 filer. I'm sure it's a 540. Positive. Says 540 on >it somewhere. I'm sure. > >No such thing as a 540 on www.netapp.com. There's a 520, which looks >pretty darn similar. Can I just s/540/520/g, and be a happy camper? Note to Netapp - All filer models, no matter how old, should still have information accessible off the web site. The price of keeping this information on there is minimal. By not keeping this information someone is just going to wind up doing it third-party with some sort of filer FAQ. Note to Jaye - If you actually have a older file model like the F540, you will need access to more than just general information. Most of the technical details *should*, in an ideal world, be available off now.netapp.com. Have you tried looking there? Bruce

2 1

Re: NetApp Warranty
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 05 May '99

05 May '99

On 05/05/99 09:27:28 you wrote: > ><color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>My Sales rep is saying that a netapp comes with a 3 months hdwr warranty - >that I need to purchase 9mo hdwr support in the first year. Netapp's web >site says the following: > > > "NetApp's hardware warranty program provides customers with free 24x7 > telephone support for one year from the date of purchase along with same > day shipment of replacement parts." > >This sounds like a 1yr warranty. No, it sounds like you get free phone support for 1 year, and if you need a replacement part, they'll ship it same day. However, whether or not you have to pay for that replacement part depends on your hardware warranty. Your Sales rep is saying you've only got 3 months; you need to purchase more if you want more. If you don't, that doesn't mean your 1 year free support is worthless. You can still call them and get help with software issues, or even determine if the problem is in the hardware. They just won't replace it for you for free. Bruce

2 1

Anybody have any comment on this article, as relating to FCAL reliability?
by Jaye Mathisen 05 May '99

05 May '99

(Long night tonight waiting on formatting RAID array.s :() I do not have an FC-AL arrays at this time, although I know it is something that is rolling out. The comments on reliability concern me a bit, at least for me, my NetApps have been "plug" and go. No muss, no fuss. http://www.performance-computing.com/features/9903sra.shtml Just curious if people are having trouble with their FC-Al disks on their Netapps...

2 1

NetApp Warranty
by Richard L. Rhodes 05 May '99

05 May '99

<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>My Sales rep is saying that a netapp comes with a 3 months hdwr warranty - that I need to purchase 9mo hdwr support in the first year. Netapp's web site says the following: "NetApp's hardware warranty program provides customers with free 24x7 telephone support for one year from the date of purchase along with same day shipment of replacement parts." This sounds like a 1yr warranty. Question: Just what is NetApp's hdwr warranty? Thanks rick <nofill> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 f: 330-384-2514

2 1

Running CIFS
by Mark D Fowle 05 May '99

05 May '99

I am trying to set up a mixed environment on 2 720's. I have created a test share and a usermap.cfg file that has domain\user unix-user mapped out. My problem is that only 2 our 7 people can get access to the share. What else might I be missing? Mark Fowle Caterpillar - BCP fowelmd(a)cat.net

1 0

Re: Anybody have any comment on this article, as relating to FCAL reliability?
by Jason D. Kelleher 05 May '99

05 May '99

In message <Pine.BSF.4.10.9905050123350.249-100000(a)schizo.cdsnet.net>, Jaye Mathisen writes: > >(Long night tonight waiting on formatting RAID array.s :() > > > >I do not have an FC-AL arrays at this time, although I know it >is something that is rolling out. > >The comments on reliability concern me a bit, at least for me, my NetApps >have been "plug" and go. > >No muss, no fuss. > >http://www.performance-computing.com/features/9903sra.shtml > >Just curious if people are having trouble with their FC-Al disks on their >Netapps... No trouble so far (only had 'em since Feb). It's nice not having to run "disk swap". Just pull a bad drive out and slide in a replacement. Much better than the SCSI shelves. jason

1 0

Re: F540 F520...
by mds＠gbnet.net 05 May '99

05 May '99

On Tue 4 May, 1999, Jaye Mathisen <mrcpu(a)internetcds.com> wrote: > Hmmmm, I have an F540 filer. I'm sure it's a 540. Positive. Says 540 on > it somewhere. I'm sure. > > No such thing as a 540 on www.netapp.com. There's a 520, which looks > pretty darn similar. Can I just s/540/520/g, and be a happy camper? >-- End of excerpt from Jaye Mathisen Not quite. But almost. We've got an F540 and an F520 here, the differences are slight but significant. The F520 uses FW/SE while the F540 shipped with FW/D SCSI interfaces. A few bits of the F520's are more recent than the F540 - NVRAM cards for example. Plus the F540 was rated as a FOADBMF (a big machine) at launch and NetApp revised down what customers could expect from it, and relaunched it as the F520 in the shadow of the F630 which was the new FOADBMF in town until the F760 came on the scene. 8)

1 0

F540 F520...
by Jaye Mathisen 05 May '99

05 May '99

Hmmmm, I have an F540 filer. I'm sure it's a 540. Positive. Says 540 on it somewhere. I'm sure. No such thing as a 540 on www.netapp.com. There's a 520, which looks pretty darn similar. Can I just s/540/520/g, and be a happy camper?

2 1

Judging Netapp Performance
by Richard L. Rhodes 05 May '99

05 May '99

On my "normal" unix systems with local disk drives, I get a rough idea about the disk subsystems performance from the (on aix) iostat wait-for-io percent and individual disk drive statistics. Question: How do you judge the performance of a NFS filesystem, and a NetApp server in particular? THanks rick ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 f: 330-384-2514

1 0

adding second LRC to FC7 FC-AL shelves
by Jay Soffian 04 May '99

04 May '99

[ I may have already sent this message a couple weeks ago, but I can't ] [ find it anywhere in my mail archives. And I was wondering why I didn't ] [ get any replies. :) ] Can someone from Netapp give me the run down on upgrading FC-AL shelves for clustering. I've heard conflicting information. We have three FC-AL FC7 shelves that only have a single LRC card in them. I know that for clustering, the shelves will need an additional LRC card (for the second FC-AL loop). It is not clear to me what is involved in adding the LRC card. I don't see this documented in the cluster conversion guide nor in the shelf hardware guide. I have heard that this is a field procedure that Netapp needs to perform and that after it is done, the shelves need to be calibrated. I heard the down time for all of this is supposed to be several hours. The downtime is not a problem as we plan to move the disks from these shelves into a new set of FC7 shelves we are getting that will have two LRCs from the outset. I sent a message to toasters about this a few weeks ago. I'd like to get an idea of exactly what is involved. Thanks. j. -- Jay Soffian <jay(a)cimedia.com> UNIX Systems Administrator 404.572.1941 Cox Interactive Media

3 2

Re: Hardware for F330
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 04 May '99

04 May '99

> I was wondering if anyone can help. We are a small shop with 2 F330's with > 2 disk cabinets on each one. We were looking into adding another tray on > each, but were told by NetApps that they are no longer available. > > All I'm looking for is to upgrade the memory, add another scsi controller, > and another tray (is that asking TOO MUCH???). Questions: Can I use off > the shelf memory (and what kind)? What about SCSI controllers? Where can I > get disk trays? Could we instead replace the drives with 9G or 18G drives > (and what model would we use)? > > NetApps solution is to spend $60k+ to upgrade, and all we need is another > 10G - 20G. The current system works fine, isn't overused, and could handle > the expansion IF WE CAN FIND THE COMPONENTS... We are in a somewhat similar situation here. We have one F330, with Seagate Hawk 4 GB disks (ST15230N), running 4.3.3D2. The system is 2.5 years old. We have lost *one* disk (so the hot spare was put into use), and we are thus running a system with no hot spare. We don't particularly like this situation. The Netapp vendor here in Norway tells us that they can no longer get hold of new ST15230Ns, and in general there seems to be quite a problem to get hold of *narrow* disks that can be used with the existing controllers. Questions: - Does anybody know of narrow disks that can be purchased today and which will work with 4.3.3D2? (I have come to point that I no longer care if the disks are Netapp approved - I just want to have a reasonable chance of the disks working.) - We have a number of (used) DEC RZ29B 4 GB disks, fw revision 0007. Will these work? - We feel that the F330 is more or less abandoned, and any kind of upgrade with new disk shelves etc. is going to extremely expensive. Is this a correct assessment? Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

2 1

Re: Hardware for F330
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 04 May '99

04 May '99

On 05/04/99 16:15:26 you wrote: >- Does anybody know of narrow disks that can be purchased today and which >will work with 4.3.3D2? (I have come to point that I no longer care if the >disks are Netapp approved - I just want to have a reasonable chance of the >disks working.) Netapp has other narrow approved disks they can sell you. You should buy those. >- We have a number of (used) DEC RZ29B 4 GB disks, fw revision 0007. Will >these work? Sure, unless Netapp says there's a problem with that fw revision. You don't have to have all your narrow drives the same brand! Use DECs or Fujitsus or whatever Netapp can sell you. Heck, you can mix brands, mix sizes of drives, even mix narrow and wide in some cases. >- We feel that the F330 is more or less abandoned, and any kind of upgrade >with new disk shelves etc. is going to extremely expensive. Is this a >correct assessment? I think abandoned is a little strong; although it's EOL-ed I was under the impression that Netapp had a reserve stock of components (shelves, etc.) for replacements and upgrades of existing equipment. But if your F330 is already at maximum configuration, it is correct to say that any further expansion/upgrade requires you to buy new equipment. But this is not really anything new; the same was essentially the case when F330s were still in production, except for new cards and the like. Bruce

1 0

eight-shelf F630's
by Brian Rice 04 May '99

04 May '99

Hey, all. I have an F630 with one dual SCSI host adapter and four Shelf 2 shelves...that is, 8a and 8b are fully populated. I am inheriting four more shelves, and I suspect that I'm going to have to scare up another dual SCSI host adapter. When I've seen eight-shelf F630's, I see them with the second SCSI card in slot 9, so the additional shelf pairs are 9a and 9b. But slot 9 in my filer has the NVRAM in it, or so says sysconfig -v. Would someone who has an eight-shelf SCSI F630 send me their sysconfig -v output? Tips on getting to that configuration from the land of four shelves? (My filer is running 5.2.1D5. Yes, we are talkin' multiple RAID groups here. Everybody say "OnTAP 5.x, uh-huh.") Thanks! Brian brice(a)gnac.com

1 0

Hold Music.
by Shaun T. Erickson 04 May '99

04 May '99

Hey NetApp: Your hold music volume is WAY too loud, in relation to the "please keep waiting" voice-over that it alternates with. I'm gonna go deaf if you don't do something about it. -ste

3 3

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