toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

CIFS Setup Problems
by Alexander Strauss 10 Mar '99

10 Mar '99

Hello, I tried to setup CIFS on my NetApp Fileserver using NT Domain authentication. The Filer has been added to the Domain by the NT server manager and can find the primary domain controller through the WINS service. Then I get the following error message: > filer> cifs setup > [ ... ] > Will this filer use an NT Domain for authentication? [yes]: > Enter the NT Domain for the filer: EUROPE1 > > CIFS local server is registering... > CIFS server is beginning domain installation. > CIFS server is locating PDC. > CIFS - Primary Domain Controller must be active for installation. > > CIFS local server is shutting down... But the primary domain controller *is* definitely active. Any suggestions? thank you, -- Alexander Strauss - Email: strauss(a)ti.com - TI-MSG: ALST System Administrator - Mixed Signal & Logic Products Europe Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, 85350 Freising, Germany Phone: +49 8161 80-3606 - Fax: +49 8161 80-4477

4 3

Re: Accessing CIFS shares with Unix authentication
by Mark Muhlestein 10 Mar '99

10 Mar '99

You can use /etc/passwd accounts. When you run 'cifs setup' say that you don't want to install into a domain. Then you'll have to set up NIS or copy in /etc/passwd to the filer. If you are using NT 4 service pack 3 or higher clients you will also have to change a registry setting to allow plaintext passwords. That's described by Microsoft (from their knowledge base web site): "Unable to connect to SMB server with unencrypted password due to redirector. Cause: After applying Service Pack 3, the SMB redirector does not send unencrypted passwords until a registry entry is added to enable unencrypted passwords. Solution: Configure the SMB server to use encrypted passwords, or edit the registry of the Windows NT computers to enable sending unencrypted passwords. NOTE: Configuring the SMB server to use encrypted passwords is the preferred solution, since the registry on each client machine must be edited. NOTE: The following procedure describes how to edit the registry to enable sending unencrypted passwords. This procedure must be performed on each client machine which connects to the SMB server. CAUTION: Using Registry Editor incorrectly can cause serious, system-wide problems that may require you to reinstall Windows NT to correct them. Read the following procedure carefully before proceeding. 1) Run the program REGEDT32. 2) Navigate to the following key: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Rdr\Parameters 3) Add the value entry 'EnablePlainTextPassword' of data type REG_DWORD, and set the value to 1. NOTE: The registry entry 'EnablePlainTextPassword' has a range of values from 0 (plaintext password disabled) to 1 (plaintext password enabled). 4) Restart the computer to enable the new settings. -----Original Message----- From: P.S.Jones <P.S.Jones(a)durham.ac.uk> To: toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Date: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 8:08 AM Subject: Accessing CIFS shares with Unix authentication >We have a Network Appliance 740 Filer for evaluation and want to try >it in a mixed Unix and NT environment. I think we can handle the Unix >side without any real problems. What we are struggling with is how to >provide access to the CIFS file store to our NT clients by supplying >Unix credentials? I'll explain this in a bit more detail. > >Our NT service has no user accounts, or rather it has one, a general >auto logon account. Within this account's logon script we prompt for >authentication details (real user ID and password) and then map >network shares against our existing Netware 3.1 servers. In the summer >we plan to retire Netware 3.1 and provide the home file store from a >Unix like system. We've tried Samba and quite like it but we want to >evaluate the Filer as well. But how can we map a CIFS share from the >Filer using just Unix credentials? > >I'm trying to read the documentation at the moment and have come >across the usermap.cfg file mechanism, but this doesn't seem quite >appropriate since we don't have any NT accounts. I wonder if anyone >on this list has solved a problem like this? Are we going to have to >run Samba anyway for the authentication? > >Any comments gratefully received. > >-- >Paul Jones, ITS, University of Durham, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE >Email: P.S.Jones(a)durham.ac.uk Phone/Fax: 0191 374 2879/3741 >

2 1

RE: CIFS Setup Problems
by Mike Ball 10 Mar '99

10 Mar '99

Alexander, Make sure you add the filer via Server Manager on you NT Domain before running cifs setup. The filer must be added to the domain before running cifs setup. If this has been done, see if you can ping the PDC ip from your filer console! If your not able to ping the PDC, you may be dealing with a routing issue. Hope this helps, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Alexander Strauss [SMTP:strauss@ti.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 11:30 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: CIFS Setup Problems Hello, I tried to setup CIFS on my NetApp Fileserver using NT Domain authentication. The Filer has been added to the Domain by the NT server manager and can find the primary domain controller through the WINS service. Then I get the following error message: > filer> cifs setup > [ ... ] > Will this filer use an NT Domain for authentication? [yes]: > Enter the NT Domain for the filer: EUROPE1 > > CIFS local server is registering... > CIFS server is beginning domain installation. > CIFS server is locating PDC. > CIFS - Primary Domain Controller must be active for installation. > > CIFS local server is shutting down... But the primary domain controller *is* definitely active. Any suggestions? thank you, -- Alexander Strauss - Email: strauss(a)ti.com - TI-MSG: ALST System Administrator - Mixed Signal & Logic Products Europe Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, 85350 Freising, Germany Phone: +49 8161 80-3606 - Fax: +49 8161 80-4477

1 0

RE: CIFS Setup Problems
by Hawley, Rob 10 Mar '99

10 Mar '99

Problems such as this are typically caused by problems with the name service configuration. If you are running 5.1 or later, then you can use the command "cifs testdc" to diagnose problems such as these. Filer>cifs testdc [<wins addr> ] domain name [<optional name to test>] This should give you a printout like this : nttest> cifs testdc 10.10.10.55 nt-domain nttest Test will use WINS name resolution Testing WINS address...10.10.10.55 is alive Testing name registration... succeeded Current Mode of NBT is H Mode Netbios scope "" <-------if you use netbios scope you need to set the scope using the options. Registered names... NTTEST < 0> WINS <-- the filer is registering with WINS. If you used broadcasts, then this would say broadcast. If you tried to register with WINS and this says broadcast -->Watch Out. WINS registration failed Testing Primary Domain Controller found 1 addresses <- In your case I would expect this to fail trying 10.150.13.15...10.150.13.15 is alive <- can you route to the domain controller? found PDC FRENCH40 <- OK something is saying it is domain controller, is it really behaving like a domain controller. Testing all Domain Controllers found 3 addresses trying 10.150.13.15...10.150.13.15 is alive trying 10.150.13.15...10.150.13.15 is alive trying 192.168.2.66...192.168.2.66 is alive found DC FRENCH40 at 10.150.13.15 Not able to communicate with DC 10.150.13.15 found DC NT-DOMAIN-BDC at 192.168.2.66 If your filer is multihomed, you are using WINS, and the registration test fails, then go to the WINS server and ping (or tracert) each interface on the filer. If the WINS server does not have a route to an interface then WINS registration will fail. The printout below does not indicate that this has happened, but others may find this useful. Make sure the domain contains a freshly created machine account for the filer. You can create a machine account using Server manager. Check to make sure that the domain controller is configured with the TCP network stack. We do not implement netbios. Hope this helps. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > mailto: hawleyr(a)netapp.com <mailto:hawleyr@netapp.com> US Mail: Network Appliance Inc. > Phone: 408-367-3254 2770 San Tomas Expressway > FAX: 408-367-3451 Santa Clara, CA 95051 -----Original Message----- From: Alexander Strauss [mailto:strauss@ti.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 8:30 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: CIFS Setup Problems Hello, I tried to setup CIFS on my NetApp Fileserver using NT Domain authentication. The Filer has been added to the Domain by the NT server manager and can find the primary domain controller through the WINS service. Then I get the following error message: > filer> cifs setup > [ ... ] > Will this filer use an NT Domain for authentication? [yes]: > Enter the NT Domain for the filer: EUROPE1 > > CIFS local server is registering... > CIFS server is beginning domain installation. > CIFS server is locating PDC. > CIFS - Primary Domain Controller must be active for installation. > > CIFS local server is shutting down... But the primary domain controller *is* definitely active. Any suggestions? thank you, -- Alexander Strauss - Email: strauss(a)ti.com - TI-MSG: ALST System Administrator - Mixed Signal & Logic Products Europe Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, 85350 Freising, Germany Phone: +49 8161 80-3606 - Fax: +49 8161 80-4477

1 0

Accessing CIFS shares with Unix authentication
by P.S.Jones 10 Mar '99

10 Mar '99

We have a Network Appliance 740 Filer for evaluation and want to try it in a mixed Unix and NT environment. I think we can handle the Unix side without any real problems. What we are struggling with is how to provide access to the CIFS file store to our NT clients by supplying Unix credentials? I'll explain this in a bit more detail. Our NT service has no user accounts, or rather it has one, a general auto logon account. Within this account's logon script we prompt for authentication details (real user ID and password) and then map network shares against our existing Netware 3.1 servers. In the summer we plan to retire Netware 3.1 and provide the home file store from a Unix like system. We've tried Samba and quite like it but we want to evaluate the Filer as well. But how can we map a CIFS share from the Filer using just Unix credentials? I'm trying to read the documentation at the moment and have come across the usermap.cfg file mechanism, but this doesn't seem quite appropriate since we don't have any NT accounts. I wonder if anyone on this list has solved a problem like this? Are we going to have to run Samba anyway for the authentication? Any comments gratefully received. -- Paul Jones, ITS, University of Durham, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE Email: P.S.Jones(a)durham.ac.uk Phone/Fax: 0191 374 2879/3741

1 0

test
by Jason Middlebrooks 09 Mar '99

09 Mar '99

test Jason Middlebrooks Systems Engineer Datalink Phone: 888-933-9327x260 2264 Northwest Parkway, Suite I Pager: 888-502-1625 Marietta, GA 30067 Fax: 770-933-9272

1 0

RE: Future Newbie Needs Advice
by Sam Schorr 08 Mar '99

08 Mar '99

Russ, I don't have a conclusion yet, but I do have some progress. We replaced the disk shelves in the "older" filer and that allowed the new cluster partner F740 to recognize all the disk drives. However, for some unknown reason, the "older" filer is periodically halting with no error messages. The good news is that the cluster partner is immediately taking over and thus our customers do not see any failure (well, there may be a few who get a message about file access as the partner breaks the CIFS share). The bigger window for file errors is when we do a "giveback" as that must break all the CIFS shares first, and then reboot the filer that is being given back control. We have replace the ServerNet card in the "older" filer in the effort to stop the halts, but that has not done so. It begins to look like a motherboard replace, but Netapp has yet to give its opinion. I'll let you know the next installment of "As the Netapp Clusters". --srs -----Original Message----- From: Russ Amidon [mailto:amidon@pico.sps.mot.com] Sent: Monday, March 08, 1999 11:06 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Future Newbie Needs Advice Thank you to all that took the time to answer my posting. It is nice to hear some positive responses when you are about to spend big bucks. I am particularlly interested in hearing the "conclusion" of Sam Schorr's Soap Opera about his experience with installation of cluster fail over. Thanks again, Russ Amidon > Subject: Future Newbie Needs Advice > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Md5: gJvzv996YOYYC+QpWeuraQ== > > Hello Everyone, > > I am about to purchase two F760's w/ Cluster Failover Software and Hardware > because we need a system that is 100% available and rock solid. I was convinced > after talking to other Net App users that this was the way to go. After a week > of reading this mailing list, I am no longer convinced. Does anyone out there > have the system I described? Are you happy with it? I am particularly concerned > about the fiber channel problems and all of the OS upgrades and patches. > > We are also considering the new Auspex NS2000. Does anyone know of an Auspex > mailing list like this one? > > Thank you in advance for any advise you can offer to the "future newbie". > > Russ Amidon > UNIX Sys Admin >

1 0

Re: Future Newbie Needs Advice
by Russ Amidon 08 Mar '99

08 Mar '99

Thank you to all that took the time to answer my posting. It is nice to hear some positive responses when you are about to spend big bucks. I am particularlly interested in hearing the "conclusion" of Sam Schorr's Soap Opera about his experience with installation of cluster fail over. Thanks again, Russ Amidon > Subject: Future Newbie Needs Advice > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Md5: gJvzv996YOYYC+QpWeuraQ== > > Hello Everyone, > > I am about to purchase two F760's w/ Cluster Failover Software and Hardware > because we need a system that is 100% available and rock solid. I was convinced > after talking to other Net App users that this was the way to go. After a week > of reading this mailing list, I am no longer convinced. Does anyone out there > have the system I described? Are you happy with it? I am particularly concerned > about the fiber channel problems and all of the OS upgrades and patches. > > We are also considering the new Auspex NS2000. Does anyone know of an Auspex > mailing list like this one? > > Thank you in advance for any advise you can offer to the "future newbie". > > Russ Amidon > UNIX Sys Admin >

1 0

What about this one? (DLT autoloader)
by Kathy Fischer 08 Mar '99

08 Mar '99

The DLT we've been looking at is the ATL L500 Library with 14 tape slots and one DLT7000 tape drive .... has anyone out there had any experience with this tape drive and the 720 filer? .... we really want to stick with DLT because we've already invested a fortune in tapes (we currently own a Quantum DLT4000)!!! Thanks for any/all help! Kathy Kathleen G. Fischer Research Systems, Inc. (303)413-3909 kfischer(a)rsinc.com

1 0

Legato Networker backups summary
by Gregory M. Paris 08 Mar '99

08 Mar '99

Thanks all for your responses to my query about how to backup a NetApp with Legato Networker server on UNIX. The answer seems to be that such cannot be accomplished without losing the NT ACLs. I also received unofficial indications that the seemingly fabled Networker client for NetApp will be available in May. I presume that people who buy that product at that time will also become de facto beta testers, since nobody came forward to say they're running it now. I'm planning to roll out the new server in May. I can't specify hardware that I don't know for certain I can back up on May 1. Oh well.... Greg -- Gregory M. Paris CIS Engineering Systems Bose Corporation Email: paris(a)bose.com The Mountain Phone: +1 508 766-6080 Framingham, MA 01701-9168 FAX: +1 508 820-0173

1 0

RE: Legato Networker backups
by Dane Jasper 08 Mar '99

08 Mar '99

Matthew, thanks much for the great summary. We're a growing enterprise with scattered backup solutions, and we're currently shopping for a consolidated solution. We need to back up the following - is Legato "the" solution for this? One NetApp with 30 gigs 15 Linux servers, 150 gigs 20 Linux stations, 40 gigs 1 NT server, 4 gigs 10 Assorted NT/95/98 stations, 20 gigs Will Legato do all of this? Is there another way? Is there some sort of Legato client for each of these machines? Thanks much for the info! -- Dane Jasper Sonic (707)522-1001 (33.6kbps) (707)522-1000 (Voice) mailto:support@sonic.net http://www.sonic.net Key fingerprint = A5 D6 6E 16 D8 81 BA E9 CB BD A9 77 B3 AF 45 53 ----- Forwarded message from "Whitman, Matthew" <matt.whitman(a)netapp.com> ----- Greg, I will take a crack at answering this for you as a "guy in the know..". First things first; you are not the first to bring this up. As you may or may not know, NetApp wrote a protocol several years ago called NDMP which stands for Network Data Management Protocol, which allows for a "standard" that controls remote tape devices, storage pools, etc. Most every backup vendor signed on to support the protocol (Veritas, Intelliguard, BudTool, Seagate, CommVault, etc.) except Legato, who maintained the "superiority" of their proprietary system. There have been a large number of VERY big NetApp installs that have been pushing Legato to provide native NetApp or they would switch to another product. This led to the co-development of a Java-based Legato Networker client that will run directly on the Filer. The expected shipping date of this product is Q2/99. This product will be distributed, supported (and presumably sold) directly by Legato. But wait!! Things get EVEN better! On 1/28/99, Legato announced that they were acquiring Intelliguard Software: http://www.legato.com/press/PR200.html One of the main reasons cited for buying Intelliguard was the NDMP technology. EVEN BETTER!!!!!!!!! On 2/2/99, Legato announced that all Networker products will be NDMP compliant in Q3/99: http://www.legato.com/press/PR209.html With a big sigh of relief and a smile on their faces, NetApp customers and employees could give a hearty YAHOO!!! Now, the question was asked about keeping the CIFS attributes during backup; both of the methods above will allow this to happen. In current environments, backups need to be done by an NT machine running Networker, OR having a UNIX Networker server that backs up an NT machine with the Filer mounted on it. I hope that this helps. Regards, Matt Matt Whitman - Consulting Systems Engineer Network Appliance, Inc. www.netapp.com 2350 Mission College Blvd. Suite 900 Santa Clara, CA 95054 (408)367-3000 Corporate mattw(a)netapp.com - E-mail (408)987-5365 - Direct Dial (408)987-5364 - Fax -----Original Message----- From: Gregory M. Paris [mailto:paris@bose.com] Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 12:26 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: paris(a)bose.com Subject: Legato Networker backups Dear Toasters, This is along the lines of the "Future Newbie" thread, though I'm not new to NetApp boxes. I am looking to get our first here at this company. We use Legato Networker to backup our Engineering systems, which I support. (We use HP's Omniback and a StorageTek tape library for our business systems, but that's another post....) The problem is, I'm not clear on how I'll backup an F740 (~180 GB) using Networker. I've read the "How to Integrate..." white paper on the NetApp site. I've read the ancient "Backing Up NetApp..." on the Legato site. Neither of those seem to address our situation: Networker server running on Solaris; NetApp server with NFS and CIFS. How do I? I can connect a Quantum DLT stacker to the NetApp, but can I make Legato use it? If not, how do I backup over the network, given that I want to preserve NT ACLs? The "How to Integrate..." document shows how to do this when Networker runs on an NT machine, but we have it on UNIX. I'm looking for a definitive answer, on the order of, "We do it here and it works great!" (along with the how-to, of course). I'm bucking the prevailing winds in trying to bring in a NetApp. Tiny issues like, "No proven way to back it up," could result in me supporting a new HP or Sun server. (Not that I don't use their equipment already, but the combination of RAID and NFS+CIFS is too much complexity on UNIX servers, IMHO.) All help is appreciated. Greg -- Gregory M. Paris CIS Engineering Systems Bose Corporation Email: paris(a)bose.com The Mountain Phone: +1 508 766-6080 Framingham, MA 01701-9168 FAX: +1 508 820-0173 ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Dane Jasper Sonic (707)522-1001 (33.6kbps) (707)522-1000 (Voice) mailto:support@sonic.net http://www.sonic.net Key fingerprint = A5 D6 6E 16 D8 81 BA E9 CB BD A9 77 B3 AF 45 53

2 1

Does somebody have a problem with
by eyal traitel 08 Mar '99

08 Mar '99

Mentor Graphics / CheckMate? We would like to hear/share experiences. We have strange problem with some run which get stuck when working on NetApp mounted directory, and working when on regular Sun host. We have the problem only on Solaris 2.5.1, not on SunOS. Yours, Eyal Traitel Motorola Semiconductor Israel

1 0

RE: Future Newbie Needs Advice
by Kirschner, Lewis 08 Mar '99

08 Mar '99

Graham, I run the reseller channel for NetApp in the Northeast so I know you'll probably take this as a biased comment. I'm frankly flabergasted. I have three reseller taht have installed more than 8 CF Filers and they're all rock solid!! I worked for Sun for 10+ years and never encounterred a product as solid as this. Lew Kirschner ------- NETWORK APPLIANCE ================================================================= FAST! SIMPLE! RELIABLE! MULTIPROTOCOL!! ***************************************************************** Lew Kirschner - Eastern Area V-Mail: 732 603 7330 Reseller Mgr (V-Mail Only) Network Appliance Reach #: 914-369-3830 35 Sagamore Avenue Fax #: 914-369-3832 Suffern, New York 10901 e-mail: lewisk(a)netapp.com http://www.netapp.com ***************************************************************** The Market Leader in Network Attached Storage for Multiprotocol Environments! -----Original Message----- From: Graham Knight [mailto:grahamk@ast.lmco.com] Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 10:08 AM To: Russ Amidon Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Future Newbie Needs Advice Russ Amidon wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > I am about to purchase two F760's w/ Cluster Failover Software and Hardware > because we need a system that is 100% available and rock solid. I was convinced > after talking to other Net App users that this was the way to go. After a week > of reading this mailing list, I am no longer convinced. Remember that people rarely post to tell about systems that never die. I've posted about problems we've had with 2 of our systems - you never hear about the other 35 that have been running without problems for years (including some with uptimes of over a year - and the last documented downtime being because of power failure in the building and UPS's running out of juice). It's a great list - just be careful how you intepret it :-) Graham

1 0

NFS 2 -vs-3
by Mohler, Jeff 07 Mar '99

07 Mar '99

In a really short list, other than the attribute cache, why is vers 2 NFS better than vers 3? Im looking at the window (2 -vs- 8k) as the advantage. I will be working with directories with fewer than a dozen LARGE files on each mount. Thanks!

3 2

NetApp/Auspex killer?
by askaquestion＠iname.com 06 Mar '99

06 Mar '99

Yes, NetApps are fine boxes but... If you started a company to build a NAS box, what would you build that would be better than what NetApp, Auspex, etc. has? I'm looking for serious responses here - to improve the market with competition! I don't view the kind of very-low $ suggestions on this list recently as the kind of thing that most of us are interested in. Don't let my anonymous query lead you into thinking that I'm not 100% serious. If anything it should illustrate just how serious I am. --------------------------------------------------- Get free personalized email at http://www.iname.com

2 1

RE: Legato Networker backups
by Whitman, Matthew 06 Mar '99

06 Mar '99

Dane, I am not aware which or if any of the backup vendors provide Linux support. You COULD batch data nightly to the netapp... 8=) Actually NDMP is an open standard, and we have a utility called NDMP copy that allows source to destination copies from one filer to another. This has already been ported to hp-UX to allow a copy to/from a filer. I don't doubt that it could be built/compiled for Linux if someone were to put forth the effort... As for the different packages in general, I like to remain neutral between the different vendors, and would advise you to do your due diligence and compare the value add of each product. Good luck! Regards, Matt Matt Whitman - Consulting Systems Engineer Network Appliance, Inc. www.netapp.com 2350 Mission College Blvd. Suite 900 Santa Clara, CA 95054 (408)367-3000 Corporate mattw(a)netapp.com - E-mail (408)987-5365 - Direct Dial (408)987-5364 - Fax -----Original Message----- From: Dane Jasper [mailto:dane@sonic.net] Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 4:05 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Legato Networker backups Matthew, thanks much for the great summary. We're a growing enterprise with scattered backup solutions, and we're currently shopping for a consolidated solution. We need to back up the following - is Legato "the" solution for this? One NetApp with 30 gigs 15 Linux servers, 150 gigs 20 Linux stations, 40 gigs 1 NT server, 4 gigs 10 Assorted NT/95/98 stations, 20 gigs Will Legato do all of this? Is there another way? Is there some sort of Legato client for each of these machines? Thanks much for the info! -- Dane Jasper Sonic (707)522-1001 (33.6kbps) (707)522-1000 (Voice) mailto:support@sonic.net http://www.sonic.net Key fingerprint = A5 D6 6E 16 D8 81 BA E9 CB BD A9 77 B3 AF 45 53 ----- Forwarded message from "Whitman, Matthew" <matt.whitman(a)netapp.com> ----- Greg, I will take a crack at answering this for you as a "guy in the know..". First things first; you are not the first to bring this up. As you may or may not know, NetApp wrote a protocol several years ago called NDMP which stands for Network Data Management Protocol, which allows for a "standard" that controls remote tape devices, storage pools, etc. Most every backup vendor signed on to support the protocol (Veritas, Intelliguard, BudTool, Seagate, CommVault, etc.) except Legato, who maintained the "superiority" of their proprietary system. There have been a large number of VERY big NetApp installs that have been pushing Legato to provide native NetApp or they would switch to another product. This led to the co-development of a Java-based Legato Networker client that will run directly on the Filer. The expected shipping date of this product is Q2/99. This product will be distributed, supported (and presumably sold) directly by Legato. But wait!! Things get EVEN better! On 1/28/99, Legato announced that they were acquiring Intelliguard Software: http://www.legato.com/press/PR200.html One of the main reasons cited for buying Intelliguard was the NDMP technology. EVEN BETTER!!!!!!!!! On 2/2/99, Legato announced that all Networker products will be NDMP compliant in Q3/99: http://www.legato.com/press/PR209.html With a big sigh of relief and a smile on their faces, NetApp customers and employees could give a hearty YAHOO!!! Now, the question was asked about keeping the CIFS attributes during backup; both of the methods above will allow this to happen. In current environments, backups need to be done by an NT machine running Networker, OR having a UNIX Networker server that backs up an NT machine with the Filer mounted on it. I hope that this helps. Regards, Matt Matt Whitman - Consulting Systems Engineer Network Appliance, Inc. www.netapp.com 2350 Mission College Blvd. Suite 900 Santa Clara, CA 95054 (408)367-3000 Corporate mattw(a)netapp.com - E-mail (408)987-5365 - Direct Dial (408)987-5364 - Fax -----Original Message----- From: Gregory M. Paris [mailto:paris@bose.com] Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 12:26 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: paris(a)bose.com Subject: Legato Networker backups Dear Toasters, This is along the lines of the "Future Newbie" thread, though I'm not new to NetApp boxes. I am looking to get our first here at this company. We use Legato Networker to backup our Engineering systems, which I support. (We use HP's Omniback and a StorageTek tape library for our business systems, but that's another post....) The problem is, I'm not clear on how I'll backup an F740 (~180 GB) using Networker. I've read the "How to Integrate..." white paper on the NetApp site. I've read the ancient "Backing Up NetApp..." on the Legato site. Neither of those seem to address our situation: Networker server running on Solaris; NetApp server with NFS and CIFS. How do I? I can connect a Quantum DLT stacker to the NetApp, but can I make Legato use it? If not, how do I backup over the network, given that I want to preserve NT ACLs? The "How to Integrate..." document shows how to do this when Networker runs on an NT machine, but we have it on UNIX. I'm looking for a definitive answer, on the order of, "We do it here and it works great!" (along with the how-to, of course). I'm bucking the prevailing winds in trying to bring in a NetApp. Tiny issues like, "No proven way to back it up," could result in me supporting a new HP or Sun server. (Not that I don't use their equipment already, but the combination of RAID and NFS+CIFS is too much complexity on UNIX servers, IMHO.) All help is appreciated. Greg -- Gregory M. Paris CIS Engineering Systems Bose Corporation Email: paris(a)bose.com The Mountain Phone: +1 508 766-6080 Framingham, MA 01701-9168 FAX: +1 508 820-0173 ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Dane Jasper Sonic (707)522-1001 (33.6kbps) (707)522-1000 (Voice) mailto:support@sonic.net http://www.sonic.net Key fingerprint = A5 D6 6E 16 D8 81 BA E9 CB BD A9 77 B3 AF 45 53

1 0

RE: Legato Networker backups
by Whitman, Matthew 06 Mar '99

06 Mar '99

Greg, I will take a crack at answering this for you as a "guy in the know..". First things first; you are not the first to bring this up. As you may or may not know, NetApp wrote a protocol several years ago called NDMP which stands for Network Data Management Protocol, which allows for a "standard" that controls remote tape devices, storage pools, etc. Most every backup vendor signed on to support the protocol (Veritas, Intelliguard, BudTool, Seagate, CommVault, etc.) except Legato, who maintained the "superiority" of their proprietary system. There have been a large number of VERY big NetApp installs that have been pushing Legato to provide native NetApp or they would switch to another product. This led to the co-development of a Java-based Legato Networker client that will run directly on the Filer. The expected shipping date of this product is Q2/99. This product will be distributed, supported (and presumably sold) directly by Legato. But wait!! Things get EVEN better! On 1/28/99, Legato announced that they were acquiring Intelliguard Software: http://www.legato.com/press/PR200.html One of the main reasons cited for buying Intelliguard was the NDMP technology. EVEN BETTER!!!!!!!!! On 2/2/99, Legato announced that all Networker products will be NDMP compliant in Q3/99: http://www.legato.com/press/PR209.html With a big sigh of relief and a smile on their faces, NetApp customers and employees could give a hearty YAHOO!!! Now, the question was asked about keeping the CIFS attributes during backup; both of the methods above will allow this to happen. In current environments, backups need to be done by an NT machine running Networker, OR having a UNIX Networker server that backs up an NT machine with the Filer mounted on it. I hope that this helps. Regards, Matt Matt Whitman - Consulting Systems Engineer Network Appliance, Inc. www.netapp.com 2350 Mission College Blvd. Suite 900 Santa Clara, CA 95054 (408)367-3000 Corporate mattw(a)netapp.com - E-mail (408)987-5365 - Direct Dial (408)987-5364 - Fax -----Original Message----- From: Gregory M. Paris [mailto:paris@bose.com] Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 12:26 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: paris(a)bose.com Subject: Legato Networker backups Dear Toasters, This is along the lines of the "Future Newbie" thread, though I'm not new to NetApp boxes. I am looking to get our first here at this company. We use Legato Networker to backup our Engineering systems, which I support. (We use HP's Omniback and a StorageTek tape library for our business systems, but that's another post....) The problem is, I'm not clear on how I'll backup an F740 (~180 GB) using Networker. I've read the "How to Integrate..." white paper on the NetApp site. I've read the ancient "Backing Up NetApp..." on the Legato site. Neither of those seem to address our situation: Networker server running on Solaris; NetApp server with NFS and CIFS. How do I? I can connect a Quantum DLT stacker to the NetApp, but can I make Legato use it? If not, how do I backup over the network, given that I want to preserve NT ACLs? The "How to Integrate..." document shows how to do this when Networker runs on an NT machine, but we have it on UNIX. I'm looking for a definitive answer, on the order of, "We do it here and it works great!" (along with the how-to, of course). I'm bucking the prevailing winds in trying to bring in a NetApp. Tiny issues like, "No proven way to back it up," could result in me supporting a new HP or Sun server. (Not that I don't use their equipment already, but the combination of RAID and NFS+CIFS is too much complexity on UNIX servers, IMHO.) All help is appreciated. Greg -- Gregory M. Paris CIS Engineering Systems Bose Corporation Email: paris(a)bose.com The Mountain Phone: +1 508 766-6080 Framingham, MA 01701-9168 FAX: +1 508 820-0173

2 1

Legato Networker backups
by Gregory M. Paris 05 Mar '99

05 Mar '99

Dear Toasters, This is along the lines of the "Future Newbie" thread, though I'm not new to NetApp boxes. I am looking to get our first here at this company. We use Legato Networker to backup our Engineering systems, which I support. (We use HP's Omniback and a StorageTek tape library for our business systems, but that's another post....) The problem is, I'm not clear on how I'll backup an F740 (~180 GB) using Networker. I've read the "How to Integrate..." white paper on the NetApp site. I've read the ancient "Backing Up NetApp..." on the Legato site. Neither of those seem to address our situation: Networker server running on Solaris; NetApp server with NFS and CIFS. How do I? I can connect a Quantum DLT stacker to the NetApp, but can I make Legato use it? If not, how do I backup over the network, given that I want to preserve NT ACLs? The "How to Integrate..." document shows how to do this when Networker runs on an NT machine, but we have it on UNIX. I'm looking for a definitive answer, on the order of, "We do it here and it works great!" (along with the how-to, of course). I'm bucking the prevailing winds in trying to bring in a NetApp. Tiny issues like, "No proven way to back it up," could result in me supporting a new HP or Sun server. (Not that I don't use their equipment already, but the combination of RAID and NFS+CIFS is too much complexity on UNIX servers, IMHO.) All help is appreciated. Greg -- Gregory M. Paris CIS Engineering Systems Bose Corporation Email: paris(a)bose.com The Mountain Phone: +1 508 766-6080 Framingham, MA 01701-9168 FAX: +1 508 820-0173

1 0

Re: Future Newbie Needs Advice
by rbutler＠pdc.com 05 Mar '99

05 Mar '99

> From kelleher(a)susq.com Fri Mar 5 10:24:36 1999 > To: Jonah Yokubaitis <barron(a)staff.texas.net> > cc: Tom Limoncelli <tal(a)research.bell-labs.com>, toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Future Newbie Needs Advice > Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 11:00:17 -0500 > From: "Jason D. Kelleher" <kelleher(a)susq.com> > Sender: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com > Content-Length: 4312 > > > >Mmmm....if only a native legato client :-) > > Yuch. Native dump format is so much friendlier to work with than > proprietary dump formats. That plus NDMP is why we went with > BudTool. I won't be an issue for the filers once there's a native > client, but wouldn't backup all my other hosts with it. Anyone > know what's going to happen with this issue once BudTool is > absorbed by Legato? I heard a rumor that BudTool v5.0 has already > been scrapped. (Is there an Intelliguard mailing list?) If Legato > and their tape format is our only upgrade path, we'll start looking > at other products. > > jason > > --- > Jason D. Kelleher kelleher(a)susq.com > Susquehanna Partners, G.P. 610.617.2721 (voice) > 401 City Line Ave, Suite 220 610.617.2916 (fax) > Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-1122 > > Intelliguard now has OSA agents available for all supported BudTool media server platforms (SunOS, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, IRIX) that are clients making the platform NDMP compliant. This means that you can backup these architectures to NetApp direct attached tape drives, for example. The OSA agents are a new product and have been available since the middle of January 1999. I have installed and used them. When everything is NDMP compliant, you can backup up any NDMP compliant platform to any NDMP attached tape drive. They come in 10 packs and are pretty cheap to purchase. Randy Butler System Engineering Supervisor - Western Region PDC Solutions, Inc. E-mail: rbutler(a)pdc.com

2 1

Future Newbie Needs Advice
by Russ Amidon 05 Mar '99

05 Mar '99

Hello Everyone, I am about to purchase two F760's w/ Cluster Failover Software and Hardware because we need a system that is 100% available and rock solid. I was convinced after talking to other Net App users that this was the way to go. After a week of reading this mailing list, I am no longer convinced. Does anyone out there have the system I described? Are you happy with it? I am particularly concerned about the fiber channel problems and all of the OS upgrades and patches. We are also considering the new Auspex NS2000. Does anyone know of an Auspex mailing list like this one? Thank you in advance for any advise you can offer to the "future newbie". Russ Amidon UNIX Sys Admin

4 3

Re: Future Newbie Needs Advice
by Jason D. Kelleher 05 Mar '99

05 Mar '99

In message <Pine.BSF.4.00.9903042345180.26075-100000(a)staff2.texas.net>, Jona h Yokubaitis writes: > >On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, Tom Limoncelli wrote: > >|If you monitor this mailing list you will get the impression that the >|NetApp products have nothing but problems. That's because people >|without problems don't need to post. It's sort of like going to an AA >|meeting and complaining, "Gosh, you're all alcoholics! Doesn't anyone >|here NOT have a drinking problem?" > >I agree with this as well. We have run into many bugs with our >netapps, but never have had an outage longer than 5minutes, and NEVER >have lost any data. That IMO is a strong statement for network >attached storage. We've had an F330 running since 10/95. In all cases except one, downtime was limited to a ~5 minute outage. In 8/98 we had a major problem that brought us down for ~1.5 hours and left us crippled for the remainder of the day. During an outage we have always been able to get ahold of very helpful and knowledgable support via the 800 number. After the major outage, alot of questions we asked by management about the server. (It also provided us with the final argument to get our cluster.) I came up with these numbers: System in use: ~1034 days == 24816 hours Total Downtime: ~10 hours (being harsh and counting "crippled" as down) Percent Downtime: 10 / 24816 == 0.000352 Percent Uptime: 99.999648 I know it's not very scientific, but being able to work out an approximate uptime that matches the numbers NetApp's marketing guys hand out gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. >We also are running NetApp Release 4.3.5D2 and refuse to upgrade. >"If it aint broke, don't break it" That was my feeling until 8/98. Then we experienced bugs 4157... Bug ID 4157 Title Removes of very large files can cause the filer to deadlock Problem Description Simultaneous removes of files that together take up more than 1GB of space (i.e. a few large files or thousands of smaller ones) may cause a filer to deadlock and not provide file service. Multiple reboots may be required to clear the deadlock condition. Release Fixed 5.0 Unpleasant doesn't begin do describe this beast. Not only did we need to reboot the filer, but the also the system which issued the delete. Our filer has ~200 clients any one of which could have done so... not a pretty picture. It was a known bug at the time, my only saving grace was telling management that the release it was fixed in was still in "Early Access". I'd seriously consider moving up to a 5.x release. >|I used to be a big Auspex fan. Now I'm a big NetApp fan. (actually, I'm >|a fan of big NetApps :-) ). The CIFS/NFS integration is so tight its a >|thing of beauty. The RAID, wafl, and other features make it difficult >|to even evaluate any other box. Now re-evaluating BudTool on the other >|hand... Bug 4157 was my worst experience with our filer. It occurred while we were still fighting to get an HA file server (F630 cluster) approved for purchase. And I still like 'em. We got an F740 cluster last month and going to be retiring our F330 in several months. And the support is great (well, some issues with bad/wrong parts being sent recently -- but never couldn't get a hold of knowledgable personel in an emergency). >Mmmm....if only a native legato client :-) Yuch. Native dump format is so much friendlier to work with than proprietary dump formats. That plus NDMP is why we went with BudTool. I won't be an issue for the filers once there's a native client, but wouldn't backup all my other hosts with it. Anyone know what's going to happen with this issue once BudTool is absorbed by Legato? I heard a rumor that BudTool v5.0 has already been scrapped. (Is there an Intelliguard mailing list?) If Legato and their tape format is our only upgrade path, we'll start looking at other products. jason --- Jason D. Kelleher kelleher(a)susq.com Susquehanna Partners, G.P. 610.617.2721 (voice) 401 City Line Ave, Suite 220 610.617.2916 (fax) Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-1122

1 0

RE: Gb-ether and Extreme: closure! :-)
by Garrett Burke 05 Mar '99

05 Mar '99

Hi, Both the filer and switch are set to 100-FD. I'm not seeing any collisions, only CRC errors. Cabling has been replaced to see if they went away, but to no avail. GB > ---------- > From: Devi Nagaraj[SMTP:devi@netapp.com] > Sent: 05 March 1999 08:47 > To: Dane Jasper > Cc: Garrett Burke; 'bmw(a)visgen.com'; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Gb-ether and Extreme: closure! :-) > > At 10:38 AM 3/4/99 -0800, Dane Jasper wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 09:19:36AM -0000, Garrett Burke wrote: > >> As an aside, have you run a filer into a 100Mb/s port on a S48? I'm > seeing > >> CRC errors on the port that my F230 is on. Netapp are investigating, > just > >> wondering if anyone else is seeing/has seen this. > > > >We've got a F230 running 100-FD with a Summit 48. We found that we had > >better results if we hard set both devices to 100-FD and turned off > >negotiation. > > > The F200/F300 series on-board ethernet doesnot autonegotiate. So if you > had > the filer's > ethernet interface set to operate in 100BaseTx-FD, the corresponding > switch port > should also be set to operate in 100BaseTX-FD. > > When speed/duplex mismatches occur, depending on the switch to which > the filer's interface is connected, you will see CRC errors and > collisions. > You will definitely see poor network throughput. > >

1 0

RE: Future Newbie Needs Advice
by Mohler, Jeff 05 Mar '99

05 Mar '99

I have two F760 Cluster systems (Four total heads). It's been extremely stable, and I did have to perform one OS upgrade, and replace one MB due to a FC 'oddness'. Ive always had hardware when I needed it, and tech support has been so solid for me too. Your BEST tech support is with your SE if avialable, it seems that sometimes I can get better OS advice from my SE than from the 800#, but thats common with the guy in the field having the up-to-the-minute advice ahead of a database somewhere else. You'll enjoy your system! > -----Original Message----- > From: Russ Amidon [SMTP:amidon@pico.sps.mot.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 3:56 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Future Newbie Needs Advice > > Hello Everyone, > > I am about to purchase two F760's w/ Cluster Failover Software and > Hardware > because we need a system that is 100% available and rock solid. I was > convinced > after talking to other Net App users that this was the way to go. After a > week > of reading this mailing list, I am no longer convinced. Does anyone out > there > have the system I described? Are you happy with it? I am particularly > concerned > about the fiber channel problems and all of the OS upgrades and patches. > > We are also considering the new Auspex NS2000. Does anyone know of an > Auspex > mailing list like this one? > > Thank you in advance for any advise you can offer to the "future newbie". > > Russ Amidon > UNIX Sys Admin

4 3

RE: Future Newbie Needs Advice
by Clarke, Bruce 05 Mar '99

05 Mar '99

One clarification: NFS and CIFS behave quite differently. We commonly demo Oracle/Unix (NFS) running against a cluster and routinely do "unexpected" things to the target filer making it fail (pulling both plugs is my favorite). It seamlessly fails over to the second node and Oracle, after a hesitation for a minute or so, takes off where it left off. The giveback is equally transparent. Thank Sun (circa 1983) for the statelessness of NFS. You are right; NT connections are not quite so robust. Bruce Clarke - Database Marketing Director Network Appliance, Inc. 2770 San Tomas Expressway Santa Clara, CA 95051 Phone: 1-408-367-3156 Fax: 1-408-367-3670 Email: bruce.clarke(a)netapp.com

1 0

RE: Future Newbie Needs Advice
by Sam Schorr 04 Mar '99

04 Mar '99

Russ, We have just installed clustering using 2 F740s. We had one F740, bought a second with clustering, and it was installed Monday night. A couple of things have happened: 1. We had to replace the disk array shelves onthe existing filer last night because the cluster partner (the new F740) could not see all of the disks on the "older" F740. Also, we had to upgrade the disk firmware on the "older" F740. 2. The existing filer has now started to crash. We had one crash Tuesday before correcting the disk problem above, so the cluster partner did not take over. We had a second one today on the "older" filer, and this time clustering worked fine. 3. However, it is not seemless. The failover breaks file shares (we are a CIFS-only environment, but I understand it would do the same to NFS mounts). So, users/application may get file errors if they are in the middle of performing a file operation. When you do a "giveback", you either have to manually break file shares again, or do a "cf giveback -f" which forces the share break. Only then, after the shares have been broken, does the filer you are do the "giveback" to reboot. This means, once again, file errors to clients. 4. Netapp believes the crashes may be the result of a bad ServerNet card (the card that connects the two filers together for clustering). If true, that means that we will have suffered 3 bad/faulty parts in one install/purchase. If you want, I'll let you know the end of this soap opera. Sam Schorr -----Original Message----- From: Russ Amidon [mailto:amidon@pico.sps.mot.com] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 1:56 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Future Newbie Needs Advice Hello Everyone, I am about to purchase two F760's w/ Cluster Failover Software and Hardware because we need a system that is 100% available and rock solid. I was convinced after talking to other Net App users that this was the way to go. After a week of reading this mailing list, I am no longer convinced. Does anyone out there have the system I described? Are you happy with it? I am particularly concerned about the fiber channel problems and all of the OS upgrades and patches. We are also considering the new Auspex NS2000. Does anyone know of an Auspex mailing list like this one? Thank you in advance for any advise you can offer to the "future newbie". Russ Amidon UNIX Sys Admin

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters