toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

IETF Version 4 Mail Alias
by beepy＠netapp.com 24 Mar '99

24 Mar '99

Hi. In a meeting a couple weeks ago of the NFS Version 4 Working Group of IETF, it was proposed that we need more "user" involvement in the discussions on the mail alias and within the work group. I mentioned this alias as a source of users, and promised to send out an invite. This is your invite. Please go to: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/nfsv4-charter.html for information on the charter of the working group, draft requirements/design considerations, and draft specification, and instruction on how to join the mail discussion group. The web page also lists the location of the mail archives. If you have any questions after reading the material on the web feel free to throw out to the mail list or me. Brian Pawlowski

1 0

manual nightly snapshot rollover, or 'snap redo'
by Todd C. Merrill 24 Mar '99

24 Mar '99

Is there a way to *manually* rollover snapshots retaining the .number sequence? That is, without doing this in a script: rsh filer snap delete vol0 nightly.N rsh filer snap rename vol0 nightly.N-1 nightly.N ... rsh filer snap rename vol0 nightly.0 nightly.1 rsh filer snap create vol0 nightly.0 Reason is, I need to do a few things just before midnight and then a few things after midnight, but the things before midnight might not finish exactly before midnight when the filer makes the nightly snapshot, and I need them to be included in the read-only snapshot. So, I'd like to do something like: 1. do my pre-midnight commands 2. rsh filer snap nightly 3. do my post-midnight commands ("commands" are things done from an NFS mount to manipulate the data/files on the filer, not commands executed on the filer itself) and have step 2 do all the numbering bookkeeping for me, according to the snap schedule. Probably not, since that would mean some other switch to tell the filer *not* to the automagic snapshots. But, I'd thought I'd ask anyway, in case anyone has any better ideas. Orrrrr, how about a resnap? I could let the filer make its nightly.0 snapshot as usual, and then a few minutes after midnight, execute something like: rsh filer snap redo vol0 nightly.0 Oooo, I like that better. That helps with other snapshot manipulations we use, instead of: rsh filer snap create new rsh filer snap rename image old rsh filer snap rename new image rsh filer snap delete old Would this be useful enough to more than just me for an RFE? Until next time... Todd C. Merrill The Mathworks, Inc. 508-647-7792 24 Prime Park Way, Natick, MA 01760-1500 508-647-7012 FAX tmerrill(a)mathworks.com http://www.mathworks.com ---

1 0

RE: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Adams, Christian 24 Mar '99

24 Mar '99

Hey Tom - If you propate over an IP network on the front end of the head, then yes there is a performance penalty. If you have the disk shelves handle the propagation, then you can do some interesting things which do not create a performance penalty. But then you're talking about putting intelligence down into the disk shelves themselves. /Christian Adams > -----Original Message----- > From: tkaczma(a)gryf.net [SMTP:tkaczma@gryf.net] > Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 4:47 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: NetApp/Auspex killer? > > > > On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Mohler, Jeff wrote: > > > Your DR solution should PUSH data out constantly, not request it > > remotely every 60 seconds, then if a snapcopy fails for that period, it > gets > > thrown away on the remote side...two lost minutes of data. > > That's true for your application, but I don't want to mirror my disks > across the country even every 60 seconds. Once every couple of minutes > or hours is perfect for me. If you truly mirror your disks the latency > associated with data propagation will kill the performance. > > Tom

3 2

Re: One tape *drive* supported on 5.1.2???
by mds＠gbnet.net 24 Mar '99

24 Mar '99

On Tue 23 Mar, 1999, Kelly Wyatt <saskww(a)wnt.sas.com> wrote: > We have just been informed by Network Appliance that only *one* tape *drive* > per adapter is supported on 5.1.2. (We have been running with 1 adapter/2 > drives since August on 4.3 and then 5.0 and now on 5.1.2 since we upgraded.) Not true. Or, if it is then we've been breaking the rules for a while. Well actually we were breaking the rulees for a while, but now we've got a really weird, really unique buggette. But when we squich that, we'll be back to breaking the rules. 8) > > Was anyone else aware of this? This came about due to a call we placed when > removing a stuck tape rebooted the filer... > ------- > > Kelly Wyatt, saskww(a)wnt.sas.com <mailto:saskww@wnt.sas.com> > Integrated Solutions Consulting > SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Drive / Cary, NC 27513 > (919) 677-8000 X4279 (Voice) / (919) 677-4444 (FAX) > http://www.sas.com <http://www.sas.com> >-- End of excerpt from Kelly Wyatt

