toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

Re: FW: FW: URGENT!!!! FW: NetApp Filer software versions 5.x: poten tial har dware killer (fwd)
by Jason Downs 12 Feb '99

12 Feb '99

In message <7F608EC0BDE6D111B53A00805FA7F7DA02C3834B(a)TAHOE.netapp.com>, "Madison, Shannon" writes: >Forwarded per Radek: > >-----Original Message----- >From: Radek Aster >Sent: Friday, February 12, 1999 11:20 AM >Subject: Re: FW: URGENT!!!! FW: NetApp Filer software versions 5.x: >potential har dware killer (fwd) > > > >IMHO, this is a pile. Jason makes the statement that he can create a file >(of the appropriate size), fill it will garbage, and download it to disk >drives which will then become bricks. > >Geez. How stupid does he think Seagate is? Don't answer that. :-) It's not a question of how stupid I think Seagate is. It's a question of how stupid I think NetApp is for implementing 'online' disk firmware updates. >Seriously, the firmware files have checksums embedded in them. As part of >the update process, the drive will verify the checksum before committing >the firmware to flash. If the checksum doesn't verify, the update is >cancelled. No harm, no foul. Pretty SOP with firmware downloads. Heck, one >could make the same "security" argument with any hardware component with >downloadable firmware. Why pick on drives? All a checksum does is make it more difficult than dd'ing /dev/zero in order to produce something the drive will take. You're missing the point. >Granted, he *could* get his hands on unqualified and/or bad firmware and >download it to the drives .... is this enough to cry "the sky is falling"? > If this is seem as a serious enough "security issue", we can always ship >*encrypted* files, and decrypt them ourselves before downloading, thereby >verifying the contents and identity of files we ship. IMHO, the 'best' way to do it would be to require the files be on a floppy, or some other method which restricts firmware updates to the physical console. Oh, and by the way: Keep in mind that _I am a customer_. Attacking me or making snide comments instead of addressing the issues that I've raised does NOT encourage me to purchase more Network Appliance products. >--Radek > >Jason Downs downsj(a)downsj.com <mailto:downsj@downsj.com> writes: > >Jason> I was going through the documentation for version 5.2.1 >Jason> (the latest) of the Network Appliance Filer operating system when I >Jason> stumbled upon this little gem: "Use the disk_fw_update command to >Jason> update out-of-date firmware on all disks or a specified disk on a >Jason> filer. Each filer is shipped with a /etc/disk_fw directory that >Jason> contains the latest firmware revisions." > >Jason> [...] > >Jason> "In the /etc/disk_fw directory, the firmware file name >is >Jason> in the form of product_ID.revision.LOD. For example, if the firmware >Jason> file is for Seagate disks with product ID ST19171FC and the firmware >Jason> revision is FB37, the file name is ST19171FC.FB37.LOD. The revision >Jason> in the file name is the number against which the filer compares each >Jason> disk's existing firmware revision." > >Jason> [...] > >Jason> "Before Data ONTAP 5.2, the disk_fw_update command copi >ed >Jason> firmware files from the /etc directory. In the /etc directory, the >Jason> name for the firmware file was in the form of product_ID.LOD. The >Jason> revision number was not included in the file name. Data ONTAP 5.2 >Jason> continues to support firmware files in the /etc directory for >Jason> backward compatibility. That is, if you obtain a disk firmware file >Jason> and store it in the /etc directory, you can use the disk_fw_update >Jason> command to copy that firmware file to disks, unless there is also a >Jason> firmware file for the same product ID in the /etc/disk_fw directory. >Jason> The files in the /etc/disk_fw directory take precedence over the >Jason> files in the /etc directory." > >Jason> [...] > > >Jason> Filer's typically have an "admin host" which can mount >and >Jason> read/write to the filer root directory. Without it, it's impossible >Jason> to do any sort of system maintenance on the filer. If this host is >Jason> compromised it's obviously bad news for the filer. But now, >Jason> apparently new with the 5.x revisions of the filer operating system, >Jason> a malicious individual can likely destroy the disk drive hardware >Jason> itself. It is not known if any sort of sanity check is done on the >Jason> contents of the firmware files; it's likely there is none, >Jason> considering the type of code they contain. Of course, it is trivial >Jason> to gain command line access to a filer once the admin host is >Jason> compromised. They use what amounts to /etc/hosts.equiv for rsh >Jason> access. It has always been important to make sure the "admin host" >Jason> of a filer is secure. Now it seems Network Appliance has just >Jason> raised the stakes; not only can you lose your data, but you can also >Jason> potentially lose hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of hardware. > >Jason> -- Jason Downs downsj(a)downsj.com <mailto:downsj@downsj. >com> -- Jason Downs downsj(a)downsj.com Little. Yellow. Secure. http://www.openbsd.org/ Sending unsolicited commercial email to this address may be a violation of the Washington State Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW.

