toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

RE: Fiber Channel filer failures
by Mohler, Jeff 23 Feb '99

23 Feb '99

Cisco routers do intake/output monitoring on the RSP cards. *grin* > -----Original Message----- > From: Graham C. Knight [SMTP:grahamk@ast.lmco.com] > Sent: Monday, February 22, 1999 11:07 AM > To: Mohler, Jeff > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Fiber Channel filer failures > > Mohler, Jeff wrote: > > > > For all concerned..I have all of my cabinets on temp SNMP > tracking, > > and the F760 (two heads 9 shelves) runs about 85deg at 6" below the top > of > > the cabinet. > > Would it be a real hassle to explain how this monitoring is done? > > Thx, > Graham

2 1

RE: Fiber Channel filer failures
by Mohler, Jeff 22 Feb '99

22 Feb '99

> but i turned NIS off in > a fit of frustration a few weeks ago... --- Ive seen issues where if my corporate DNS server goes funky, the NA will just refuse to work with DNS at all. Even after the corporate DNS servers are back up and running well, nothing but a reboot will get the NA to resolve hostnames. Ive just entered all hosts..into the hosts file to get around this. I can turn CIFS on and off, it would be nice to be able to kick BIND in the ass too without a reboot.

1 0

RE: Fiber Channel filer failures
by Mohler, Jeff 22 Feb '99

22 Feb '99

> Last week we had a fiber channel F760 completely crash and burn. Right > now > the system is in a state where it will serve data for 10 or 15 minutes > and then > it reports inconsistent parity errors and crashes. We will be sending it > to > Netapp for failure analysis. > Graham --- Im having a lot of the same errors. I have used two different heads and get the same errors. After enough nasty deaths, I had to boot from floppy and download the OS again because what was on the first drive was trash. We've swapped system boards, and cables. The system has been stable since doing two things. I swapped out the OEM RAM with the replacement RAM I was proactively sent that Im told could cause FC problems, and I upgraded OS to 5.1.2.R3P1 (I belive it was). I still got errors after upgrading the OS, but since replacing the RAM the system has been rocl solid (crosses toes). But since a majority of my errors were from the first shelf, I have a replacement shelf to install either the next time the system crashes, or late this week before my RMA window closes. I might add that Benjamin and Dave Z. were -extremely- helpful with this problem, Ben had to drop off for some other problems, and Dave was able to pick this up and run fast with it. Kudos!

2 1

RE: Fiber Channel filer failures
by Mohler, Jeff 22 Feb '99

22 Feb '99

For all concerned..I have all of my cabinets on temp SNMP tracking, and the F760 (two heads 9 shelves) runs about 85deg at 6" below the top of the cabinet. I should be getting my ventilated back-doors this week to help bring that down. NO alarms so far.

2 1

RE: Fiber Channel filer failures
by Mohler, Jeff 22 Feb '99

22 Feb '99

Ok..now I feel stupid for three small posts in a row. NA Support had me make sure, that I had a minimum of 3A available on my power to the shelves, they have a cheat sheet on resolving FC errors, and low/brown power is on the list. Ask your helpdesk rep for more information.

1 0

Fiber Channel filer failures
by Graham Knight 22 Feb '99

22 Feb '99

Last week we had a fiber channel F760 completely crash and burn. Right now the system is in a state where it will serve data for 10 or 15 minutes and then it reports inconsistent parity errors and crashes. We will be sending it to Netapp for failure analysis. That was a nightmare to say the least - and, of course, it happened while i was on vacation. (My first thought was that somebody was mad at me for flaming about the disk firmware thing and decided to take it out on me personally - yikes - i swear off flaming for the rest of my life). Anyway, last night another of our filers crashed with the same type of errors. This is an F630 with FC disks. I called NetApp - just got off the phone with them - they are looking into it, but before i lose another filer i thought i'd bounce this one off of the user community. These are the types of errors it spits out: Sun Feb 21 04:22:00 MST [isp2100_main]: isp2100_error_proc: dev 8.11 (0.11) data underrun (cmd opcode 0x28) ( 0x0 0x5c28 0x8000 ) Sun Feb 21 04:22:00 MST [isp2100_main]: Disk 8.11: Data underrun (0xfffffc0000c204f0,0x28,0) a few of those then a few of these: Sun Feb 21 04:22:00 MST [raid_stripe_owner]: Inconsistent parity on volume vol0, RAID group 2, stripe #377824. Sun Feb 21 04:22:00 MST [raid_stripe_owner]: Rewriting bad parity block on volume vol0, RAID group 2, stripe #377824. Then: Sun Feb 21 04:23:22 MST [edm_admin]: No valid paths to Enclosure Services in shelf 2 on ha 8. Sun Feb 21 04:23:22 MST [raid_stripe_owner]: Inconsistent parity on volume vol0, RAID group 2, stripe #377861. Sun Feb 21 04:23:22 MST [raid_stripe_owner]: Out of messages; cannot dump contents of inconsistent stripe. Sun Feb 21 04:24:00 MST [edm_admin]: No valid paths to Enclosure Services in shelf 3 on ha 8. Sun Feb 21 11:30:36 GMT [rc]: de_main: e10 : Link up. Sun Feb 21 04:30:37 MST [rc]: saving 44M to /etc/crash/core.0.nz ("wafl_check_vbns: vbn too big") Netapp thinks the previous failure may have been due to heat in the computer room - BUT - the filer *never* spit out any thermal warnings - I'm not too sure if i believe that heat was the culprit - i can run it for hours doing disk scrubs, but as soon as i use it for NIS it crashes. This system is in a different room and has a beter ventilated cabinet - again, no thermal warnings in the messages file - but maybe the thermal warning messages don't work? Just out of curiosity - has anyone ever seen a FC system spit out a thermal warning?? (5.1.2P2) Has anyone experienced these types of problem with FC filers? I've never had a problem with SCSI filers - but these FC ones just seem flaky to me.... Thanks for any insight anyone can lend... Graham

4 3

Re: Recovered error messages no longer logged in 5.1.2R3
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 20 Feb '99

20 Feb '99

On 02/18/99 17:44:54 you wrote: > >> Does anyone else have an interest in having the flexibility of including >> soft error messages in the log files or is there a general consensus >> that they are unnecessary. We're trying to get support from other users >> for making the toggle available. > >Yes, I would like to have the toggle as well. In the first place, I would >like those messages to remain in the log file (I have not upgraded to 5.1 >yet but plan to do so next month). We have prevented disk crashes by >monitoring them. The toggle *should* already be in place. The messages should be logged at the syslog DEBUG level. If you specify a higher level, you shouldn't see them. One argument against this is there's a lot of other junk that can get logged at the DEBUG level. All this means is that some priorities need to be reorganized, and an acceptable default level found. Or you could break them up through useful facility designations. And simply inform old customers who may have turned on DEBUG just for these messages what the recommendation is for the new version. You don't see me criticizing netapp often, but I will here. They sometimes seem to bow to pressure to remove informational messages and options useful to "power users" in order to reduce the load on their support staff and keep up the appearance of simplicity. This seems to be what happened here. I also think it's pretty poor of them to make the change without telling their customers (was it documented?), or without even asking if that's what their customers wanted. Bruce

2 1

F740 performance: rule of thumbs?
by Todd C. Merrill 20 Feb '99

20 Feb '99

Our new F740 has a pretty constant load (`sysstat 10`) thusly: CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 46% 1114 1131 0 512 1331 701 371 0 0 5 53% 1559 1316 0 595 1615 446 387 0 0 6 50% 1343 1275 0 596 1211 489 464 0 0 5 48% 1454 1283 0 544 1272 276 395 0 0 6 52% 1844 1275 0 651 1837 280 320 0 0 6 58% 1399 1551 0 1027 2787 1037 450 0 0 6 56% 1796 1351 0 763 1541 352 378 0 0 6 45% 1024 1349 0 620 1422 330 542 0 0 6 58% 1657 1353 0 1193 2991 620 754 0 0 6 51% 1171 1467 0 598 1424 272 453 0 0 6 with occasional (every 5-10 minutes) sustained peaks of: 77% 1242 1201 0 489 1731 5285 5049 0 0 6 81% 1497 1279 0 600 2048 4327 5026 0 0 5 78% 1495 1221 0 563 1589 4287 5488 0 0 4 76% 1229 1213 0 472 1795 4546 5262 0 0 3 81% 1467 1150 0 1345 2634 3683 5746 0 0 2 80% 969 1068 0 397 2051 3876 6298 0 0 2 91% 1049 905 0 384 1102 1230 10622 0 0 2 92% 1328 942 0 448 1801 1536 10336 0 0 2 Are there any rules of thumb about when I should start worrying? I've got only about 2/3 of the data on it and the same fraction of clients connected to it that I need. The low cache numbers already worry me, but it's got the stated max of 1/2 GB. Max CPU and nfs-ops/sec I've seen is: 86% 3148 563 0 4228 5598 4131 3845 0 0 1 93% 4425 452 0 3573 4503 3283 3977 0 0 1 92% 3320 437 0 6299 4711 3778 5573 0 0 1 95% 3827 552 0 5282 5195 4094 5663 0 0 1 at which point I imagine the robot from "Lost In Space" coming out flailing its arms, if there existed the option "danger.will_robinson on". (Basic config is two 7 drive shelves of 18 GB FC-AL disks in a single RAID group with one spare and one volume and a quad 100 Mb/s board trunked into a 400 Mb/s fd pipe to the switch. I think I overspec'ed the network connection, though I have seen Net kB in and out burst and exceed 10,000 each, almost the limit of a single 100 Mb/s pipe). 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 ---

3 2

Re: F740 performance: rule of thumbs?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 20 Feb '99

20 Feb '99

On 02/19/99 19:03:37 you wrote: > >On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Todd C. Merrill wrote: >> >> with occasional (every 5-10 minutes) sustained peaks of: >> >> 77% 1242 1201 0 489 1731 5285 5049 0 0 6 >> 81% 1497 1279 0 600 2048 4327 5026 0 0 5 >> 78% 1495 1221 0 563 1589 4287 5488 0 0 4 >> 76% 1229 1213 0 472 1795 4546 5262 0 0 3 >> 81% 1467 1150 0 1345 2634 3683 5746 0 0 2 >> 80% 969 1068 0 397 2051 3876 6298 0 0 2 >> 91% 1049 905 0 384 1102 1230 10622 0 0 2 >> 92% 1328 942 0 448 1801 1536 10336 0 0 2 > > The inbound network traffic (less than 1MB/sec) doesn't jive with >your disk writes (5-10MB/sec). Are these not consecutive lines of >output, or are you recovering from a failed drive, or what? He said he was doing systat 10 earlier, I assume this are systat 10 stats as well. Some systat 1 output of typical and peak periods would be more helpful. However, my guess is he won't have much trouble adding another 1/3 users as indicated. NVRAM might have to be updgraded if these peak writing periods become too long. However, one should also consider other load this server might have on it in full production, like how it'll perform during a backup or a disk failure. If this hasn't been considered yet and you want to leave room for some growth then I would hesitate adding 50% more users. Bruce

2 1

RE: Shared Snapshot directory
by Benn, Paul 20 Feb '99

20 Feb '99

I believe that a UNIX based Networker server can backup an NT based Networker client while preserving the NT metadata. If this is so, you might try "front ending" a filer (via a mapped drive letter) with an NT box running the Networker client service. I have this procedure explained in my backup paper which should hit the external web within a week. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Harm [mailto:harm1@llnl.gov] Sent: Friday, February 19, 1999 9:46 AM To: Benn, Paul Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Shared Snapshot directory Could UNIX backups maintain the NT information, when you have the Legato backup agent running on the netapp box? 8><-----snip-----snip-----snip-----

1 0

Re: Shared Snapshot directory
by Daniel Quinlan 20 Feb '99

20 Feb '99

Paul Benn <paul.benn(a)netapp.com> writes: > I just wanted to clarify that if a UNIX backup server is used, it > must use NDMP. Not quite -- it must use dump. Dumping via rsh instead of NDMP will also preserve CIFS attributes and 8.3 names. You just can't preserve CIFS attributes from a Unix NFS client whereas you can preserve NFS attributes from a WinNT CIFS client. - Dan

1 0

Re: Recovered error messages no longer logged in 5.1.2R3
by Daniel Quinlan 20 Feb '99

20 Feb '99

Greg Kitch <kitch(a)seas.ucla.edu> writes: > Does anyone else have an interest in having the flexibility of > including soft error messages in the log files or is there a general > consensus that they are unnecessary. We're trying to get support > from other users for making the toggle available. Yes, I want the soft errors to be logged. - Dan

1 0

Re: Recovered error messages no longer logged in 5.1.2R3
by John Tatar 18 Feb '99

18 Feb '99

Would someone from netapp let us know if that there is a facility and a level that we can set in the etc/syslog.conf file which would produce the Read sector error messages. Also is there a way you can kill -HUP the syslogd process so it will re-read the configuration file? JT -- =================================================================== John J. Tatar Systems & Network Engineering Section Advanced Computer Applications Group Decision & Information Sciences Division Argonne National Laboratory mailto:tatar@dis.anl.gov or john(a)tatar.com Office: 630-252-3242 Fax: 630-252-5128 Pager: 630-266-1063 ===================================================================

2 1

Re: Recovered error messages no longer logged in 5.1.2R3
by George Kahler 18 Feb '99

18 Feb '99

Greetings... Elena Samsonova <E.Samsonova(a)wxs.nl> writes: > > Does anyone else have an interest in having the flexibility of including > > soft error messages in the log files or is there a general consensus > > that they are unnecessary. We're trying to get support from other users > > for making the toggle available. > > Yes, I would like to have the toggle as well. In the first place, I would > like those messages to remain in the log file (I have not upgraded to 5.1 > yet but plan to do so next month). We have prevented disk crashes by > monitoring them. Ditto! I'm still on 4.3.5D4 on both of our F520 and F330. The F330 is using the old 4 GB Seagate drives which number of them were replaced due to crashes. I find the messages very important in judging and predicting the state of the drives. George ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- George Kahler e-mail: george(a)yorku.ca UNIX Systems Administrator humans: (416) 736-5257 x.22699 Computing Services, York University machines: (416) 736-5830 Ontario, Canada, M3J-1P3

2 1

wierd NFS (Solaris) behavior
by Jay Soffian 18 Feb '99

18 Feb '99

We've been having a problem with Solaris NFS clients not seeing file updates occuring on our NetApps for a matter of minutes. This appears to be more than just an attribute caching issue. All our Suns are running 2.5.1 and a recently patched (Generic_103640-24). We are using NFS v3 over udp. This behavior is difficult to reproduce reliably. I managed to catch a particularly egregious example one time. A file had been updated from one of our clients, and another client didn't see the update. Out of curiousty, I mounted the NetApp partition containing the file at a differnt mountpoint on the same client that wasn't seeing the update. The client saw two copies of the same file. Here is the _same_ file on the NetApp from two different mount points on one client: root@presidio:~/ # ls -l {/studios,/mnt}/atlanta/accessatlanta/docs/pacman/includes/partners/rotation/namhoward.html -rw-r--r-- 1 20006 accatl 722 Dec 1 14:45 /mnt/atlanta/accessatlanta/docs/pacman/includes/partners/rotation/namhoward.html -rw-r--r-- 1 20006 accatl 49 Nov 12 10:22 /studios/atlanta/accessatlanta/docs/pacman/includes/partners/rotation/namhoward.html root@presidio:~/ # mount | grep '/export/studio' /studios on whirlpool:/export/studio proto=udp/remote on Tue Oct 13 04:02:54 1998 /mnt on whirlpool:/export/studio proto=udp/remote on Tue Dec 1 14:48:21 1998 Note that presidio is able to concurrently access two different copies of this file. It has cached not just the file attributes, but the data as well: root@presidio:~/ # wc {/studios,/mnt}/atlanta/accessatlanta/docs/pacman/includes/partners/rotation/namhoward.html 1 3 49 /studios/atlanta/accessatlanta/docs/pacman/includes/partners/rotation/namhoward.html 25 72 722 /mnt/atlanta/accessatlanta/docs/pacman/includes/partners/rotation/namhoward.html Gets wierder still: root@presidio:~/ # touch {/studios,/mnt}/atlanta/accessatlanta/docs/pacman/includes/partners/rotation/namhoward.html root@presidio:~/ # !ls ls -l {/studios,/mnt}/atlanta/accessatlanta/docs/pacman/includes/partners/rotation/namhoward.html -rw-r--r-- 1 20006 accatl 722 Dec 1 15:00 /mnt/atlanta/accessatlanta/docs/pacman/includes/partners/rotatio n/namhoward.html -rw-r--r-- 1 20006 accatl 49 Dec 1 15:00 /studios/atlanta/accessatlanta/docs/pacman/includes/partners/rot ation/namhoward.html Times updated, sizes did not. no_atime_update is off on the filer. Couldn't find anything at Sunsolve that seemed to be related to this problem. Any ideas? j. -- Jay Soffian <jay(a)cimedia.com> UNIX Systems Administrator 404.572.1941 Cox Interactive Media

2 1

Recovered error messages no longer logged in 5.1.2R3
by grdodson＠lexmark.com 18 Feb '99

18 Feb '99

I agree, I want to see these messages. I understand why NetApp is interested in suppressing them, (they cause unncessary support calls), but I want the heads up that a disk may be going south. An option to turn the messages on or a change to syslog.conf to re-enable the messages is needed. Graydon Dodson (606) 232-6483 grdodson(a)lexmark.com Lexmark International Inc. ----- Begin Included Message -----

1 0

Recovered error messages no longer logged in 5.1.2R3
by Greg Kitch 18 Feb '99

18 Feb '99

We recently upgraded our operating system version on an F220, F330 and F540 to 5.1.2R3. After a few days we noticed that we had stopped receiving recovered error messages on our SCSI disks. Following is an example of one such message: Sun Jan 17 02:19:16 PST [isp_main]: Disk 4a.4(0x4e55d0): READ sector 6200854 recovered error (1 17, 1) We sent a request to support inquiring about the status of these error messages and have been told that beginning with 5.1.2R3 they are no longer being logged. It is the case that the occasional and infrequent occurrence of these messages on a very active filer is not an indication of a problem, it is also our understanding that if these messages start increasing (1 an hour or 10-20 per day) on a specific disk for different blocks, then you should be paying very close attention to that disk and we would notify support. This seems to have been the case with several disk failures that we have experienced on our filers. An RFE (12820) has been filed at our request to supply a toggle for these messages to enable the customer to selectively include or exclude them from the messages file. We believe messages of this nature can be very helpful although one must understand their significance (or insignificance) when they occur. We have read some of the discussion concerning these messages on toasters but are not aware of anyone else that has noticed their disappearance and would like to see them made available again. Have I missed them? Does anyone else have an interest in having the flexibility of including soft error messages in the log files or is there a general consensus that they are unnecessary. We're trying to get support from other users for making the toggle available. One step further, we would like to see a list of all such error messages potentially logged by the system and what they mean. We have seen such lists on other systems and think that they could be helpful for the filers as well. Thanks. Greg Kitch UCLA SEASnet Computing Facility 2567 Boelter Hall Los Angeles, CA 90095

4 3

Netapp nfs over tcp
by Dave Heiland 18 Feb '99

18 Feb '99

I've currently got my filers with 'options nfs.tcp.enable off' from when I first set them up due to a perception that this would cause problems. Has anyone got tcp enabled? Have they seen any problems/benefits, or are there any known issues with this? We use mainly Solaris 2.5.1/2.7 machines and HPUX 10.20 machines, now with NFS v3 support added, doing compiles and standard (but heavy) file access (no news server, proxy, etc.) Dave

4 3

Recovered error messages no longer logged in 5.1.2R3
by Greg Kitch 18 Feb '99

18 Feb '99

1 0

Re: Poor small file CIFS performance in 5.2.1
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 18 Feb '99

18 Feb '99

On 02/18/99 09:29:26 you wrote: > >Hi All, > >Any other CIFS users seeing very poor CIFS performance when accessing large >numbers of small files? > >The specific problem is with across network backups using ARCServe. We were >seeing 70MB/min to a DLT3 drive when running OnTap 5.1D3, but upgrding to >5.2.1 has dropped that back to 20MB/min. > >When I backup large files (256MB core files for example) I'm seeing backup >throughput of ~130MB/min which is pushing the DLT drive close to its limit >(150MB/min with 2:1 compression). > >In general the performance for large files is better in 5.2.1, but Netapp >seem to have broken the small file throughput. By large numbers of small files, do you mean a bunch of small files in one directory? If so, are you sure this collection of small files actually existed when you did the backup before on the previous OS version? I guess what I'm getting at is the possible explanation that nothing broke between 5.1D3 and 5.2.1. Obviously, if something did, you'll have to wait to hear back from Netapp. It's also possible there was a fix in your D3 patch that did not make it into 5.2.1. People running patched versions to address a particular problem should always check to see if the patch made it into a subsequent release. Bruce

1 0

Poor small file CIFS performance in 5.2.1
by Garrett Burke 18 Feb '99

18 Feb '99

Hi All, Any other CIFS users seeing very poor CIFS performance when accessing large numbers of small files? The specific problem is with across network backups using ARCServe. We were seeing 70MB/min to a DLT3 drive when running OnTap 5.1D3, but upgrding to 5.2.1 has dropped that back to 20MB/min. When I backup large files (256MB core files for example) I'm seeing backup throughput of ~130MB/min which is pushing the DLT drive close to its limit (150MB/min with 2:1 compression). In general the performance for large files is better in 5.2.1, but Netapp seem to have broken the small file throughput. I've been through the usual tests: check duplex, swap network cables, even moved both backup host and the filer to another switch. Given the throughput on large files, I can't see it being a network problem. Neither the switch nor the filer interface are showing large number of errors. Backup performance from other NT servers hasn't dropped off. We backup from a snapshot. The small files (source files mainly, we're a SW house) are in quota trees using mixed security. There's quite a complex ACL system in place and some files may have 6-8 NT groups as part of the ACL. cifs.oplocks.enable is on and cifs.lvl2_oplocks_cap is off, which hasn't changed since the upgrade. I have a support call open with Netapp (Log ID: 52724.00000) and have provided them with a 60s network trace of the traffic between the filer and backup host when the backup throughput has gone way down and there's not much other filer usage, but they have yet to get back to me. Can anyone think of anything I should check for? Thanks, GB

1 0

Re: Sharing files between NT and Unix
by Mark Muhlestein 17 Feb '99

17 Feb '99

Actually it depends on the application. If the Windows application has the file open exclusively, then you won't be able access it from NFS. But if it is open in a mode that allows readers, it will work. And some applications open a file, copy it to a temporary file, close the original file, operate on the copy, then rename it to the original name when you do a save. And byte range locking also comes into play with some applications. All these types of lock are supported in a multi-protocol manner on the filer. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Tom Limoncelli <tal(a)research.bell-labs.com> To: Schepers, Jan <Jan.Schepers(a)nl.origin-it.com> Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Date: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 7:32 PM Subject: Re: Sharing files between NT and Unix >"Schepers, Jan" wrote: >> "NetApps Filers can't share files between NT and Unix *simultaneously*." > >I do it every day! > >It should be noted that the exact same file can't be opened at the exact >same time (ie. you can't "cat" a file in unix at the exact moment >MS-Word is reading the file). This is because MS-Word locks the file! >So, if you find a product that WILl "cat" the file while MS-Word is >using it, it sounds like they aren't implementing any locking! Ouch! > >--tal >

1 0

cont: Sharing files between NT and Unix
by Schepers, Jan 17 Feb '99

17 Feb '99

>Hello People, > >This was my question to you: >Apparently I have never understood the concept of an netapp filer, >but this is what an HP guy is trying to tell me: >"NetApps Filers can't share files between NT and Unix *simultaneously*." > >What could he have meant ? Thanks to all the numerous people that gave their reaction. I realized that dropping the question amongst equal tuned people would result in responses that line with my observations. Ergo, the place the get the answer is of course the HP sales-rep. I'll let you know when it comes to something beautiful :-) MNY THKS, Jan >

1 0

Sharing files between NT and Unix
by Schepers, Jan 17 Feb '99

17 Feb '99

Hello People, Apparently I have never understood the concept of an netapp filer, but this is what an HP guy is trying to tell me: "NetApps Filers can't share files between NT and Unix *simultaneously*." What could he have meant ? cheers, Jan

5 4

Question on 5.x
by Jaye Mathisen 17 Feb '99

17 Feb '99

I'm still running 4.3.4, going to upgrade to 5.x shortly. One question: On the volumes that can be created, can I set up some to have snapshots, and some that don't? Or is it only system-wide?

2 1

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