1 0

RE: One tape *drive* supported on 5.1.2???
by Melvin, Grant 24 Mar '99

24 Mar '99

Hi Kelly, I'm sorry to say that you were given the wrong response from NetApp today, so let me clear this up and apologize for any inconvenience caused. When engineering looked at the config on your site a *wrong* assumption was made and it was thought that there were 2 tape devices each on separate cards, which is not a supported config. The good news is that your configuration *IS* supported since you have 2 tape devices on a single SCSI tape adapter. In our next Data ONTAP release 5.3 we will be supporting 2 SCSI tape adapters on the F760 & F630 platforms. And since we support 2 tape drives per SCSI adapter this will allow upto 4 tape drives to be supported on these filers or 2 tape devices each on separate cards. Cheers, Grant -----Original Message----- From: Kelly Wyatt [mailto:saskww@wnt.sas.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 1:08 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: One tape *drive* supported on 5.1.2??? We have just been informed by Network Appliance that only *one* tape *drive* per adapter is supported on 5.1.2. (We have been running with 1 adapter/2 drives since August on 4.3 and then 5.0 and now on 5.1.2 since we upgraded.) Was anyone else aware of this? This came about due to a call we placed when removing a stuck tape rebooted the filer... ------- Kelly Wyatt, saskww(a)wnt.sas.com <mailto:saskww@wnt.sas.com> Integrated Solutions Consulting SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Drive / Cary, NC 27513 (919) 677-8000 X4279 (Voice) / (919) 677-4444 (FAX) http://www.sas.com <http://www.sas.com>

1 0

RE: name lookup debugging?
by Mohler, Jeff 23 Mar '99

23 Mar '99

Ive had this problem before too..and my only solution was a reboot. BIND on the box has done some really funky things for me..occasionally. ...maybe twice in a year. But the Filer will be the only device out of dozens/hundreds reporting any problems. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Davis [SMTP:jdavis@CS.Arizona.EDU] > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 2:06 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: name lookup debugging? > > I'm getting some odd messages from one of our filers > > [mountd]: DNS server for domain "CS.Arizona.EDU" not responding: > Connection timed out. > > The nameserver it's trying to contact as per /etc/resolv.conf seems to be > up and happy. No obvious network problems between here and there, though > our campus router people were playing permute-the-configuration earlier. > > Is there something that can be turned on on the netapp side to get more > details about what the filer is doing, name-lookup-wise?

1 0

One tape *drive* supported on 5.1.2???
by Kelly Wyatt 23 Mar '99

23 Mar '99

We have just been informed by Network Appliance that only *one* tape *drive* per adapter is supported on 5.1.2. (We have been running with 1 adapter/2 drives since August on 4.3 and then 5.0 and now on 5.1.2 since we upgraded.) Was anyone else aware of this? This came about due to a call we placed when removing a stuck tape rebooted the filer... ------- Kelly Wyatt, saskww(a)wnt.sas.com <mailto:saskww@wnt.sas.com> Integrated Solutions Consulting SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Drive / Cary, NC 27513 (919) 677-8000 X4279 (Voice) / (919) 677-4444 (FAX) http://www.sas.com <http://www.sas.com>

1 0

NVRAM PCI cards
by Daniel Quinlan 23 Mar '99

23 Mar '99

Does anyone know who makes the NVRAM cards used by NetApp (for F630 and earlier)? No, I'm not looking to put this into one of my NetApps, but I am looking for a PCI card with some sort of non-volatile RAM that I can purchase. Ideally, some sort of battery-backed RAM -- not flash. - Dan

5 4

Re: NVRAM PCI cards
by mds＠gbnet.net 23 Mar '99

23 Mar '99

You could always give solid state disk a try - fibre channel or SCSI connection and capacities from jsut over a hundred MB to about 17GB are available. A 17GB battery backed solid state RAM drive would cost about 250,000 USD though.. 8)

1 0

RE: NVRAM PCI cards
by Packer, Gary 23 Mar '99

23 Mar '99

I believe the NVRAM card used in the EISA system was designed by a company called PEP, I don't know if they offer a PCI version. Since the F330 series, we have used our own proprietary design of NVRAM. -----Original Message----- From: guy(a)netapp.com [mailto:guy@netapp.com] Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 7:02 PM To: quinlan(a)transmeta.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: NVRAM PCI cards > Does anyone know who makes the NVRAM cards used by NetApp (for F630 > and earlier)? Network Appliance, Inc.. (Well, they're probably actually *manufactured* by Solectron or some other contract manufacturer, but they're *not* an off-the-shelf part we buy from somebody else.) The NVRAM card used on the EISA filers came, as I was told, from a company that had an ISA NVRAM card - we had them design an EISA version. If they're still around, they may have a PCI card; I don't remember the name of the company, but I can ask around....

1 0

Re: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Arvind K Aggarwal 23 Mar '99

23 Mar '99

> > > It all boils down to the words "disaster" and "recovery" being > > subjective.... > > > > And the "official" meanings change between the time you show > > management a price tag and when the data center catches on fire. :) > > > > > > jason > --- > > *laugh* > > Good one! > Until the data center catches fire and the same folks wanna know why *YOU* did not tell them the whole truth. I agree with jason, I just like to put in every caveat possible to cma. Arvind

1 0

RE: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Mohler, Jeff 23 Mar '99

23 Mar '99

> It all boils down to the words "disaster" and "recovery" being > subjective.... > > And the "official" meanings change between the time you show > management a price tag and when the data center catches on fire. :) > > > jason --- *laugh* Good one!

1 0

RE: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Mohler, Jeff 23 Mar '99

23 Mar '99

In our carrier atmosphere, we'll purchase our way around the performance hit. Instant, constant mirroring is our only option for the various network operations we perform. > -----Original Message----- > From: tkaczma(a)gryf.net [SMTP:tkaczma@gryf.net] > Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 6:47 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: NetApp/Auspex killer? > > > > On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Mohler, Jeff wrote: > > > Your DR solution should PUSH data out constantly, not request it > > remotely every 60 seconds, then if a snapcopy fails for that period, it > gets > > thrown away on the remote side...two lost minutes of data. > > That's true for your application, but I don't want to mirror my disks > across the country even every 60 seconds. Once every couple of minutes > or hours is perfect for me. If you truly mirror your disks the latency > associated with data propagation will kill the performance. > > Tom

1 0

RE: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Mohler, Jeff 23 Mar '99

23 Mar '99

> -----Original Message----- > From: Thompson, Arnold [SMTP:arnold.thompson@netapp.com] > Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 1:04 PM > To: Mohler, Jeff; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: NetApp/Auspex killer? > > You're gonna *love* SnapMirror & SnapRestore! --- Already seen it, it does -not- match up to what EMC can do for us for remote DR service. A possible 2 minute outage in data-flow is a literal million dollar question for us. Your DR solution should PUSH data out constantly, not request it remotely every 60 seconds, then if a snapcopy fails for that period, it gets thrown away on the remote side...two lost minutes of data. Thats is at a minimum FOUR lost billing cycles on our ATM/IP/Voice network...and in our environment an incomplete billing cycle is non-billable. I belive the continuous real-time transfer of data from the main site to the remote site would be a solution that we could live with in the future.

3 2

RE: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Thompson, Arnold 22 Mar '99

22 Mar '99

Management says I can't tell you right now or they'll have to kill us both! We will be making an official announcement shortly, when it's available. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason D. Kelleher [mailto:kelleher@susq.com] > Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 12:18 PM > To: Thompson, Arnold > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: NetApp/Auspex killer? > > > In message > <7F608EC0BDE6D111B53A00805FA7F7DAF0C14A(a)TAHOE.netapp.com>, "Thomp > son, Arnold" writes: > >You're gonna *love* SnapMirror & SnapRestore! > > Hmmm... SnapRestore...? > > If this does what it sounds like it does, tell me more! If it > means no more waiting while several GBs are tar'd out of > a snapshot > and re-written to a "real directory" after a developer said > "Oops..", tell me how much! Actually, free would be > prefered... :) > > The only reference I could find to "SnapRestore" on NOW was on the > "Copyright Information" page, so let's hear it! > > jason > > >

1 0

Re: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Jason D. Kelleher 22 Mar '99

22 Mar '99

In message <7F608EC0BDE6D111B53A00805FA7F7DAF0C14A(a)TAHOE.netapp.com>, "Thomp son, Arnold" writes: >You're gonna *love* SnapMirror & SnapRestore! Hmmm... SnapRestore...? If this does what it sounds like it does, tell me more! If it means no more waiting while several GBs are tar'd out of a snapshot and re-written to a "real directory" after a developer said "Oops..", tell me how much! Actually, free would be prefered... :) The only reference I could find to "SnapRestore" on NOW was on the "Copyright Information" page, so let's hear it! jason

1 0

Re: Quad Ethernet
by Rob Windsor 22 Mar '99

22 Mar '99

On Fri, 19 Mar 1999 14:55:46 EST, Paul Taylor wrote: > I am installing quad fast ethernet cards in my F330 and F630 filers. > 1) What version of ON-TAP should the filers be running? > 2) What configurations issues should I be aware of, and how are > multipule default gateways configured? Assuming that you are running a quad card so that you can touch four different subnets... We ran with a quad card in our F520 with 4.something (I forget now, we're currently at 5.2.1) for a year w/o any problems with that. You only have one "default gateway". Let's see if I can sum up why without oversimplifying: The kernel maintains a list ("routing table") of 'what goes where' when a packet has to go out. It would be prohibitively expensive memorywise to know the exact path ("route") that each packet had to take for each arbitary machine in your machine's IP world (usually the internet so that your autosupport mail makes it to netapp.com). To simplify things (and allow failover routing to function), the routing table only keeps a list of immediate networks and destinations (and hand-entered routes), and one place to send "everything else" that it doesn't know directly. This is the "default gateway". ok, sorry for the "TCP/IP Networking 101" class, but I thought it would help. With that in mind, things are very simple. If you already have a "default gateway" set up because of your single card, you probably don't have to change it. Just assign ip addresses for each of the ports on the quad card that you're going to use, wire them up, and boot (OS rev issues aside). fwiw, we tried to 'load balance' two ports by giving them different ip addresses on the same subnet and letting solaris automounter on each of the client boxes "choose the shortest path". It didn't work out as well as we had hoped, we're not hitting near 25% capacity on either of the two ports (mmm, mrtg). -- Rob ---------------------------------------- Rob Windsor E-Mail - mailto:windsor@adc.com Senior Unix Systems Administrator Voice - phone:972-680-6919 Computer Services Fax - phone:972-680-0370 Business Broadband Group ADC Telecommunications Richardson, TX 75082

3 2

RE: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Thompson, Arnold 22 Mar '99

22 Mar '99

You're gonna *love* SnapMirror & SnapRestore! > -----Original Message----- > From: Mohler, Jeff [mailto:jeff.mohler@wilcom.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 1999 10:36 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: NetApp/Auspex killer? > > > You forgot "you cant touch that without an expensive service call". > You forgot "How many millions for a 1TB array??" > > A year ago I demanded a MIB for the EMC, our local EMC guy waffled for > months..never got it. > A year ago I demanded an NFS solution from EMC, our regional > guy waffled for > months..eventually EMC officially backed out. > > The -only- reason we still uses -some- EMC, is that EMC does > have a better > DR concept than NetApp does. When NetApp can deliver a Telco-Reliable > remote DR data solution, we'll be replacing EMC there too. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com [SMTP:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] > > Sent: Friday, March 19, 1999 10:18 PM > > To: Adams_Christian(a)emc.com; askaquestion(a)iname.com; > > toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Cc: watson(a)netapp.com > > Subject: RE: NetApp/Auspex killer? > > > > On 03/19/99 19:26:02 you wrote: > > > > > >Hey Toasters - > > > > > >How about: > > >[List of things snipped] > > > > > >Please excuse the plug, but I couldn't resist. > > > > > >/Christian Adams > > >Systems Engineer > > >South San Francisco, CA > > >EMC Corporation > > > > Er, I assume this means your claiming EMC can do these things > > and Netapp can't? > > > > Netapp can do just about all of the things you mention that > > anyone would *want* to do. > > > > They don't do RAID in hardware, but that's because they do > > RAID-4 which is better than RAID-5. And they still beat you > > on performance. Why would you want them to beat you even > > easier? > > > > When EMC can provide both NFS and CIFS support in a NAS box, on > > the same filesystem, same files, with coherent locking, which > > full support of all NT permissions, with a RAID level as easily > > expandable as RAID-4, with your own OS (not on the back end > > of a UNIX server), with better throughput *and* response time > > than Netapp (with published SFS results), for a *lower* price, > > email me. > > > > Until then, go pick on Sun. > > > > Bruce >

1 0

RE: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Adams, Christian 22 Mar '99

22 Mar '99

Hey Sir Bruce - Thanks for the invitation. What is your contact information so that I can put together the sales call? /Christian Adams > -----Original Message----- > From: sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com [SMTP:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Friday, March 19, 1999 8:18 PM > To: Adams_Christian(a)emc.com; askaquestion(a)iname.com; > toasters(a)mathworks.com > Cc: watson(a)netapp.com > Subject: RE: NetApp/Auspex killer? > > On 03/19/99 19:26:02 you wrote: > > > >Hey Toasters - > > > >How about: > >[List of things snipped] > > > >Please excuse the plug, but I couldn't resist. > > > >/Christian Adams > >Systems Engineer > >South San Francisco, CA > >EMC Corporation > > Er, I assume this means your claiming EMC can do these things > and Netapp can't? > > Netapp can do just about all of the things you mention that > anyone would *want* to do. > > They don't do RAID in hardware, but that's because they do > RAID-4 which is better than RAID-5. And they still beat you > on performance. Why would you want them to beat you even > easier? > > When EMC can provide both NFS and CIFS support in a NAS box, on > the same filesystem, same files, with coherent locking, which > full support of all NT permissions, with a RAID level as easily > expandable as RAID-4, with your own OS (not on the back end > of a UNIX server), with better throughput *and* response time > than Netapp (with published SFS results), for a *lower* price, > email me. > > Until then, go pick on Sun. > > Bruce >

2 1

Legatto Backup
by Jay Querusio 21 Mar '99

21 Mar '99

Does anyone have any experience using Legatto server on an AIX machine with an NT agent to back up there netapp. If so, could you share how this is working for you and any tricks or techniques needed to make it work Thanks in advance, Jay Querusio

