toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

temperature inside filer
by Jason Middlebrooks 29 Apr '99

29 Apr '99

Are there any commands to monitor the temperature inside the filer or to get information from the temperatures sensors? Thanks In advance.

1 0

DNS problems
by Mohler, Jeff 29 Apr '99

29 Apr '99

Anyone else figure out the heck to resolve this? 08:56:23 CDT [ratbert: rshd_0]: DNS server for domain "wcg.net" not responding : Connection timed out. MY blinkin DNS servers are working just fine...all of 30,000 miles of fiber hardware, routers, and customers have no problems with it either. Why only the NetApp, and a reboot isnt an option.

5 6

Re: netapp meets bugtraq. again.
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 29 Apr '99

29 Apr '99

On 04/28/99 22:06:43 you wrote: >Ok, so I don't have the docs handy.. but if you have an "-access" >options, it just seems kinda intuitive to me that you might actually >*USE IT*. But maybe it's just me. No bug here... that's the way all NFS servers work. It is a little non-intuitive but once you know what you're doing there is no problem. Changing it for Netapp would create another kind of security bug where simply copying what you used on one server wouldn't work on another despite expectations. The problem lies in the documentation, for not explaining this more clearly. The example isn't meant to be taken literally as something all filer admins should do and thus would be appropriate for their environment. It's meant to be an example. Elsewhere the docs do explain the security implications of various options, but it should probably mention it specifically in the section Pete read, to prevent other people overreacting like Pete did and screaming to bugtraq that the sky is falling. Bruce >------- Start of forwarded message (RFC 934 encapsulation) ------- >From: pashdown(a)XMISSION.COM (Pete Ashdown) >Subject: Network Appliance NFS filer root hole >Date: 28 Apr 1999 15:58:45 -0400 >Organization: Bugtraq List >Message-ID: <199904281658.KAA14944(a)slack.xmission.com> >Reply-To: Pete Ashdown <pashdown(a)XMISSION.COM> > >For Network Appliance NFS filer release: > NetApp Release 5.2.1: Thu Dec 31 12:56:45 PST 1998 > >Following "Example 1" on page 136 of the "System Administrator's Guide" for >the Network Appliance results in a gaping hole. In this example, they >explain that "the following line exports the root directory of the default >filter volume to the administration host with root privileges." > > /vol/vol0 -root=adminhost > >This is all fine and good, but it also exports to the WORLD with root >privileges. You have to specify either "-access", or "-rw", or "-ro" in >addition to "-root" for this not to happen. When I mentioned this to my >NetApp SE, I was met with quizzical looks, but no code-update or patch. >Thusly, I sent it to bugtraq. >------- End -------

1 0

Re: SNMP traps
by Keith Brown 28 Apr '99

28 Apr '99

>Seems like the only built-in traps are "linkUp", "linkDown", "coldStart" and >"authenticationFailure", others you have to add manually which would take >_awhile_ to do. Right. The new SNMP trap machinery provided in Data ONTAP 5.3 is very flexible and extremely powerful. As you have probably seen in the documentation, it actually enables you to set a variety of different types of trap on any supported MIB variable you like. You can monitor variables for crossing administrator defined thresholds in either direction (rising above or falling below). You can monitor variables for staying within administrator defined ranges, or even *outside* of ranges if that makes sense for a particular value. You can keep traps firing when variables stay on the wrong side of "lines" (with a backoff cabability). It's thoroughly wicked. However, one of the last little things that unfortunately didn't get implemented in time for the 5.3 release was the "spoon feed some nice traps on a silver platter" component. :-) As you have discovered, you currently have to look at the filer MIB(s) yourself, figure out what variables you are interested in monitoring in your environment, and then put the relevant traps on them "by hand". Sophisticated administrators will probably *always* want to go through such a procedure, but it is not unreasonable to want to be supplied some "starter traps" on the kinds of events that are likely to be interesting to the majority. We do supply a small handful (which you note above), but there's obviously more we could do here, such as: >I am interested in things like: failed disks, stopped fans, cluster status >etc. Yep. In fact, we are always actively seeking input on the kinds of default traps our customers would like to have supplied "out of the box". Any input posted either here or to my inbox will be seen by the folk who can turn the requests into reality. >http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/docs/ontap/rel53/html/sag/net2.htm says >there should be a "traps.dat" file in "the same directory as the MIB" >(=/etc/mib??) but I am unable to locate this file. I'll see if I can find out what happened to it for you. :-) Keith

1 0

SNMP traps
by Erik Stjerna 28 Apr '99

28 Apr '99

Has anyone set up trap definitions for monitoring a filer? Seems like the only built-in traps are "linkUp", "linkDown", "coldStart" and "authenticationFailure", others you have to add manually which would take _awhile_ to do. I am interested in things like: failed disks, stopped fans, cluster status etc. Would be really handy if someone already has done this and is willing to share that info. http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/docs/ontap/rel53/html/sag/net2.htm says there should be a "traps.dat" file in "the same directory as the MIB" (=/etc/mib??) but I am unable to locate this file. Thanks in advance, Erik Stjerna

1 0

please add me to distribution/reflector list
by Horgan, Patrick 28 Apr '99

28 Apr '99

Please add me to distribution/reflector list. horgan_patrick @emc.com Thank you. ~Patrick ____________________________________ EMC2 Patrick A. Horgan Product Manager - Celerra File Server e-mail: horgan_patrick(a)emc.com <mailto:horgan_patrick@isus.emc.com> phone: 508-435-2075 x75672 fax: 508-435-8903 ____________________________________

1 0

EMC email list (was RE: remote support issues)
by Adams, Christian 27 Apr '99

27 Apr '99

G D Geen, Please find the following email to identify the EMC email list/archive as you requested. /Christian Adams System Engineer EMC >Resent-From: emc-request(a)interex.org >Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:51:32 -0800 (PST) >X-Sender: bill(a)proaxis.com >X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) >Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:48:19 -0800 >To: emc(a)interex.org, haforum(a)interex.org >From: Bill Lancaster <bill(a)proaxis.com> >X-Mailing-List: <emc(a)interex.org> archive/latest/2 >X-Loop: emc(a)interex.org >Resent-Sender: emc-request(a)interex.org >Subject: [EMC:2] Welcome! > >Hello and welcome to all who have joined the EMC list! The list was just >created this week and now has 127 people signed up! Clearly, you all have >an interested in seeing a public forum for users of EMC equipment. > >The genesis of this list came through meetings held between the Interex >High Availability Forum members and various EMC staff at EMC headquarters >in December. (There is also a listserver specializing in HP-related High >Availability issues, including EMC issues). The High Availability Forum >Executive Committee members are: > > Myself (Bill Lancaster), co-chair > Chuck Ciesinski, co-chair > Isaac Blake > Steve Guzzi > Chris Rink > Gary Maness > Wesley Sawyer > Deb Lawson (Interex liaison) > >Bob Yach is chairing the EMC SIG. > >I'd like to start the ball rolling by asking all of you what your >discussion interests are for this list. Do you have any pressing concerns >that you would like to throw open for discussion? I understand that >several EMC personnel are participating in this list so you should stand a >good chance getting answers to issues/questions. What kind of EMC >equipment are you using? How has it added to your high availability? > >Jump on in! > > >Bill Lancaster >bill(a)proaxis.com > -----Original Message----- > From: G D Geen [SMTP:geen@msp.sc.ti.com] > Sent: Friday, April 23, 1999 7:02 AM > To: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: remote support issues > > If you have problems with support, bring it to the attention > of your Sales Advisor. NetApp is very good about communicating > internally the issues of their customers. Also some very heavy > hitters at NetApp read this mail list. So use this forum to > address your concerns. Please note, NetApp is not the only > provider of network filers out there. If you are not happy, > ask Auspex why they don't have a mail list like this. I did and > was surprised by the answer. I have not asked EMC about a mail > list yet, but I am interested in hearing the answer. >

1 0

RE: Digital UNIX clients -- no non-root access
by Davis, John 27 Apr '99

27 Apr '99

I have a site here(CFO 5.2.1P2-F740) attached to a DEC running 4.0E via GigE that is using NFS & CIFS; save installing some DEC patches for their GigE card the system has been running fine.. -----Original Message----- From: Muhlestein, Mark [mailto:mark.muhlestein@netapp.com] Sent: Monday, April 26, 1999 7:49 PM To: 'sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com'; jgaski(a)WPI.EDU; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Digital UNIX clients -- no non-root access I'm not sure what your problem is, but I can verify that internally here at NetApp we use DU 4.0D (rev 878) extensively on several Alpha machines against multiple filers with no issues. We have also run with 4.0E. What version of the filer software are you running? Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com [mailto:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, April 26, 1999 6:39 PM To: jgaski(a)WPI.EDU; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Digital UNIX clients -- no non-root access On 04/26/99 21:11:27 you wrote: >I have an open call with Network Appliance, but they have said that >there must be something strange in Compaq's implementation of the NFS >client. The same error occurs on Digital UNIX 4.0D pl3, 4.0E pl1, and >5.0 beta. It occurs whether the mount is soft or hard, udp or tcp, >nfsv3 or nfsv2. > >It seems like such a large, ubiquitous error that I can't believe >noone would have seen it before. I thought that Digital UNIX support >was standard, and I can't imagine how all of our Alpha clients could >be non-standard in such a way. You'd be surprised. Lots of vendors have little quirks in their implementation that, while they happen to work okay with one server, are really out of spec and may not work with another. However, I know that Digital Unix *used* to work, but the last I ever saw personally work was 4.0C. So either they've changed something, or something in the new Netapp release fixed/broke something. Bruce

1 0

Re: Early Access Releases
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 27 Apr '99

27 Apr '99

On 04/26/99 17:11:16 you wrote: > So who tested cluster takeover/giveback during the "comprehensive > development and release procedure"...? Can they tell me what I'm > doing wrong? Was bug 14194 (Filer crashes during boot during > partner giveback) discovered during this testing and 5.3 was > released anyway? If so, I think you guys are carrying that MS > partnership a bit too far... > > Ok, maybe comparing you guys to MS was below the belt. I'll take > that back. But I'm still curious how 5.3 made it as far as it did? > I thought clustering was the hot new thing at NetApp. > > Did somebody decide a boot during giveback was ok for now? It's > not a problem until the partner s fixed or until your testing to > see that you got what you paid for. If this was the case, a "known > bugs list" would've been nice. I believe Netapp has said before publically that they do find bugs during testing that they don't fix by release time. This is not to say that they don't fix any, but that little bugs or big bugs that only appear under relatively rare circumstances won't be addressed until a later release. I've suggested before that Netapp publically reveal bugs that have only been discovered internally at Netapp, but I think their current policy is only to reveal bugs online that customers have encountered themselves. So it is possible they discovered the bug in advance and didn't think anyone (or perhaps very few) would encounter it. Or perhaps they didn't. They do have pretty big testing procedures for new software releases but I don't think they regression test every possible scenario. Bruce

2 1

Re: Digital UNIX clients -- no non-root access
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 27 Apr '99

27 Apr '99

On 04/26/99 21:11:27 you wrote: >I have an open call with Network Appliance, but they have said that >there must be something strange in Compaq's implementation of the NFS >client. The same error occurs on Digital UNIX 4.0D pl3, 4.0E pl1, and >5.0 beta. It occurs whether the mount is soft or hard, udp or tcp, >nfsv3 or nfsv2. > >It seems like such a large, ubiquitous error that I can't believe >noone would have seen it before. I thought that Digital UNIX support >was standard, and I can't imagine how all of our Alpha clients could >be non-standard in such a way. You'd be surprised. Lots of vendors have little quirks in their implementation that, while they happen to work okay with one server, are really out of spec and may not work with another. However, I know that Digital Unix *used* to work, but the last I ever saw personally work was 4.0C. So either they've changed something, or something in the new Netapp release fixed/broke something. Bruce

1 0

Digital UNIX clients -- no non-root access
by Joanna Gaski 27 Apr '99

27 Apr '99

We have recently obtained an F740. I have a problem when I attempt to export a shared area from the filer to any of our Digital UNIX clients. The problem is that on the alpha client, root can read and access files as normal, but if a normal user does even something as simple as a ls -lt /mnt an error message is produced: NFS3 RFS3_ACCESS failed for server toaster : RPC: Server can't decode arguments /mnt: I/O error The exports file has the share exported with -ro,access=hostname,root=hostname where hostname is a FQDN. I have an open call with Network Appliance, but they have said that there must be something strange in Compaq's implementation of the NFS client. The same error occurs on Digital UNIX 4.0D pl3, 4.0E pl1, and 5.0 beta. It occurs whether the mount is soft or hard, udp or tcp, nfsv3 or nfsv2. It seems like such a large, ubiquitous error that I can't believe noone would have seen it before. I thought that Digital UNIX support was standard, and I can't imagine how all of our Alpha clients could be non-standard in such a way. Any help or pointers are appreciated. Thanks. (BTW, I haven't yet dealt with the fact that when exporting from the filer to one of our ULTRIX boxes, a simple "ls -lt /mnt" by a non-root user results in the mount point changing to these permissions, and the share essentially disappearing. ---------- 0 root 0 Dec 31 1969 /mnt I'll get to that eyesore later.)

1 0

RE: Early Access Releases
by Melvin, Grant 26 Apr '99

26 Apr '99

Hi, The NDMP bug in Data ONTAP 5.3 affects BudTool users who are backing up to a tape drive local to the BudTool host. This is logged as defect BT 9476 at Legato (IntelliGuard) & NA 13442 at NetApp. The following BudTool certification page explains this: http://www.iguard.com/products/certmatrix.html This is resolved in 5.3D2. Sorry it affected your installation Jason. Cheers, Grant -----Original Message----- From: mgx(a)spruce.lsd.ornl.gov [mailto:mgx@spruce.lsd.ornl.gov] Sent: Monday, April 26, 1999 3:44 PM To: Shaun T. Erickson Cc: Jason D. Kelleher; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Early Access Releases oh no, now i'm starting to worry. i was told to go to 5.3 last thursday, i told the engineer that i was backing up two filers via NDMP he said no problem, go with 5.3. my first scheduled backup since upgrading is tonight. -- michael On Mon, Apr 26, Shaun T. Erickson wrote: > > I'm not confident they *have* an official stance. I opened a case on > Friday and was told I should upgrade to 5.3. I opened another case on > Saturday, and during the conversation mentioned I was told to go to 5.3. > This person said I shouldn't do that and that no one should have told me > to do so. > > How in the heck are we, as customers, supposed to believe anything they > say, if they can't even agree amongst themselves? > > -ste

1 0

Early Access Releases
by Jason D. Kelleher 26 Apr '99

26 Apr '99

Anyone know what NetApp's "official" stance is on Early Access Releases? Are they beta tested in the field before becomming Early Access? Is anyone who installs an Early Access Release a beta tester? Does NetApp beta test? Has anyone out there installed 5.3, 5.3D2 (fixes NDMP problems), or 5.3D7 (supposed to fix crash during giveback) on an F740 cluster and successfully done a takeover/giveback without at least one extra reboot (the system doing the giveback) and a core file? If so, were you using second level VIFs? If you were using second level VIFs, and it actually worked, did your messages file list network errors after takover that NetApp said were ok? I've been working with tech support for over a week now on these issues and my managers just turned up the heat on me. I'm hoping someone has an "it all worked after I did..." story. any help appreciated, jason

4 3

Undocumented commands
by Shaw, Kevin 26 Apr '99

26 Apr '99

Has anyone compiled a list of OnTap undocumented commands? If so, can I get a copy? Thanks in advance.

1 0

Re: Early Access Releases
by Jason D. Kelleher 26 Apr '99

26 Apr '99

In message <199904262120.RAA12822(a)trail.cimedia.com>, Ozzie Sabina writes: > >+-- "Jason D. Kelleher" <kelleher(a)susq.com> once said: >| Let me guess. You had it installed on a single filer and didn't >| use NDMP to back it up to a remote media server, right? I had >| problems with these immediately after installation of 5.3. > >We had it on two filers, and we primarily tested the Snap Mirror, >Secure Admin, Snap Restore, and the ntp support. Unfortunately we >don't use NDMP, so we didn't test that. Primarily, the beta group >tested what they were interested in testing, and I believe NetApp >looked for people who were interested in testing different things. Sorry, by "single" I meant non-cluster. The SNTP support is great (although why it comes up before the network interfaces is confusing). And support for VIF failover was the main reason I went to 5.3 -- very nifty. jason

1 0

Re: Early Access Releases
by Jason D. Kelleher 26 Apr '99

26 Apr '99

In message <3724D487.E0D244DF(a)research.bell-labs.com>, "Shaun T. Erickson" w rites: >"Jason D. Kelleher" wrote: >> >> Anyone know what NetApp's "official" stance is on Early Access >> Releases? > >I'm not confident they *have* an official stance. I opened a case on >Friday and was told I should upgrade to 5.3. I opened another case on >Saturday, and during the conversation mentioned I was told to go to 5.3. >This person said I shouldn't do that and that no one should have told me >to do so. > >How in the heck are we, as customers, supposed to believe anything they >say, if they can't even agree amongst themselves? Until NetApp slows down the pace of their releases, I think getting bug lists for each OS release is critical. At least then you can go over the list and decide whether or not upgrading will cause you more or less trouble. jason

1 0

Re: Early Access Releases
by Jason D. Kelleher 26 Apr '99

26 Apr '99

In message <7F608EC0BDE6D111B53A00805FA7F7DA0200F6CA(a)TAHOE.netapp.com>, "Bul fer, David" writes: >Check out http://now.netapp.com/misc/sw_release.shtml > >David So who tested cluster takeover/giveback during the "comprehensive development and release procedure"...? Can they tell me what I'm doing wrong? Was bug 14194 (Filer crashes during boot during partner giveback) discovered during this testing and 5.3 was released anyway? If so, I think you guys are carrying that MS partnership a bit too far... Ok, maybe comparing you guys to MS was below the belt. I'll take that back. But I'm still curious how 5.3 made it as far as it did? I thought clustering was the hot new thing at NetApp. Did somebody decide a boot during giveback was ok for now? It's not a problem until the partner s fixed or until your testing to see that you got what you paid for. If this was the case, a "known bugs list" would've been nice. disappointed, jason >-----Original Message----- >From: Jason D. Kelleher [mailto:kelleher@susq.com] >Sent: Monday, April 26, 1999 12:22 PM >To: toasters(a)mathworks.com >Subject: Early Access Releases > > > > Anyone know what NetApp's "official" stance is on Early Access > Releases? Are they beta tested in the field before becomming Early > Access? Is anyone who installs an Early Access Release a beta > tester? Does NetApp beta test? > > Has anyone out there installed 5.3, 5.3D2 (fixes NDMP problems), or > 5.3D7 (supposed to fix crash during giveback) on an F740 cluster > and successfully done a takeover/giveback without at least one > extra reboot (the system doing the giveback) and a core file? If > so, were you using second level VIFs? If you were using second > level VIFs, and it actually worked, did your messages file list > network errors after takover that NetApp said were ok? > > I've been working with tech support for over a week now on these > issues and my managers just turned up the heat on me. I'm hoping > someone has an "it all worked after I did..." story. > > any help appreciated, > > jason >

1 0

RE: Early Access Releases
by Bulfer, David 26 Apr '99

26 Apr '99

Check out http://now.netapp.com/misc/sw_release.shtml David -----Original Message----- From: Jason D. Kelleher [mailto:kelleher@susq.com] Sent: Monday, April 26, 1999 12:22 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Early Access Releases Anyone know what NetApp's "official" stance is on Early Access Releases? Are they beta tested in the field before becomming Early Access? Is anyone who installs an Early Access Release a beta tester? Does NetApp beta test? Has anyone out there installed 5.3, 5.3D2 (fixes NDMP problems), or 5.3D7 (supposed to fix crash during giveback) on an F740 cluster and successfully done a takeover/giveback without at least one extra reboot (the system doing the giveback) and a core file? If so, were you using second level VIFs? If you were using second level VIFs, and it actually worked, did your messages file list network errors after takover that NetApp said were ok? I've been working with tech support for over a week now on these issues and my managers just turned up the heat on me. I'm hoping someone has an "it all worked after I did..." story. any help appreciated, jason

1 0

Re: Early Access Releases
by Jason D. Kelleher 26 Apr '99

26 Apr '99

In message <199904262027.QAA12462(a)trail.cimedia.com>, Ozzie Sabina writes: > >+-- "Jason D. Kelleher" <kelleher(a)susq.com> once said: >| Anyone know what NetApp's "official" stance is on Early Access >| Releases? Are they beta tested in the field before becomming Early >| Access? Is anyone who installs an Early Access Release a beta >| tester? Does NetApp beta test? > >I don't know about "official" stances, since I don't work for NetApp, >but I was involved in the beta testing on the 5.3 release prior to the >EA release (for ~2 months). So, yes, they do beta testing, but I >think it's fairly limited. Hmmm.... Let me guess. You had it installed on a single filer and didn't use NDMP to back it up to a remote media server, right? I had problems with these immediately after installation of 5.3. Anyway, it's good to know there was beta testing. That answers a question full of expletives I was asked by my manager on Friday. :) thanks for the info, jason

2 1

Re: size of NFS ops counters (was RE: Console Break (was Y2K...))
by Jason D. Kelleher 26 Apr '99

26 Apr '99

In message <7F608EC0BDE6D111B53A00805FA7F7DA026FB274(a)TAHOE.netapp.com>, "Hac kworth, Brian" writes: >: From: Ketil Kirkerud Elgethun [mailto:ketilk@a.sol.no] > >: NetApp needs to do something about the "total nfs ops counter" - it's >: rolled 15 times since the last reboot - nfsstat -l gives some really >: interesting output : >: >: [output snipped] >: 195.225.3.37 www2.sol.no NFSOPS = 1385724634 (4294966978%) > >For the next major release of ONTAP, we'll be increasing the size >of many of the internal counters, including the NFSOPS counters, >to 64 bits. This should help for a while. ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ That's what I call confidence. jason

1 0

Re: Y2K: Any one rolled a filer forward & backwards? (&courses)
by mds＠gbnet.net 26 Apr '99

26 Apr '99

On Wed 21 Apr, 1999, beepy(a)netapp.com (Brian Pawlowski) wrote: > I truly apologize for this. > > This is a weird one. This is not a "feature" of our box, it was > something I put in that exploits capabilities of the PROM > (OpenFirmware) to allow floppy boot like processing at boot time. > > You see, in development engineering, we used to have a special build > kernels that allow booting off hard disk, but still going through the > "floppy boot menu", and profiled kernels for performance analysis... > > I, being extremely bored watching linking kernels, made it dynamically > configurable... I was playing many games quickly when I hung out > alone in a small perf lab. > > It was not meant for field use... But obviously you guys are using > it... Strikes me that if you're finding it useful then it's not a million-to-one shot that it'll be useful to customers too, albeit in a slightly different way. > > Let me check, and see if there is not yet an open RFE on this. I will > submit one, asking for enable/disable of PROM environment variables > from running system... > > Ouch. > > In one sense, I regret adding these features - since it is truly a > break from the design of a simple box (the original design was that a > floppy was required to access maintenance menu - I did an incomplete > end run - but the remote console operation precludes floppy loading, so > what is the real requirement here?) Make it possible, to competent (read: curious, brave and support-contract- holding) customers to do floppy-boot tasks with remote consoles. Document it in a place that you can only get to if you hold a support contract. I have to say that I've been using NetApp's for 3 years now, and have learnt a few tricks and tips but I'm not going to get to go on the training course as a direct result of that experience (it's not deemed necessary for my job). I'm learning things here, and from support calls that apparently get taught to customers who also buy the courses - but which are built into these boxes from the get-go. I think they'd be useful to me, I want that knowledge, and all that's needed is for a bit of documentation to be placed somewhere on NOW. Courses shouldn't teach 'secrets' IMHO, they should be about bringing people up to speed from zero-knowledge, or extending their knowledge into advanced domains in limited-time frames. Getting people away from their workplace and giving them the space and framework to learn. The knowledge should also be provided as part of the basic package for others to pick up as and when, if they've already surmounted the learning curve to a large degree. Ie in full manuals and other documents - perhaps limited to people with support contracts to keep customers honest and to keep the feedback loop closed. I have to say I'm a little peeved when courses are products in and of themselves (ie where they teach things over and above the manuals) because it's just another way for vendors to screw customers for a few more bucks IMHO. Previously I never thought NetApp was that kind of vendor. The Appliance philosphy seems to preclude this kind of thing... Someone could restore my faith by pointing me at some hidden docs on NOW that explain it all, which I've just never noticed before! 8) > > No promises on a solution here... Natch, but even the vague hint of one has some of us slavering in anticipation! > > Again, my apologies... For what? Nothing to apologise for IMHO. > >-- End of excerpt from Brian Pawlowski

10 13

(Kein Betreff)
by Gerd Froschermeier 26 Apr '99

26 Apr '99

unsubscribe gerd.froschermeier(a)bmw.de

1 0

remote support issues
by Richard L. Rhodes 25 Apr '99

25 Apr '99

Hi List, I don't own a Netapp, but joined this list a couple weeks ago when we decided to take a closer look at and possibly eval one. I must say it's refreshing to see a list where the vendor allows their people to help out. The comment below by Oliver gets to my biggest concern: remote support. I've made very clear to the sales and tech reps that my biggest concerns with a netapp (or anything I would purchase) is remote support. I would need to put netapps at remote sites locked in phone closets with our other networking equipment and servers. Everything is interconnected by a wan and support would be by myself from a central, but remote site. May I ask a couple of question? 1) How effectively can you support a netapp from a remote site? 2) I would be interested in hearing from anyone using a netapp for a oracle database on rs/6k computers. Thanks Rick On 22 Apr 99, at 12:49, Oliver Krause wrote: > Hello Brian, > > also from me a big thank you for this feature. Without it remote support > would be very hard. And a command to change to firmware variables from a > running system would be really valuable. > > Oliver > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 f: 330-384-2514

7 11

RE: Anybody using 3com switches with NetAPP?
by Garrett Burke 25 Apr '99

25 Apr '99

Hi Jaye, You don't say what model of filer you are using. I have a F230 running 5.2.1 connected to a 3COM 3900 and I see output errors (but not input errors) on the filer interface and these show up as CRC (or FCS as 3COM call them) errors on the switch port. I'm seeing about 0.03% errors. Netapp support says not to worry about this level of errors. Both are 100Mbps full duplex with no auto negotiate. I moved the filer to a Extreme Summit S48 and a different cable run and I still see the CRC errors. GB > ---------- > From: Jaye Mathisen[SMTP:mrcpu@internetcds.com] > Sent: 16 April 1999 08:49 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Anybody using 3com switches with NetAPP? > > > > I have both my ports on a linkswitch 3000, at 100mb, full-duplex. > >

2 1

Re: NetApp Cache Appliance secutity issue ??
by jrg＠acm.org 25 Apr '99

25 Apr '99

On Fri 23 Apr, 1999, Colin Johnston <colinj(a)uk.psi.com> wrote: >I understand the need to distribute pdf docs as there are useful for >administration but password info in clear text could be overcome by >encrypting the pdf's stored online(and in the binary distrib) and doing >decryption of pdf info if required. Much better to be so open about default passwords that no one mistakenly believes it could be kept secret, then people *will* change the default passwords. I almost feel compelled to go and compile a list of all default passwords for all software and hardware known to mankind (but someone has probably already beaten me to it.) James.

5 5

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