1 0

FW: FW: URGENT!!!! FW: NetApp Filer software versions 5.x: poten tial har dware killer (fwd)
by Madison, Shannon 12 Feb '99

12 Feb '99

Forwarded per Radek: -----Original Message----- From: Radek Aster Sent: Friday, February 12, 1999 11:20 AM Subject: Re: FW: URGENT!!!! FW: NetApp Filer software versions 5.x: potential har dware killer (fwd) IMHO, this is a pile. Jason makes the statement that he can create a file (of the appropriate size), fill it will garbage, and download it to disk drives which will then become bricks. Geez. How stupid does he think Seagate is? Don't answer that. :-) Seriously, the firmware files have checksums embedded in them. As part of the update process, the drive will verify the checksum before committing the firmware to flash. If the checksum doesn't verify, the update is cancelled. No harm, no foul. Pretty SOP with firmware downloads. Heck, one could make the same "security" argument with any hardware component with downloadable firmware. Why pick on drives? Granted, he *could* get his hands on unqualified and/or bad firmware and download it to the drives .... is this enough to cry "the sky is falling"? If this is seem as a serious enough "security issue", we can always ship *encrypted* files, and decrypt them ourselves before downloading, thereby verifying the contents and identity of files we ship. --Radek Jason Downs downsj(a)downsj.com <mailto:downsj@downsj.com> writes: Jason> I was going through the documentation for version 5.2.1 Jason> (the latest) of the Network Appliance Filer operating system when I Jason> stumbled upon this little gem: "Use the disk_fw_update command to Jason> update out-of-date firmware on all disks or a specified disk on a Jason> filer. Each filer is shipped with a /etc/disk_fw directory that Jason> contains the latest firmware revisions." Jason> [...] Jason> "In the /etc/disk_fw directory, the firmware file name is Jason> in the form of product_ID.revision.LOD. For example, if the firmware Jason> file is for Seagate disks with product ID ST19171FC and the firmware Jason> revision is FB37, the file name is ST19171FC.FB37.LOD. The revision Jason> in the file name is the number against which the filer compares each Jason> disk's existing firmware revision." Jason> [...] Jason> "Before Data ONTAP 5.2, the disk_fw_update command copied Jason> firmware files from the /etc directory. In the /etc directory, the Jason> name for the firmware file was in the form of product_ID.LOD. The Jason> revision number was not included in the file name. Data ONTAP 5.2 Jason> continues to support firmware files in the /etc directory for Jason> backward compatibility. That is, if you obtain a disk firmware file Jason> and store it in the /etc directory, you can use the disk_fw_update Jason> command to copy that firmware file to disks, unless there is also a Jason> firmware file for the same product ID in the /etc/disk_fw directory. Jason> The files in the /etc/disk_fw directory take precedence over the Jason> files in the /etc directory." Jason> [...] Jason> Filer's typically have an "admin host" which can mount and Jason> read/write to the filer root directory. Without it, it's impossible Jason> to do any sort of system maintenance on the filer. If this host is Jason> compromised it's obviously bad news for the filer. But now, Jason> apparently new with the 5.x revisions of the filer operating system, Jason> a malicious individual can likely destroy the disk drive hardware Jason> itself. It is not known if any sort of sanity check is done on the Jason> contents of the firmware files; it's likely there is none, Jason> considering the type of code they contain. Of course, it is trivial Jason> to gain command line access to a filer once the admin host is Jason> compromised. They use what amounts to /etc/hosts.equiv for rsh Jason> access. It has always been important to make sure the "admin host" Jason> of a filer is secure. Now it seems Network Appliance has just Jason> raised the stakes; not only can you lose your data, but you can also Jason> potentially lose hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of hardware. Jason> -- Jason Downs downsj(a)downsj.com <mailto:downsj@downsj.com>

1 0

Re: Bugtraq item about Netapps.
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 12 Feb '99

12 Feb '99

On 02/11/99 23:28:15 you wrote: > >In message <199921122746541(a)ix.netcom.com>, > sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com writes: >>This simply isn't true; there's many sorts of system maintenance that can >>be done on the console without an admin host, and even moreso now with >>Web-based administation. One doesn't even have to have a permanent admin >>host... you could just briefly export the root directory for a quick update, >>then unexport it from the filer console. > >So you're saying that having a Java runtime on the filer is an improvement >in security? That's insane. It would be insane; that's why I didn't say it. Your claim, which you neatly snipped, was: >Filer's typically have an "admin host" which can mount and read/write to the >filer root directory. Without it, it's impossible to do any sort of system >maintenance on the filer. To wit, my answer - it's not impossible. Whether or not other methods are more or less secure is a matter of debate, but your original point was wrong. >>This isn't new; a malicious individual could potentially effect firmware in >>previous versions. This is potentially the case in almost any OS... although >>I admit, 5.x makes it a little "easier" to do so. Firmware also isn't hardwar >>e, >>although bad firmware could theoretically lead to physical damage of the disk >>drive hardware mechanism. > >It doesn't make it easier. It makes it trivial. This we'll just have to disagree on. We don't really know without statistically sampling over a number of security incidents and seeing exactly what the increased risk is, and even then we'd have to agree on the range of what is called "trivial". If you surveyed a group of informed security consultants on the issue, however, I don't think "trivial" would be the word of choice. >>Wrong. People keep thinking the admin host is some mythical authoritative >>host. It isn't. It's nothing. Forget the term. You *can*, if you like, >>allow one or more hosts to telnet into the filer, rsh into it without a >>password, or mount it's root partitions. These are no more or no less a >>factor in the filer than in any other system, and you are perfectly capable >>of *not* allowing a host to do any of the above. The filer will continue >>to work. > >And you will be unable to update it's /etc/passwd, /etc/quotas, etc. You >must not run a filer in an environment that changes often. Or when you do, you create a temporary security hole that you can monitor in realtime. (Any real security conscious admin are monitoring all of their stuff anyway, but that's another issue). The point is, again, your statement was wrong. Perhaps you were simply *overstating* to make a point... but in the world of security, one should be careful to convey accurate information, not hype. >>>Now it seems Network Appliance has just raised the stakes; not >>>only can you lose your data, but you can also potentially lose hundreds >>>of thousands of dollars worth of hardware. >> >>This isn't true, and no one should be doing risk-analysis assuming that >>a user accessing a system through software can't do damange to the >>hardware underneath. > >It is true. Perhaps you should pull your head out of the sand for a >minute and stop blindly defending the existance a stupid command. By the way, I was only saying the first part of your statement (before the semicolon, that Netapp had raised the stakes) wasn't true; obviously from the context I agreed with the latter, but feel it's largely irrelevant since one should rate virutally the same possibility to previous OS version. You probably still disagree, but I wanted the clarification so we didn't go down a rathole over a misunderstanding. Even if you're correct, you're talking the filer's risk increasing only so much as to be in line with almost every other OS/platform out there that include facilities for such a thing. Hardly something to get worked up over. Bruce

1 0

Re: Netapp nfs over tcp
by Keith Brown 12 Feb '99

12 Feb '99

>> still are some UNIX clients around whose NFS v3 implementations leave something >> to be desired on the stability and performance fronts. > >The question was about TCP, not the version of the NFS protocol. Sorry. That should have read "NFS v3 implementations and/or NFS vX on TCP implementations". >The reason for that choice had nothing to do with stability nor with >any client issues so far as I know, but rather because most customers >see a performance hit when running TCP with enabled, A performance hit which is oft blamed, sometimes deservedly sometimes not, on the quality of the client implementation. Arguably the mount(1M) command on the client side should favor the higher-performing-under-most-circumstances option (UDP), but NetApp doesn't control that so... Keith

2 1

Re: Where can I get a rack???
by charles＠applix.com 11 Feb '99

11 Feb '99

I just wanted to thank everyone for their input; it has been most helpful! Regards, Charles Homan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Charles Homan Applix, Inc. System & Network Operations Manager 112 Turnpike Rd. choman(a)applix.com Westboro, MA 01581 ------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Netapp nfs over tcp
by Keith Brown 11 Feb '99

11 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? I think the "problem" with switching on nfs.tcp.enable stems from the way that the mount(1M) command works on many modern UNIX systems. If you don't actually specify the version of NFS that you want to use, and the transport protocol you wish it to ride on the mount(1M) command line, the default is often to use the highest version of NFS available (usually 3) over the first connection oriented transport found (usually TCP), that's supported by both the client *and* the server. So, if you're a little "lazy" when it comes to telling the system exactly what you want, you'll end up with NFS v3 on TCP when what you *probably* wanted was UDP and/or NFS v2. Although NFS v3 over TCP or UDP is "fine by us" at the server end of the show (NFS is one of the small number of things a filer does, so you'll find it's done rather well no matter what flavour you pick ;-)), there have been and still are some UNIX clients around whose NFS v3 implementations leave something to be desired on the stability and performance fronts. Hence the default disablement of some of the fancier combinations, to prevent them from being selected by accident. Keith

2 1

Where can I get a rack???
by charles＠applix.com 11 Feb '99

11 Feb '99

OK, I'm not sure this is entirely appropriate for this list, but here goes: I'm getting a new F720, and I just realized I need to get a rack for it. The F330's we have were already here when I joined the company, and the guy who purchased them has since left the company. In looking through his files, I haven't been able to find reference to where he purchased the racks. Does anyone know of a good source for sturdy racks? It looks like they take the standard 19" racks; can anyone confirm or deny that? How much should I expect to spend? Thanks a lot! Charles Homan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Charles Homan Applix, Inc. System & Network Operations Group 112 Turnpike Rd. choman(a)applix.com Westboro, MA 01581 ------------------------------------------------------------------

6 6

Netscape Enterprise Server 3.0 application failover?
by gsmith＠netapp.com 09 Feb '99

09 Feb '99

Hi, Curious as to whether any of our filer(cluster) customers are doing application failover for Netscape Enterprise server 3.0 with the data stored on filer? If so what is the solution you used and would you be willing to share it with another customer. Please respond to me directly and thanks in advance. Regards, Gil

1 0

18 gig drives and Drive shelf
by Jason Middlebrooks 09 Feb '99

09 Feb '99

Is there anything tricky about adding one of the new fibre channel FC-AL 8 shelves that is full of 18 gig drives to a F760 that currently has 2 FC-AL 7 shelves? Thanks for any comments or advice. 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: Where can I get a rack???
by Sam Schorr 09 Feb '99

09 Feb '99

Your Best Buys Are at Frys! Guaranteed! -----Original Message----- From: Jim Davis [mailto:jdavis@CS.Arizona.EDU] Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 3:31 PM To: Charles Homan [ext 422] Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Where can I get a rack??? On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Charles Homan [ext 422] wrote: > Does anyone know of a good source for sturdy racks? If you want a slightly offbeat alternative to the usual boring 19" racks, check with your local restaurant supply stores for "baker's racks". We found some very sturdy racks with adjustable shelves that way. Plenty of room for our 520s and their disk shelves and tape drives, though they do have a significantly bigger footprint than the 19" stuff.

2 1

Re: FW: EtherChannel trunking
by msmith＠netapp.com 09 Feb '99

09 Feb '99

> > If I've already nearly got it pegged in this peak operation (sustained > is about 30-50%...so far), and the theoretical limit of the 100 Mb/s fd > link is ~12,200 kB/s in and out, do I really need this quad 100 card? > Will spreading the network load reduce the CPU load? Spreading the network load will not reduce the cpu load. Given the output of sysstat in your mail, it probably won't help to add bandwidth, however, if you were to experience a different workload, more cached reads for example, you could easily exceed the capacity of a single 100Mb ethernet.

1 0

EtherChannel trunking
by Todd C. Merrill 09 Feb '99

09 Feb '99

Greetings. Has anyone configured a quad 100 ethernet card with EtherChannel trunking? I searched the archives for this lists and didn't find any subject heading with "EtherChannel" or "trunk." My proposed plan is (I hope it is this simple): o create a virtual interface with `vif create` o replace the ifconfig line in the rc file: ifconfig e0 mediatype 100tx-fd `hostname`-e0 with ifconfig vif1 mediatype ??? `hostname`-vif0 o reboot the filer There is probably a more elegant way to do this live and online, by downing e0 and then upping vif0, but I'll be doing this off hours anyway, so a reboot is not a problem. I've got a brand new F740 running ONTAP 5.2.1, and I'm new to NetApp filers, so please be gentle with a newbie to this technology. What a nice machine, though. Had it running at: CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 91% 1785 876 0 9346 1783 787 9056 0 0 8 91% 1858 722 0 9796 1100 182 10326 0 0 7 87% 2147 562 0 8924 1369 209 9138 0 0 8 83% 2007 934 0 7491 1330 147 8642 0 0 8 85% 2051 990 0 7703 1596 592 7265 0 0 8 for a while today; at this level, our previous file server (not a NetApp) would have long since fell over and died. If I've already nearly got it pegged in this peak operation (sustained is about 30-50%...so far), and the theoretical limit of the 100 Mb/s fd link is ~12,200 kB/s in and out, do I really need this quad 100 card? Will spreading the network load reduce the CPU load? 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 ---

2 1

RE: NetApp CPU upgrade
by Benn, Paul 08 Feb '99

08 Feb '99

I can't vouch for whether or not a Filer's CPU can be upgraded but I can point something else out.... A 90MHz Pentium has an internal clock speed of 60MHz and a multiplier of 1.5 (60x1.5=90). On motherboards that allow configuration changes there are usually (at least) two jumpers, one for clock speed and another for the multiplier. A Pentium 133 has an internal speed of 66 and a multiplier of 2 (66x2=132 or 133). So, as you can see, a simple chip swap won't work (actually, it might work but without proper mother board support you'd still have a Pentium 90). Regards, Paul -----Original Message----- From: Dane Jasper [mailto:dane@sonic.net] Sent: Thursday, February 04, 1999 5:09 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: NetApp CPU upgrade Has anyone considered upgrading the CPU on their NetApp product? It's a closed product, so NetApp won't talk about it, but it seems to me that the Pentium 90 in my F230 (66mhz external speed, 90mhz core?) could be replaced with a Pentium 133 with the same 66mhz external speed without any need for jumpers, etc. My NetApp is in heavy service, so I'm a bit hesitant. Has anyone tried this, or does anyone have a NetApp in light service that they'd like to try this with? I've searched the listserve archive and don't see any subjects that would seem to have previously addressed this. Somewhat busy CPU: CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 24% 431 0 0 74 672 573 0 0 0 2 36% 639 0 0 149 1035 768 0 0 0 2 30% 524 0 0 129 708 639 0 0 0 2 44% 868 0 0 158 925 868 0 0 0 2 42% 857 0 0 179 734 560 0 0 0 2 37% 658 0 0 133 735 1069 0 0 0 2 29% 494 0 0 100 737 752 0 0 0 2 27% 459 0 0 80 834 724 0 0 0 2 44% 886 0 0 189 1078 668 0 0 0 2 53% 717 0 0 151 923 2249 35 0 0 2 86% 589 0 0 104 1050 2678 3423 0 0 2 28% 535 0 0 101 563 212 0 0 0 2 36% 712 0 0 133 654 244 0 0 0 2 Regarding cache age, this unit already has the full 256M of RAM, so we can't address that issue in the conventional way either. -- 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

3 2

RE: Gigabit Ethernet Card
by Naden, Barbara 06 Feb '99

06 Feb '99

The 1000-fx designation on the filer is just a string and has no effect on the encoding on the wire. Unfortunately, it is also wrong. It should read 1000-sx. You should have no problems connecting to your switch. Barbara Naden -----Original Message----- From: Jason Middlebrooks [mailto:jason@directconnect.com] Sent: Friday, February 05, 1999 4:22 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Gigabit Ethernet Card Can anybody tell me why I have a Gigabit Ethernet card from Network Appliance that says 1000-base-sx on the card yet Netapp does not support the SX encoding. My only choice when I configure the card is 1000-fx. My switch is set for 1000-base-sx. What can I do??? Changing my switch is not an option.... Thanks for any advice. Jason 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

Gigabit Ethernet Card
by Jason Middlebrooks 06 Feb '99

06 Feb '99

Can anybody tell me why I have a Gigabit Ethernet card from Network Appliance that says 1000-base-sx on the card yet Netapp does not support the SX encoding. My only choice when I configure the card is 1000-fx. My switch is set for 1000-base-sx. What can I do??? Changing my switch is not an option.... Thanks for any advice. Jason 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: NetApp CPU upgrade
by Bulfer, David 05 Feb '99

05 Feb '99

The F230's performance is not limited by CPU clock rate. It is limited by the performance of the host bridge (a.k.a. north bridge). The host bridge defines memory bandwidth and PCI bandwidth. Overclocking the F230 won't solve a heavily loaded filer. David -----Original Message----- From: Dane Jasper [mailto:dane@sonic.net] Sent: Thursday, February 04, 1999 5:09 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: NetApp CPU upgrade Has anyone considered upgrading the CPU on their NetApp product? It's a closed product, so NetApp won't talk about it, but it seems to me that the Pentium 90 in my F230 (66mhz external speed, 90mhz core?) could be replaced with a Pentium 133 with the same 66mhz external speed without any need for jumpers, etc. My NetApp is in heavy service, so I'm a bit hesitant. Has anyone tried this, or does anyone have a NetApp in light service that they'd like to try this with? I've searched the listserve archive and don't see any subjects that would seem to have previously addressed this. Somewhat busy CPU: CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 24% 431 0 0 74 672 573 0 0 0 2 36% 639 0 0 149 1035 768 0 0 0 2 30% 524 0 0 129 708 639 0 0 0 2 44% 868 0 0 158 925 868 0 0 0 2 42% 857 0 0 179 734 560 0 0 0 2 37% 658 0 0 133 735 1069 0 0 0 2 29% 494 0 0 100 737 752 0 0 0 2 27% 459 0 0 80 834 724 0 0 0 2 44% 886 0 0 189 1078 668 0 0 0 2 53% 717 0 0 151 923 2249 35 0 0 2 86% 589 0 0 104 1050 2678 3423 0 0 2 28% 535 0 0 101 563 212 0 0 0 2 36% 712 0 0 133 654 244 0 0 0 2 Regarding cache age, this unit already has the full 256M of RAM, so we can't address that issue in the conventional way either. -- 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

Re: Console server?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 05 Feb '99

05 Feb '99

On 02/03/99 20:54:15 you wrote: >I know someone was able to get conserver to work on a Sun (Solaris) >and using a portmaster for the physical connections. I do know he had >to work on it for quite a while to get it work... > >We use Portmasters for console access. It's a pretty basic setup and >the things just plain work... can't really argue against >reliability... :) Thanks, Craig. I had a lot of fun setting it up. :) And actually, I didn't even do the method without the port number, although I always wanted to go back and change that once I figured out how to do it on the Portmaster. That being said, if you don't like Livingston, er, Lucent, you can probably get Xylogics, er, Bay Networks, to work just as well. And as a former Purdue student, I have nothing against conserver at all, but I've yet to see it in full implementation across an entire machine room to know if it's truly worth the effort or not. Bruce

2 1

FreeBSD3.0 compatible with Packet Engines Gigabit?
by Peter Martinez 05 Feb '99

05 Feb '99

I have a customer who recently upgraded from FreeBSD2.8 to FreeBSD3.0 and they can't seem to get their PacketEngines gigabit card to work. The card worked flawlessly with FreeBSD2.8. Is there anyone out there running this type of configuration? The customer is still waiting to hear back from their vendor. \ / ____ -- 0 --_IMMI_ ~~ " ' / \_/_I==I__\_ ~ ~ ' _/___I==I____\_ 8888888888888888888 _/_____I==I _____\ 888\8888\8888/8888888 /______ I==I _____0o< 88II88888II88888II88 Peter Martinez Customer Support Network Appliance

1 0

Re: watchdog resets
by Steven D'Aurora 05 Feb '99

05 Feb '99

We had similar problems on our F630s. Turns out this was due to the system backplane stack height. The backplane standoffs were about 3mm too short! Since we have always been running 5.x.x of some flavor I'm not sure if it's OS related or not. Check to see if the card edges are fully seated in the backplane. The watchdog resets were a problem only after I had reseated all cards and the system was up for a couple of days/weeks (it did vary that much). Flex in the chassis was enough to dislodge the environment card that has the stupid watchdog cable on it. One system was bad enough the CPU board had "intermittent" connection to the rest of the system. The frustrating part was that Adaptec was the only site in this area to have this problem :( And it took me about 5 weeks to find it wasn't bad hardware. I went to a local hardware store and picked up some washers to pick up the backplane. A real pain to install but fixed the problems. After NetApp had found out about this manufacturing problem, all our F630 chassis were replaced with newer rev units that fix the stack height. Good luck! ____________________________________________________ Steve D'Aurora ESN - Engineering Systems and Network Administrator Adaptec Milpitas, CA, USA phone: 408 957 2351 fax: 408 957 4895 mailto: nevets(a)eng.adaptec.com ____________________________________________________ > Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 09:12:59 -0600 > From: John Tatar <tatar(a)dis.anl.gov> > X-Accept-Language: en > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: watchdog resets > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > We have had a particularly annoying problem with our 540 filer over the > last several months. We keep getting watchdog resets. As a matter of > fact we just got another as I was composing this message. We get an > average of one every other day. > > We have checked the cables, reseated cards, replaced cards, replaced the > head. I am going to start replacing the power supplies on the shelves > tonight. If that doesn't work, we'll replace the SCSI cables between > the shelves and the head. > > This problem started after we upgraded the firmware and OS to 1.11a and > 5.0.2R3 respectively. Has anyone else experienced this problem? How was > the problem resolved? > > TIA > > -- > =================================================================== > 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 > ===================================================================

1 0

watchdog resets
by John Tatar 05 Feb '99

05 Feb '99

We have had a particularly annoying problem with our 540 filer over the last several months. We keep getting watchdog resets. As a matter of fact we just got another as I was composing this message. We get an average of one every other day. We have checked the cables, reseated cards, replaced cards, replaced the head. I am going to start replacing the power supplies on the shelves tonight. If that doesn't work, we'll replace the SCSI cables between the shelves and the head. This problem started after we upgraded the firmware and OS to 1.11a and 5.0.2R3 respectively. Has anyone else experienced this problem? How was the problem resolved? TIA -- =================================================================== 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 ===================================================================

1 0

NetApp CPU upgrade
by Dane Jasper 05 Feb '99

05 Feb '99

Has anyone considered upgrading the CPU on their NetApp product? It's a closed product, so NetApp won't talk about it, but it seems to me that the Pentium 90 in my F230 (66mhz external speed, 90mhz core?) could be replaced with a Pentium 133 with the same 66mhz external speed without any need for jumpers, etc. My NetApp is in heavy service, so I'm a bit hesitant. Has anyone tried this, or does anyone have a NetApp in light service that they'd like to try this with? I've searched the listserve archive and don't see any subjects that would seem to have previously addressed this. Somewhat busy CPU: CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 24% 431 0 0 74 672 573 0 0 0 2 36% 639 0 0 149 1035 768 0 0 0 2 30% 524 0 0 129 708 639 0 0 0 2 44% 868 0 0 158 925 868 0 0 0 2 42% 857 0 0 179 734 560 0 0 0 2 37% 658 0 0 133 735 1069 0 0 0 2 29% 494 0 0 100 737 752 0 0 0 2 27% 459 0 0 80 834 724 0 0 0 2 44% 886 0 0 189 1078 668 0 0 0 2 53% 717 0 0 151 923 2249 35 0 0 2 86% 589 0 0 104 1050 2678 3423 0 0 2 28% 535 0 0 101 563 212 0 0 0 2 36% 712 0 0 133 654 244 0 0 0 2 Regarding cache age, this unit already has the full 256M of RAM, so we can't address that issue in the conventional way either. -- 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

5 5

NetApp Customer Satisfaction Survey
by Wentz, Michael 05 Feb '99

05 Feb '99

All, On behalf of Network Appliance, I'd like to apologize for the multiple survey requests that were sent to many of our customers recently. We had a process breakdown that resulted in a large number of surveys being sent all at once, in some cases, as many as 5 or 6 to the same customer. The survey has been stopped while we correct the process problem and address feedback regarding the frequency of the survey. Customer feedback is important to NetApp as we seek to continually improve our products and services. The responses we've received through the survey have been instrumental in driving improvements throughout the entire company, but we've also heard that customers want to be surveyed less often. The original process was to survey for every closed case, but many customers have indicated that once a month is more preferable. For this reason, when the survey process starts again, we will insure that no customer is surveyed more than once in any 30 day period. Thank you for your understanding and patience, and my apologies for any inconvenience the survey has caused. Michael L. Wentz Director, Service Operations Network Appliance 408.367.3685

1 0

Re: Console server?
by Ketil Kirkerud Elgethun 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

Jim Davis <jdavis(a)CS.Arizona.EDU> writes: > We've been using some flaky old Wyse terminals for consoles on our > netapps; I'd rather hook them up to a terminal server of some sort. I > assume most any terminal server should work, but are there any favorites > people have? (Or ones that should be avoided?) What we use, and are very happy with, is a piece of software, combined with a lot of serial ports on a computer. The software (conserver/console, from Purdue), gives us things like - logging of all activity on all ports, - the possibility for operators to "hijack" console connections, in a controlled fashion. And lots of other cool stuff. Basically, we're extremely happy with it. We use conserver both with a linux box with multiport serial boards (Stallion), and with a Sun using terminal servers (we've had luck with Central Data Etherlite, there are probably oodles of others out there that work just as well.) If you want to use the conserver package, the only thing to keep in mind is that the server part of the software wants to see local devices, this might exclude some of the terminal servers out there. (The Etherlite comes with drivers that makes it appear as local devices on a Solaris box) -- ---Ketil Kirkerud Elgethun, SOL System

3 2

Obnoxious Satisfaction Survey
by Jason D. Kelleher 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

Anyone open a service call with NetApp within the last week? I opened two last week. After closing the first call, I received an email with the subject "Your Satisfaction with Network Appliance" that contained a survey to evaluate my satisfaction with the call. Since I was happy with the outcome I decided to fill out the survey and sing the proaises of NetApp tech support. (I can be a real bastard when I have a problem and need their help and I was hoping this would somehow make up for that in the cosmic scheme of things.) That done I deleted the email and went back to pretending to work. The next morning, after closing my second service call, I received another email survey from NetApp. (Actually, the email says NetApp "engaged CustomerCast, an independent research company, to conduct the following short email survey".) I decided that since I just sent out a glowing report I could ignore this surevey. ...But I was wrong!!! Every morning since I colsed the call I've received this survey. I even called NetApp yesterday to see if this could be stopped and this morning I received two copies of the survey! Does anyone know who I can call? Where to I send my first born to put and end to this? The email address we have listed with NetApp is an internal mailing list (so the other 6 people in my group can handle issues if I'm out) and I'm getting nasty grams... :( Getting spam'd by some weasely little con-artist trying to get me to take part in a "MAKE MONEY FAST" scheme is one thing, but I certainly don't expect this from a company I do business with. 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

11 10

Re: Obnoxious Satisfaction Survey
by Mike Smith 03 Feb '99

03 Feb '99

Having read the submissions to mathworks I'm putting them all into one email and sending them to the appropriate people. Hmmm, maybe if we don't turn them off nobody will open any more cases... :) just kidding. Seriously I am sending the comments to the right folks to see if something can be done about it right away. Regards, Mike Smith Technical Support Engineer Network Appliance. ------- Forwarded Message Return-Path: E.Samsonova(a)wxs.nl Received: (from majordom@localhost) by herra.corp.netapp.com (8.8.7/8.8.7/GNAC-GW-2.1) id JAA19528 for dl-toasters-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:25:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx01-ext.netapp.com (mx01-ext.netapp.com [198.95.224.34]) by herra.corp.netapp.com (8.8.7/8.8.7/GNAC-GW-2.1) with SMTP id JAA19480 for <toasters(a)netapp.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:25:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 8319 invoked from network); 3 Feb 1999 17:56:13 -0000 Received: from turing.mathworks.com (144.212.100.12) by mx01-ext.netapp.com with SMTP; 3 Feb 1999 17:56:13 -0000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by turing.mathworks.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA03276 for toasters-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:15:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp05.wxs.nl (smtp05.wxs.nl [195.121.6.57]) by turing.mathworks.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA03262 for <toasters(a)mathworks.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:15:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from amf04060.office.wxs.nl ([195.121.4.60]) by smtp05.wxs.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.61) with ESMTP id AAA59DE for <toasters(a)mathworks.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 18:15:39 +0100 Received: from localhost (esamsono@localhost) by amf04060.office.wxs.nl (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA07108 for <toasters(a)mathworks.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 18:15:53 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: amf04060.office.wxs.nl: esamsono owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 18:15:53 +0100 (MET) From: Elena Samsonova <E.Samsonova(a)wxs.nl> X-Sender: esamsono(a)amf04060.office.wxs.nl To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Obnoxious Satisfaction Survey In-Reply-To: <199902031534.KAA09196(a)jagular.dev.susq.com> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.93.990203180955.5361R-100000(a)amf04060.office.wxs.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dl-toasters(a)netapp.com Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1176 Oh, I can relate!! I am also completely overwhelmed by those surveys! I filled in one and ignored all the others. > this morning I received two copies of the survey! Does anyone know > who I can call? Where to I send my first born to put and end to > this? Oh, this is too bad. Actually, I never received any *repeated* surveys after I deleted the ones I wanted to ignore. Perhaps you should open a service call for this problem? :) (Sorry, just could not resist. :) Or may be someone from NetApp is actually reading it here? The worst thing about those surveys is that besides the questions about this particular call, they *always* include tons of questions about tech. support in general, and really, I think we should not be asked to fill in those over and over again! Regards Elena - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elena Samsonova e-mail: E.Samsonova(a)wxs.nl World Access / Planet Internet phone: +31 33 45 40 417 PO Box 2529, 3800 GB Amersfoort fax: +31 33 45 40 401 The Netherlands - ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

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