toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

Re: Potential user has questions
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 12 Nov '98

12 Nov '98

On 11/09/98 18:40:33 you wrote: > > >On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 13:25:57 PST, > Sam Schorr <sschorr(a)homestead.com> wrote: > >> I think the reasoning here is not quite thorough enough. If I buy a Compaq >> server and then I install a 3-Com ethernet card, I still expect, and get, >> full support from Compaq. This has been the case in the clone, or Intel >> world for quite awhile. I know that it is less true the more proprietary >> you get, but still is essentially the case, even in the IBM mainframe world >> and in the UNIX world. I am now in the middle of an issue between Network >> Appliance and Microsoft and I would NEVER buy another filer if NetApp tried >> to deflect response to the fact that I use Microsoft products and therefore >> I should debug the Microsoft side first. Whether I like it or not, and >> whether NetApp likes it or not, multi-vendor environments MUST be supported >> - there is no option. > > >I agree, in general. > >I think netapp's position is somewhat justified, because they can >claim -- and I take it on face value -- that they stress disks more >than other vendors. Therefore, they claim, they have to test each >model disk and even each firmware revision before quality assuring >it. In theory, any generic disk should work, but there's enough >"practice" out there to show that different disks stand up to various >stresses differently. > >I can accept this, but I'm not sure why this also applies to memory. >And I guess I can accept it with scsi boards and ethernet boards, but >I'm not entirely happy about it. It seems to me they could QA more >add-ons than the ones they sell. Actually, my impression (I have no data to back this up) is that the memory failures are roughly as likely as the disk failures, and they weed out a lot of memory in their testing as well. This is because they stress the memory as much as the disk (for the most part a lot of the memory acts as one big RAM disk), and memory timing issues need to be very, very tight. SCSI and ethernet boards similarly have to be qualified. I agree more could be done, but there would be a tangible performance loss for running a 3com card in your filer instead. And Netapp would have to develop a driver for it and it's multiple incarnations. There isn't a nice driver interface layer you can use to make the driver standard across different platforms that you can also use for Netapp, because then you'd lose even more performance. On a final note, you're not the only one I've seen doubt Netapp's "claim" of testing. I don't know why people doubt this. Trust me, I've seen it. You can probably call them up and ask to see it, too. There's a lot of QA that goes on. Bruce

2 1

Re: Max Number of drives
by Paul Albers 12 Nov '98

12 Nov '98

Jason, The F210 can have two Fast/Wide SCSI shelves with a maximum of 14 4 GB drives. The F330 can have four Fast Narrow SCSI shelves with a maximum of 28 4GB drives. If you are calculating the total space, remember that one drive will be the parity drive and you will probably have one spare. Also, take into consideration the amount of space you will reserve for snapshots. The big thing is to make sure to take off 10% of the total up front. Here is an example: 14 4GB drives, parity and one spare 14 x 4 x 90% = 50.4GB 20% snap reserve 50.4 x 80% = 40.32GB So with two full shelves ( 14 4GB drives ) on the F210, you will have a total of about 40GB for your active file system. You can increase this by decreasing the amount set aside for the snap reserve. Hope this helps, -paul At 10:05 AM 11/12/98 -0500, you wrote: >What is the max number of 4 Gig drives a F210 can have? > >What is the max number of 4 Gig drives a F330 can have? > >Jason Middlebrooks Systems Engineer >Direct Connect Systems Phone: 770-933-9327x260 >2264 Northwest Parkway, Suite I Pager: 888-502-1625 >Marietta, GA 30067 Fax: 770-933-9272 > >

1 0

subscribe
by Marcel Beelen 11 Nov '98

11 Nov '98

1 0

SNMP and NetApps
by Huba Leidenfrost 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

One of the Network Appliance support critters pointed me to this email address. I assume it is a list. If so would someone please point me to the web archives or subscription mechanism. Thanks, H u b a -- --- O HUBA LEIDENFROST Network Systems Analyst -- <^- huba(a)uidaho.edu U of Idaho ITS: Networks & Systems -- -\/\ http://www.uidaho.edu/~huba --- \ TEL: 208.885.6721 FAX: 208.885.7539

1 0

Re: Potential user has questions
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

>Actually, the only NFS service that involves passwords is PCNFSD. And these passwords are encrypted, marginally, so an average sniffer won't see it (they are usually looking for password in unecrypted telnet/rlogin sessions) and would have to be coded to specifically look for and recover these passwords. Bruce

1 0

disk firmware versions required for 5.1.2
by Daniel Quinlan 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

Can someone at NetApp tell me the firmware version required to run 5.1.2 before I upgrade from 5.0 to 5.1.2? I would like to know how much time I need to schedule for the upgrade. (It looks like it would also save me that first reboot, meaning less overall downtime.) This information should really be included with the upgrade notes. I would like to know this for the following systems and disks: F630 SCSI : ST19171W and ST39173WC F630 FC : ST19171FC F540 : ST15150W F330 : ST15230N (It actually looks like I might only need to know about the F630 FC, since it's the only firmware included with 5.1.2. The notes indicate that you end up with version FB37 after an upgrade, so maybe I have to upgrade if I don't have that, but maybe not. Anyway, I'd rather work in the light.) Thanks. - Dan

2 1

Re: nfs (in)security?
by Tom Reingold 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

On Tue, 10 Nov 1998 00:07:20 EST, Brian Atkins <brian(a)posthuman.com> wrote: > This does not make a lot of sense to me.. I mean, if some user > on the client has hacked root, then game over man. Who cares > past that. Of course they can su to some user and mess with > their files, root can do just about anything. > > What I want and need to know when designing our nfs system is > whether a normal non-root user, _without hacking root_, can > do any shenanigans via or to nfs. Basically, is adding properly > configured nfs to an already secure system going to be ok > or not ok, and if not ok what can be done about it? I think the premise you offer isn't worth taking as a "given." You can't assume people won't hack root. It's too easy. It's easy not because you run your UNIX systems so badly -- for I have no idea -- but because it's probably easy to drop a Linux system on the wire. Or someone can some evil DNS packet injection. Or someone can write some funnky NFS code on a PC to spoof UIDs etc. Unfortunately, I think all this means you can have NFS or security but you can't have both. Or maybe a better conclusion is that this state of affairs is acceptable, but we should not consider it air-tight, even with the best of our efforts. -- Tom Reingold tommy(a)bell-labs.com http://www.bell-labs.com/~tommy Bell Labs, the Research and Development unit of Lucent Technologies Murray Hill, NJ, 07974-0636 US

1 0

Re: nfs (in)security?
by mds＠ns.gbnet.net 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

If you don't force the filer to only allow root to mount areas onto clients (ie force such traffic to come from ports upto 1024, ports which Unix only allows root to bind to normally) then it is possible for a user to write an rpc program to fake NFS traffic. I once saw this demonstrated in college. However, that task is beyond most script-kiddies. For all I know there's now a standard tool though. Most people don't make their NFS servers so trusting. It's not insanely hard to break NFS 'security' though, all you need is to pretend to be a trusted host, say the adminhost, convincingly enough and long enough and you're away. I had great hopes for kerberos enabled NFS at the introductionof NFS3 but that all seems to have died a death, as has using Kerberos in the Windows environment. Everyone I talk to now seems to be talking 'certificates' - as if the rest of kerberos has no value. *sigh*

1 0

Re: Potential user has questions
by Brian Atkins 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

"Yoder, Alan" wrote: > > > Right, of course if you misconfig something you open yourself > > to mischief. What I want to get at is whether it is safe to > > have a filer attached to the net-at-large, or whether it needs > > to be firewalled or otherwise protected. Can you elaborate on > > the nfs insecurities you mention? > > A number of NFS systems and tools send passwords in plain text, > and the filer is not an exception. Use a firewall or switched > Ethernet. That bites > > > > > What kind of real-world bandwidth can it put out (F740) ? I > > > > see the transaction specs, but what about sustained mbits > > > > in a web-type environment (3x more reads than writes)? > > > > > > Netapp prefers to measure "response time" vs. "transactions/sec". > > > In other words, a filer might be showing tremendous throughput > > > for one party, while starving out the others (delayed responses). > > > In the real world, you want average response time to be as fast as > > > possible because that is what people notice. Netapp has very > > > impressive throughput and average response time does not degrade > > > dramatically at high loads. > > > > Excellent, but is the filer capable of overloading 100mbit > > ethernet? If so, just how much bandwidth should we spec out > > for it so that it can perform to its max abilities? > > As I remember it, the 740 can saturate at least two 100Mb Ethernet > links. In house, we have our main filers connected via > gigabit uplinks to a backbone, which gets switched down to > 100Mb LANs from there. > > Keep in mind, you need a lot of clients to saturate the filer. > It takes around 50 200MHz PC clients running NetBench to max > it out. A web server with a filer back end won't even make > it sweat, and one 100Mb Ethernet card might be enough. What > kind of uplink to the world will the web server have? > The whole system will be colocated at a facility with multiple OC-3/DS3/T1 links. Same place amazon.com is located at... It will only have about 10 300mhz PII client boxes at first, so this is sounding good. I think we may go with the Cisco FEC multiple 100mbit links instead of gigabit in order to provide some link redundancy. -- The future has arrived; it's just not evenly distributed. -William Gibson ______________________________________________________________________ Visit Hypermart at http://www.hypermart.net for free business hosting!

2 3

Re: can't see ~snapshot directory
by Mark Muhlestein 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

Bridget wrote: >We changed the default due to problems with NT backup software handling >snapshots badly. Actually, that was only one reason. It was also confusing to Office's "find fast", xcopy, explorer, etc. Apart from the option Bridget mentioned, you should understand that you can enter the ~snapsht from any open dialog; you just have to explicitly name it. You can use it anywhere you can specify a path. (Also, ".snapshot" and "~snapshot" are valid names from NT.) Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com > >> We use NFS and CIFS on our toasters. Since upgrading to 5.1.2, our >> PC clients no longer see the ~snapshot directories. (This is the >> .snapshot directory on unix clients.) >> >> Is there a fix? This is disconcerting. Or should I say broken? >

6 7

RE: Potential user has questions
by Sam Schorr 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

Stephen, Actually, that is not quite true even in the case of the filer, unless I have not understood some things about how Network Appliance builds their devices. The ethernet, fddi, gigabit, etc network interfaces are not made by NetApp. It does not seem farfetched to expect Network Appliance to use the same model that has led to open sourcing in other areas. If they have chosen to integrate the drivers directly into ONTap instead of calling the drivers as needed, and if they have not adhered to whatever standards exist for those interfaces, then NetApp has self-created a monopoly. It will go the way of all monopolies - competition will force them out of business or into supporting more flexible configurations. -----Original Message----- From: Stephen C. Losen [mailto:scl@sasha.acc.virginia.edu] Sent: Monday, November 09, 1998 2:53 PM To: Sam Schorr Cc: toasters(a)magic.metawire.com Subject: Re: Potential user has questions > I think the reasoning here is not quite thorough enough. If I buy a Compaq > server and then I install a 3-Com ethernet card, I still expect, and get, > full support from Compaq. This has been the case in the clone, or Intel > world for quite awhile. I know that it is less true the more proprietary > you get, but still is essentially the case, even in the IBM mainframe world > and in the UNIX world. I am now in the middle of an issue between Network > Appliance and Microsoft and I would NEVER buy another filer if NetApp tried > to deflect response to the fact that I use Microsoft products and therefore > I should debug the Microsoft side first. Whether I like it or not, and > whether NetApp likes it or not, multi-vendor environments MUST be supported > - there is no option. There is one BIG difference as far as interface cards go. Any driver code is part of ONTap. If ONTap does not have code to support a particular card, there's absolutely no way the card will work in a filer (unless it is a perfect clone of a card that netapp does support). And there is no way for a card vendor to supply you with a "driver" that will work on a netapp filer. They would have to provide you with a custom version of ONTap. Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 804-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

3 2

RE: Potential user has questions
by Sam Schorr 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

Okay, I get your point and it is well taken. The flip side is that there is only competition at the product level, so that there is less incentive for NetApp (or any other vendor in a similar position) to drive costs down. Yes, I know that there are many vendors with competing products (Auspex, EMC, DataDirect, etc), so I guess I'll exit gracefully from this thread with a the admonition "buyer beware". -----Original Message----- From: Rob Windsor [mailto:windsor@adc.com] Sent: Monday, November 09, 1998 4:17 PM To: Sam Schorr Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Potential user has questions On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 13:25:57 PST, Sam Schorr wrote: > I think the reasoning here is not quite thorough enough. If I buy a Compaq > server and then I install a 3-Com ethernet card, I still expect, and get, > full support from Compaq. This has been the case in the clone, or Intel > world for quite awhile. I know that it is less true the more proprietary > you get, but still is essentially the case, even in the IBM mainframe world > and in the UNIX world. I am now in the middle of an issue between Network > Appliance and Microsoft and I would NEVER buy another filer if NetApp tried > to deflect response to the fact that I use Microsoft products and therefore > I should debug the Microsoft side first. Whether I like it or not, and > whether NetApp likes it or not, multi-vendor environments MUST be supported > - there is no option. But Compaq doesn't make software, they didn't write the OS that you are trying to get to talk to that 3-Com ethernet card. Who's responsibility is it to ensure that there are drivers for your OS on that Compaq? 3Com will happily help you out with Microsoft products since the time spent writing/fixing those drivers have a tangible effect on hardware sales. I bet they aren't so quick with others, particularly if you are not on an Intel-based mainboard. Imagine calling 3Com up and asking if they have drivers for their 3c905 running "Network Appliances Data OnTapp v5.x" for the Alpha CPU. So, NetApp should write the driver, you say? The more wizbang cards from Fry's that people want to put in their filers, the more development work that NetApp has to put into "nonstandard" (not OEM'd by them) hardware, and the more expensive the filers get. Afterall, they need to bill the development time back to the customers somehow. That is not what we call a "win win" situation. -- Rob ---------------------------------------- Rob Windsor E-Mail - mailto:windsor@adc.com Senior Unix Systems Administrator Voice - phone:972-680-6919 Computer Services Fax - phone:972-680-0370 Business Broadband Group ADC Telecommunications Richardson, TX 75082

1 0

RE: Potential user has questions
by Sam Schorr 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

I think the reasoning here is not quite thorough enough. If I buy a Compaq server and then I install a 3-Com ethernet card, I still expect, and get, full support from Compaq. This has been the case in the clone, or Intel world for quite awhile. I know that it is less true the more proprietary you get, but still is essentially the case, even in the IBM mainframe world and in the UNIX world. I am now in the middle of an issue between Network Appliance and Microsoft and I would NEVER buy another filer if NetApp tried to deflect response to the fact that I use Microsoft products and therefore I should debug the Microsoft side first. Whether I like it or not, and whether NetApp likes it or not, multi-vendor environments MUST be supported - there is no option. Sam Schorr Homestead Technologies (650) 549-3152 New Phone Number!! fax: (650) 364-7329 sschorr(a)homestead.com Don't just build a home page...build a Homestead!! http://www.homestead.com -----Original Message----- From: marc_merlin(a)magic.metawire.com [mailto:marc_merlin@magic.metawire.com] Sent: Monday, November 09, 1998 9:32 AM To: toasters(a)magic.metawire.com Subject: Re: Potential user has questions On 6 Nov 1998 17:44:48 -0800, Brian Atkins <brian(a)posthuman.com> wrote: >> > Can we use third party drives/shelves/canisters/mem? >> >> They would not be supported. > >Need some clarification: so if we had a problem with our >filer, would we still be able to get support/warranty >service? I understand that if the problem was traced to >third party parts we would be on our own at that point- >but before that determination would we still get help? Note that this is not an official answer, but just a guess using common sense. Picture one of your systems showing random failures. You call netapp, you spend a long time with their tech support engineers, they start guessing at what the failure is, they ship you replacement parts, etc, etc... In the end, you guys figure out that all your problems came from the substandard memory you bought yourself. Of course, you handle the memory part yourself. However, does this make sense for Netapp? They spent time and money trying to help you when in fact your failures where not due to their hardware... So I'm almost certain that no, just like other companies, Netapp won't support your hardware if you put in some parts that don't come from them. Marc -- "Microsoft is to software what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking" Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ (friendly to non IE browsers) Finger marc(a)merlins.org for PGP key and other contact information

3 2

Re: Potential user has questions
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 09 Nov '98

09 Nov '98

> You could put some cheesse-ball 10/100 ethernet card in your filer. > But do you really expect to be able to get decent performance out of it? > Tell me there is no difference between a $30 Netgear 10/100 card and the > $200 Zynx that NetApp uses (or used to use). As long as they both use the same Digital 21140 Ethernet controller, I expect basically the same performance. My ttcp measurements seem to bear this out. I'm not saying that the controller is the only interesting part of an Ethernet card - just saying that even inexpensive Ethernet cards can have excellent performance. (Btw, Netgear has recently changed to a different Ethernet controller.) Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

1 0

Re: Potential user has questions
by Tom Reingold 09 Nov '98

09 Nov '98

On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 13:25:57 PST, Sam Schorr <sschorr(a)homestead.com> wrote: > I think the reasoning here is not quite thorough enough. If I buy a Compaq > server and then I install a 3-Com ethernet card, I still expect, and get, > full support from Compaq. This has been the case in the clone, or Intel > world for quite awhile. I know that it is less true the more proprietary > you get, but still is essentially the case, even in the IBM mainframe world > and in the UNIX world. I am now in the middle of an issue between Network > Appliance and Microsoft and I would NEVER buy another filer if NetApp tried > to deflect response to the fact that I use Microsoft products and therefore > I should debug the Microsoft side first. Whether I like it or not, and > whether NetApp likes it or not, multi-vendor environments MUST be supported > - there is no option. I agree, in general. I think netapp's position is somewhat justified, because they can claim -- and I take it on face value -- that they stress disks more than other vendors. Therefore, they claim, they have to test each model disk and even each firmware revision before quality assuring it. In theory, any generic disk should work, but there's enough "practice" out there to show that different disks stand up to various stresses differently. I can accept this, but I'm not sure why this also applies to memory. And I guess I can accept it with scsi boards and ethernet boards, but I'm not entirely happy about it. It seems to me they could QA more add-ons than the ones they sell. -- Tom Reingold tommy(a)bell-labs.com http://www.bell-labs.com/~tommy Bell Labs, the Research and Development unit of Lucent Technologies Murray Hill, NJ, 07974-0636 US

1 0

Re: Potential user has questions
by Brian Atkins 09 Nov '98

09 Nov '98

Shannon Madison wrote: > > > Can you add drives to a file without shutting down? > > yes. Our filers feature "hot swap" capabilities which allow the file system(s) > to grow dynamically while online. > There may be some useful links @ Network Appliance - Architecture > > > How would you add shelves/adapters? > > the same way you'd add them to any other system. Often, shutting down is > _recommended_ but not necessarily required. Interesting.. other posters have claimed a shutdown is required. Can anyone clarify? > > > Is the filer OS considered secure? > > At least as secure as an NT server when running CIFS, and/or a UNIX server > running NFS, and quite often a bit more so (since the filer isn't running a > lot of superfluous processes). > > > Y2K compliant? > > As of v5.1.2 of the Data ONTAP OS, yes. Look at: Network Appliance - Year > 2000 > > > Would you feel safe running your filer attached to potentially > > hostile web servers running user-uploaded CGI programs? > > Absolutely, as we won't run CGI processes on our filer. I think you misunderstood... I mean if the nfs client machines have CGI running on them; CGI that could potentially do just about anything... Basically would you say it is safe or not safe to have a filer attached to the public Internet, or do you recommend that they be firewalled? > > > Can we use third party drives/shelves/canisters/mem? > > They would not be supported. Need some clarification: so if we had a problem with our filer, would we still be able to get support/warranty service? I understand that if the problem was traced to third party parts we would be on our own at that point- but before that determination would we still get help? > > > Will 18GB and larger drives work ok? (Seagate just announced > > 36GB half-height drives...) > > We will soon be supporting 18gb drives. 36gb are in qualification. (I'm not > sure if I'm really allowed to say that ;) > > > What kind of real-world bandwidth can it put out (F740) ? I > > see the transaction specs, but what about sustained mbits > > in a web-type environment (3x more reads than writes)? > > Brian Palowski (beepy(a)netapp.com) would be your best source for that (or some > of the more frequent contributors on Toasters). I have cc:ed him, hope that is ok. Brian, can you provide some rough estimates of how much bandwidth a F740 is capable of outputting? More than 100mbit easily? > > > If you use Cisco Fast EtherChannel, does it failover to the > > lower bandwidth if you are using multiple network links ? > > (assume a CF environment) ? > > > > If yes, and assuming you are using CF with two filers, wouldn't > > that be a system with no single point of failure, or is there > > anything else we should worry about? > > (I'll pass on the CFO questions without more exact research) If anyone can provide more details here, that would be greatly appreciated. > > > Works with these systems over nfs: http(apache), news(inn and dnews), > > dns(bind), > > mail(qmail), ftp(NcFTPd), Frontpage ? > > Our filer supports NFS, CIFS (SMB), and HTTP "get" and "head" transaction > protocols, and SNMP, DNS, NIS, WINS, RIP, RMT, telnet, and rsh administration > protocols. What I am trying to get at with that question is whether those services (and particular software packages) have been shown to run over nfs. For instance, going through the mailing list archives I can see that you guys have done research on running Exchange on a filer, and I'm sure you have tested other software too. > > > Does the CF cost extra? (for the software.. I know it takes a > > second filer :-) > > yes :-) It also has added hardware. > > > Does Netapp charge for OS upgrades beyond a certain time period? > > "Software Subscription" is available (at an additional cost) after the expired > warranty period. > > > Finally, do you feel there are any serious contenders to Netapp > > that we should check out? Anyone tried the EMC Symmetrix stuff > > or Artecon LnyxNSS systems? > > I'll leave that one to customers to answer. I'm sure there are a couple viable > competitors (Sun, Cisco?) but do make sure you compare apples-to-apples. I've > seen Sun benchmarks that blow us out of the water, but it turns out they're > using what would have to be a non-real-world $2million system against our $60k > system. > > hope that helps. I'm sure you'll get lots of other responses as well. Let me > know if you need more follow-up on the CFO stuff. > > -Shannon Thanks for the responses I've gotten so far! > > -- > Shannon Madison <shannon(a)netapp.com> > > Network Appliance, Inc. > 2770 San Tomas Expressway > Santa Clara, CA 95051 > USA > > Work: (408) 367-3574 > Fax: (408) 367-2151 > > The usual disclaimers apply. > -- The future has arrived; it's just not evenly distributed. -William Gibson ______________________________________________________________________ Visit Hypermart at http://www.hypermart.net for free business hosting!

2 1

Dell (was Re: Potential user has questions)
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 08 Nov '98

08 Nov '98

On 11/07/98 22:07:04 you wrote: > >I agree with Sir Bruce. If you buy a netapp, only use approved >add-on products, i.e. their ethernet controllers, disks, scsi >controllers, etc. This is expensive, and a legitimate reason not to >by a netapp. If you are on a tight budget or can tolerate living >without netapp's features (performance, reliability, snapshots, etc.) >then build a file server out of a linux box. If you need the >advantages, poney up the money. And this neatly transitions to another topic - the Dell OEM agreement. While at first they are just going to be selling Netapp's servers, my understanding is that eventually Dell would be using Netapp's software on servers with it's own hardware label. Now, I presume that Netapp will continue to sell it's own servers, so the two will be dividing up the market segments in some way. Will Dell be attacking that low-end (i.e. $10,000) price point? Presumably accomplishing this will mean cheaper components, which means they will have to work together to ensure the software supports it, the performance is acceptable, and so on. If Netapp is still going to make the hardware and Dell just puts their name on it, that's fine, but that still begs the question of whether or not this will be the vehicle in which Netapp can provide servers for the low-end of the market. Another question: Would it make sense for Netapp to invest in the design and development of a RAID-4 hardware controller? Bruce

1 0

Re: Potential user has questions
by Tom Reingold 08 Nov '98

08 Nov '98

I agree with Sir Bruce. If you buy a netapp, only use approved add-on products, i.e. their ethernet controllers, disks, scsi controllers, etc. This is expensive, and a legitimate reason not to by a netapp. If you are on a tight budget or can tolerate living without netapp's features (performance, reliability, snapshots, etc.) then build a file server out of a linux box. If you need the advantages, poney up the money.

1 0

Re: Potential user has questions
by Brian Atkins 07 Nov '98

07 Nov '98

"Stephen C. Losen" wrote: > > > > Is the filer OS considered secure? Y2K compliant? > > Would you feel safe running your filer attached to potentially > > hostile web servers running user-uploaded CGI programs? > > One of the latest versions purports to be y2k. The filer software and > filesystem should not have trouble with "potentially hostile web servers". > That is, the filer should stay running and serving files without trouble. > However, the files themselves have the usual unix protections. So it's > still up to you to configure the filer properly (to restrict access to > certain hosts) and set proper file permissions (to restrict access to > certain users on those hosts). And there are insecurities inherent > to NFS, so you don't want to export filesystems to hosts that you > don't have some control over. Right, of course if you misconfig something you open yourself to mischief. What I want to get at is whether it is safe to have a filer attached to the net-at-large, or whether it needs to be firewalled or otherwise protected. Can you elaborate on the nfs insecurities you mention? > > > > > What kind of real-world bandwidth can it put out (F740) ? I > > see the transaction specs, but what about sustained mbits > > in a web-type environment (3x more reads than writes)? > > Netapp prefers to measure "response time" vs. "transactions/sec". > In other words, a filer might be showing tremendous throughput > for one party, while starving out the others (delayed responses). > In the real world, you want average response time to be as fast as > possible because that is what people notice. Netapp has very > impressive throughput and average response time does not degrade > dramatically at high loads. Excellent, but is the filer capable of overloading 100mbit ethernet? If so, just how much bandwidth should we spec out for it so that it can perform to its max abilities? -- The future has arrived; it's just not evenly distributed. -William Gibson ______________________________________________________________________ Visit Hypermart at http://www.hypermart.net for free business hosting!

2 1

Re: Potential user has questions
by Tom Reingold 07 Nov '98

07 Nov '98

On Fri, 06 Nov 1998 19:41:46 EST, Brian Atkins <brian(a)posthuman.com> wrote: > Right, of course if you misconfig something you open yourself > to mischief. What I want to get at is whether it is safe to > have a filer attached to the net-at-large, or whether it needs > to be firewalled or otherwise protected. Can you elaborate on > the nfs insecurities you mention? > [...] A friend of mine does this, and it seems like a very good design. The toaster has an interface on each side of the firewall. It exports read-only to a web server on the outside, and read-write to a server on the inside. He doesn't run http on the toaster, only NFS. But I don't see any vulnerability in this elegant design.

1 0

Re: Potential user has questions
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 07 Nov '98

07 Nov '98

On 11/06/98 16:54:16 you wrote: > >Hi, we are considering going with one or more filers for our >free hosting service. I've got some basic questions that I >hope you all can help us out with. (I'll ask Netapp too whenever >they return my voice mail..) Most of these are already answered at least once, but what the hey, I'm bored. :) >Can you add drives to a file without shutting down? Yes. And grow the filesystem dynamically to include the new drive, while still in service. >How would you add shelves/adapters? Basically, you'd mount your new disk shelf in the rack, populate it with drives, shut down the filer, open the back of the cabinet, quickly slip in the adapter to the appropriate slot (if a new one is needed), close it back up, attach the cable from the shelf, and turn the filer back on. With a little practice the actual downtime of the filer for such an operation can be under 10 minutes. With the new FCAL, I don't know if you can add new shelves without shutting down or not. >Is the filer OS considered secure? I would consider it pretty secure. There's not much on it. You have the same risks of sniffing packets as you do with UNIX or NT from another machine, but breaking into the filer itself is unlikely. >Y2K compliant? Yes. >Would you feel safe running your filer attached to potentially >hostile web servers running user-uploaded CGI programs? As far as the filer is concerned, yes. As far as other servers on the network, less so. That is, the uploaded CGI could compromise security on your web server on your UNIX box that is talking to the filer over NFS, but I wouldn't worry about the filer itself being compromised. >Can we use third party drives/shelves/canisters/mem? You could in theory. They may or may not work at first. Even if they appear to work, they may or may not work later when you stress them or encounter an unusual SCSI condition. And you'll get minimal support for running a non-standard configuration. So why bother? You may save a few bucks by using the 18GB disk you got at Fry's and some cheap memory, but once it starts failing in the filer because it's not tested by Netapp, you'll wish you hadn't. If you really want to run something third-party, you may be able to make a special arrangement with Netapp. Talk to your salesperson. >Will 18GB and larger drives work ok? (Seagate just announced >36GB half-height drives...) As far as I know they aren't supported yet. When qualifying new drives, Netapp has to take into account not only the drive itself and if it can stand the load, but also the power concerns of the disk shelf. If the shelf can only handle half as many 18GB drives as 9GB drives, you haven't gained anything. >What kind of real-world bandwidth can it put out (F740) ? I >see the transaction specs, but what about sustained mbits >in a web-type environment (3x more reads than writes)? Raw bandwidth isn't a common measurement because rarely are you going to encounter the same mix of operations at each site. And it would depend on whether or not you're accessing the filer over CIFS or NFS, what version, how many drives you have, what kind of network, etc. Having said all that, I would say 40MB/sec or more is possible in a fully maxed out configuration. You mentioned used 100tx ethernet before. I would recommend using gigabit ethernet if you can, or going with multiple 100tx interfaces (full-duplex if you can). >If you use Cisco Fast EtherChannel, does it failover to the >lower bandwidth if you are using multiple network links ? >(assume a CF environment) ? I don't know anything about CFE or even if Netapp supports it. >If yes, and assuming you are using CF with two filers, wouldn't >that be a system with no single point of failure, or is there >anything else we should worry about? Within that system, there's no single point, but when you're talking about the overall service, you'll need to consider multiple sources of power, multiple networks and attached hardware, and so on. >Works with these systems over nfs: http(apache), news(inn and dnews), dns(bind), >mail(qmail), ftp(NcFTPd), Frontpage ? I don't know about Frontpage, but all the others do/should work fine. >Does the CF cost extra? (for the software.. I know it takes a >second filer :-) I think so. >Does Netapp charge for OS upgrades beyond a certain time period? This depends on the support contract. Again, I think so, but you'd need to get the details from your salesperson. Things may have changed. (Note that upgrades and fixes are probably free. Any release that provides major *new* features and functionality will probably cost you.) >Finally, do you feel there are any serious contenders to Netapp >that we should check out? Anyone tried the EMC Symmetrix stuff >or Artecon LnyxNSS systems? It's always good to shop around, but I suspect the other vendors will make a lot of promises they can't keep, or focus on one particular area to shoot down the Netapp (it's slow during reconstruction, for example) rather than address all the other advantages or the deficiencies in their own systems. That having been said, I think EMC and Sun are both worth a look. You may find that for your needs, you'd like to have UNIX available to you on the NFS server. I used to like Falcon, but I haven't heard anything from them lately. Bruce

1 0

Netapp OS networking code stability?
by Brian Atkins 07 Nov '98

07 Nov '98

Jim Davis wrote: > > > Would you feel safe running your filer attached to potentially > > hostile web servers running user-uploaded CGI programs? > > No. But that's a trick question, since user-uploaded CGI programs are > always going to potentially defeat any security system you might use. That's a rather pessimistic way of looking at it :-) What I am after is more like: if some script kiddies upload stuff that goes portscanning and otherwise mucking with the filer, is it going to wig out and die ? I mean people seem to find bugs in the networking code of NT every month- how stable is the filer's OS? Barring any misconfiguration or inherent bugs in the protocols (nfs), is it gonna be rock solid? Or are we gonna have to pamper it behind a firewall or something? -- The future has arrived; it's just not evenly distributed. -William Gibson ______________________________________________________________________ Visit Hypermart at http://www.hypermart.net for free business hosting!

2 1

Potential user has questions
by Brian Atkins 07 Nov '98

07 Nov '98

Hi, we are considering going with one or more filers for our free hosting service. I've got some basic questions that I hope you all can help us out with. (I'll ask Netapp too whenever they return my voice mail..) Can you add drives to a file without shutting down? How would you add shelves/adapters? Is the filer OS considered secure? Y2K compliant? Would you feel safe running your filer attached to potentially hostile web servers running user-uploaded CGI programs? Can we use third party drives/shelves/canisters/mem? Will 18GB and larger drives work ok? (Seagate just announced 36GB half-height drives...) What kind of real-world bandwidth can it put out (F740) ? I see the transaction specs, but what about sustained mbits in a web-type environment (3x more reads than writes)? If you use Cisco Fast EtherChannel, does it failover to the lower bandwidth if you are using multiple network links ? (assume a CF environment) ? If yes, and assuming you are using CF with two filers, wouldn't that be a system with no single point of failure, or is there anything else we should worry about? Works with these systems over nfs: http(apache), news(inn and dnews), dns(bind), mail(qmail), ftp(NcFTPd), Frontpage ? Does the CF cost extra? (for the software.. I know it takes a second filer :-) Does Netapp charge for OS upgrades beyond a certain time period? Finally, do you feel there are any serious contenders to Netapp that we should check out? Anyone tried the EMC Symmetrix stuff or Artecon LnyxNSS systems? Thanks -- The future has arrived; it's just not evenly distributed. -William Gibson ______________________________________________________________________ Visit Hypermart at http://www.hypermart.net for free business hosting!

4 3

Re: can't see ~snapshot directory
by Tom Reingold 06 Nov '98

06 Nov '98

On Fri, 06 Nov 1998 09:37:23 EST, Tom Limoncelli <tal(a)dnrc.bell-labs.com> wrote: > In fact, I wonder if the solution here is to turn off visible .snapshot > and ~snapshot at the mointpoints and put symbolic links in the user's > directory that are SNAPSHOT -> .snapshot. Or, if NetApp could have > these appear as symlinks/shortcuts that would solve the problem. That won't work. NT (and I presume win9[58]) won't let me make a shortcut to a non-existent thing, and it doesn't think .snapshot or It will work when it's a symlink, but you have to be on UNIX to create a symlink, and then I think you're back with the same problem, because fastfind will traverse it. It doesn't know symlinks are special. It thinks SNAPSHOT is a folder (directory). I just tested this.

2 1

None
by Nail, Larry 06 Nov '98

06 Nov '98

unsubscribe lnail(a)ti.com

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