2 1

RE: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Mohler, Jeff 20 Mar '99

20 Mar '99

You forgot "you cant touch that without an expensive service call". You forgot "How many millions for a 1TB array??" A year ago I demanded a MIB for the EMC, our local EMC guy waffled for months..never got it. A year ago I demanded an NFS solution from EMC, our regional guy waffled for months..eventually EMC officially backed out. The -only- reason we still uses -some- EMC, is that EMC does have a better DR concept than NetApp does. When NetApp can deliver a Telco-Reliable remote DR data solution, we'll be replacing EMC there too. > -----Original Message----- > From: sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com [SMTP:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Friday, March 19, 1999 10:18 PM > To: Adams_Christian(a)emc.com; askaquestion(a)iname.com; > toasters(a)mathworks.com > Cc: watson(a)netapp.com > Subject: RE: NetApp/Auspex killer? > > On 03/19/99 19:26:02 you wrote: > > > >Hey Toasters - > > > >How about: > >[List of things snipped] > > > >Please excuse the plug, but I couldn't resist. > > > >/Christian Adams > >Systems Engineer > >South San Francisco, CA > >EMC Corporation > > Er, I assume this means your claiming EMC can do these things > and Netapp can't? > > Netapp can do just about all of the things you mention that > anyone would *want* to do. > > They don't do RAID in hardware, but that's because they do > RAID-4 which is better than RAID-5. And they still beat you > on performance. Why would you want them to beat you even > easier? > > When EMC can provide both NFS and CIFS support in a NAS box, on > the same filesystem, same files, with coherent locking, which > full support of all NT permissions, with a RAID level as easily > expandable as RAID-4, with your own OS (not on the back end > of a UNIX server), with better throughput *and* response time > than Netapp (with published SFS results), for a *lower* price, > email me. > > Until then, go pick on Sun. > > Bruce

1 0

Re: stupid SMTP questions
by tkaczma＠gryf.net 20 Mar '99

20 Mar '99

On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Allan Burrington wrote: > You must be a Unix sysadmin - presumably, that is why transposing SNMP and > SMTP is such an issue to you. Before we get into a religious war, let me paraphrase some Dilbert for you "Here sonny have a nickel. Go get yourself a better operating system." Take YOUR condescending posture someplace else, with statements like, "The person is obviously a Unix sysadmin - take it easy on him..." > Pointing out the obvious is non-helpful to the other 10,000 people on the > mailing list. Are you sure there are exactly 10,001 people on this list? Why do YOU waste the other 10,000 people's bandwidth, not to mention time? > Pointing out that the funny numbers were in the MIB without > telling him where to find the Netapp MIB. Perhaps you should re-read your mail spool. He referenced the filename of the mib. > Then telling him what a tree > structure is. Looking at a SNMP id and being bewildered is a standard > newbee experience. That's why I suggested that he should read a book on TCP/IP so he can distinguish SMTP from SNMP before contemplating more delicate distinctions. > Telling the poor soul to buy a book is beyond > unhelpful - digests are so you do not have to buy something, and you do not > have to call tech support. No, I didn't just tell him to buy a book. I told him which book he should purchase. In addition, I mentioned that he should read the SNMP RFCs since SNMP is a very simple protocol. If he didn't feel up to it, then he should get a book on SNMP. O'Reilly usually has very palatable books. > The reference to Unix Sysadmin was to account for their approach to life - > they're Unix Sysadmins because they couldn't pass the civil servent exam. Apparently proper spelling was not tested on the civil _servant_ exam. Tom P.S. I hope this letter provided some comedic relief to this mail list.

2 1

RE: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 20 Mar '99

20 Mar '99

On 03/19/99 19:26:02 you wrote: > >Hey Toasters - > >How about: >[List of things snipped] > >Please excuse the plug, but I couldn't resist. > >/Christian Adams >Systems Engineer >South San Francisco, CA >EMC Corporation Er, I assume this means your claiming EMC can do these things and Netapp can't? Netapp can do just about all of the things you mention that anyone would *want* to do. They don't do RAID in hardware, but that's because they do RAID-4 which is better than RAID-5. And they still beat you on performance. Why would you want them to beat you even easier? When EMC can provide both NFS and CIFS support in a NAS box, on the same filesystem, same files, with coherent locking, which full support of all NT permissions, with a RAID level as easily expandable as RAID-4, with your own OS (not on the back end of a UNIX server), with better throughput *and* response time than Netapp (with published SFS results), for a *lower* price, email me. Until then, go pick on Sun. Bruce

1 0

Fibre Channel and 5.2.1 issues
by Diptish Datta 20 Mar '99

20 Mar '99

There have been a lot of concerns expressed on this list regarding two issues - Fibre Channel drive stability and the current Data ONTAP release 5.2.1 stability. I just wanted to take a moment to address these concerns. Fibre Channel Drive Stability: There have certainly been some problems we faced with stability and that obviously is the source of all the concern expressed in this exchange. But quality data that we monitor tells me that the stability of FC-AL systems have been good. One indication of the quality is the initial field failure rate of FC-AL drives. It has been a maximum of 0.3% for 18G drives and a maximum of 1.19% for 9G drives. That means that less than 3 out of 1000 18G drives and less than 12 out of 1000 9G drives shipped failed within 30 days. In the course of diagnosing and addressing the issues that have come up we have found a couple of things that everyone should be aware of. The following are the things to watch out for: 1. Disk driver and firmware upgrade We discovered some problems in the FC-AL drive firmware with the implementation of the FC-AL protocol. This was corrected by newer firmware. Data ONTAP 5.1.2 or higher and drive firmware FB37 is *required* for FC-AL drive stability. A lot of people have upgraded to 5.1.2 or 5.2.1 but have not taken the time to upgrade the firmware on their disks. 2. New memory DIMMs on F760 systems with FC-AL It was discovered that the original DIMMs we were shipping systems with was causing noise on the bus and affecting FC-AL signal integrity. NetApp has launched (and concluded) an effort to proactively contact and upgrade all F760 customers with the new DIMMs that were qualified to address this problem. If you feel that you have not been contacted or know that you have not upgraded the DIMMs on a F760 FC-AL system, you should contact Support immediately. 3. Environmental temperature and system ventilation In some instances we have diagnosed a higher than normal failure rate on storage down to overtemperature conditions. This is not unique for FC-AL drives but Fibre Channel allows for denser storage pools and therefore, air flow and cooling is even more critical. Inadequate ventilation where the vents are blocked or shelves are placed such that the exhaust is being directed back into shelves can cause the drives to deteriorate over time. We have proven cases where correcting such situations has reduced the failure rates. 4. Disk seating In some cases we have found that drives not being properly seated in the shelves can cause spurious errors. This is a physical seating problem that NetApp is addressing by considering new designs in next generation shelves. But for now checking that the drives are fully seated by firmly pressing down the drives to make sure there is no play is recommended. With these precautions and corrective actions FC-AL systems should be stable. Of course, there is always the case of a disk not operating within acceptable parameters. These require us to diagnose the problem and remove the disk to gain stability. But that is the exception. Overall, the metrics we collect indicate that FC-AL drives have been very stable. 5.2.1 Stability: The current recommended release is 5.2.1. This release has a lot of bug fixes over previous releases and metrics leads me to believe that it is a release we should feel comfortable with. Based on autosupport logs it looks like there are over 650 systems out there running 5.2.1 or a patch release on it. Patch releases are available for some of the common bugs that are known to exist on 5.2.1 and Tech Support will recommend one if a customer needs it. In another effort to improve stability Engineering is launching a process to release regularly scheduled Maintenance Releases. These will offer you the advantage of predictability (scheduled and planned releases) and thorough QA with bug fixes to address customer crashes. The primary release driver will be bug fixes and increased stability. A pareto of the problems found on 5.2.1 showed that a couple of bugs have caused the most downtime and Engineering is working on the first maintenance release on 5.2.1 so that new systems shipped out from the factory will be protected against these bugs. If you have any questions on any of the above feel free to contact Tech Support. Diptish Datta Director, Product Support Network Appliance

1 0

Quad Ethernet
by Shaw, Kevin 20 Mar '99

20 Mar '99

I am installing quad fast ethernet cards in my F330 and F630 filers. 1) What version of ON-TAP should the filers be running? 2) What configurations issues should I be aware of, and how are multipule default gateways configured? Thanks in advance.

4 3

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters