toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

RE: NetApp soon to be user
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 21 Nov '98

21 Nov '98

On 11/20/98 09:45:21 you wrote: > >Rick, > >We have run into a couple of significant issues with CIFS that may, or may >not, be relevant. First issue is: >Well, it turns out that there is some "feature" in NT that causes IIS to >hang if oplocks are on. To me, this is an issue with IIS. If you use IIS, you'll get this same problem when talking via CIFS to another NT box. The answer is to not use IIS (or NT entirely), or, as you point out, turn off oplocks. >The second issue is a hardcoded limit in the filer that does not allow for >more then slightly more then 65K of directories in one directory tree. Most >folks wouldn't run into this, but we create an NT folder for every user who >uses our site to build their own web pages. This limit is not documented >(there is a limit of approx. 300,000 file sin one directory and a maxfiles >limit that is dependent on number/capacity of disk drives that are >documented). This does bother me. I don't know when the limit appeared, as it doesn't seem to be a part of the WAFL design, and slipping it in through a "backdoor" without mentioning it is disturbing. As you mentioned, there is a limit on the number of files, or actually directory entries, in one directory, which was set as a matter of performance; however, there is a maxdirsize parameter you can set to increase it. Directories should naturally be treated the same way, so if you're correct that some other limit has been added (maybe it was always there and I just didn't know), it would be nice if someone from Netapp could address why this limit exists and if/when it will be lifted and/or made user-configurable. Mind you, if you tried to put 65K directories in your NT or UNIX server, you will run into a severe performance degredation. You really should look into setting them in deeper subdirectories. This appears to be another reason NOT to use IIS.... Bruce

2 1

F630 grinds to a halt daily after update to 5.1.2?
by Matt Stein 21 Nov '98

21 Nov '98

I know this isn't a support channel, but Netapp's not been useful at all, so what the heck: I have an F630 that's run well enough for five months. On Sunday we upgraded our filer to 5.1.2 from 5.0.1d4 at the suggestion of our Netapp SE. Since then, it's come grinding to a halt each day. NFS access starts getting really slow, and eventually completely unresponsive. Network activity is not high. sysstat shows that cpu, disk, and net are all getting lower and lower as clients start dropping their mounts. Things do not improve until eventually we reboot it. The telnet interface is fine and responsive all the way through. Netapp's support has asked for crash dumps, etc., but nothing's helped, and we're heading into a weekend. They also recommended *not* downgrading back to 5.0.1d4. Apparently 5.1.2 has bug fixes that we require(news to me). Has *anyone* seen this? Suggestions? Thoughts? Hitz voodoo solutions welcome. :) -- mat.

2 2

Re: F630 grinds to a halt daily after update to 5.1.2?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 21 Nov '98

21 Nov '98

On 11/20/98 20:38:35 you wrote: >> this happens. After eliminating that, my best advice would be to change >> the client mounts to use different NFS protocols... UDP instead of TCP, >> and/or v2 instead of v3. Doing so may prevent or may make it less >> likely that you'll 'tickle' the Netapp bug. Also, check out the different > >Well, we have mostly v2 clients, but the v3 tcp client and the v3 udp >clients have all seen exactly the same behaviour. No, you misunderstand. The v3 clients or the tcp clients could be *causing* the bug to occur in the netapp, which then consumes resources to kill all clients. So, changing the clients to a different mechanism may avoid the problem. Get it? Bruce

2 1

Re: F630 grinds to a halt daily after update to 5.1.2?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 21 Nov '98

21 Nov '98

On 11/20/98 17:57:42 you wrote: > > >I know this isn't a support channel, but Netapp's not been useful at all, >so what the heck: > >I have an F630 that's run well enough for five months. On Sunday we >upgraded our filer to 5.1.2 from 5.0.1d4 at the suggestion of our Netapp >SE. > >Since then, it's come grinding to a halt each day. NFS access starts >getting really slow, and eventually completely unresponsive. Network >activity is not high. sysstat shows that cpu, disk, and net are all >getting lower and lower as clients start dropping their mounts. Things do >not improve until eventually we reboot it. The telnet interface is fine >and responsive all the way through. While many things could cause this, this sounds to me like a classic resource contention issue, where the filer accumulates more and more operations that are waiting on a blocked process (like a raid stripe being written out), and eventually it can't do anything more. This sort of thing can also happen at a higher level in the networking code. There have certainly been bugs that have exhibited the symptoms you describe in the past. >Netapp's support has asked for crash dumps, etc., but nothing's helped, >and we're heading into a weekend. They also recommended *not* downgrading >back to 5.0.1d4. Apparently 5.1.2 has bug fixes that we require(news to >me). > >Has *anyone* seen this? Suggestions? Thoughts? I'm surprised the crash dumps haven't helped. My first recommendation would be to downgrade. The "apparently" doesn't cut it; either they can tell you specifically what was fixed and you can assess the risk of downgrading, or you should just do it anyway. But if doing so would be a big problem according to Netapp, then you need to look for other solutions. If that is the case, I assume you've already looked at the obvious culprits like making sure you're not doing a dump, restore, etc. when this happens. After eliminating that, my best advice would be to change the client mounts to use different NFS protocols... UDP instead of TCP, and/or v2 instead of v3. Doing so may prevent or may make it less likely that you'll 'tickle' the Netapp bug. Also, check out the different interfaces you have... perhaps switching from ATM to Gigabit, or from Gigabit to 100tx, may alleviate the problem. (If you can check mounts through each interface when the "slowdown" occurs, you may be able to confirm a particular interface as the culprit.) Bruce

2 1

RE: NetApp soon to be user
by Sam Schorr 20 Nov '98

20 Nov '98

Rick, We have run into a couple of significant issues with CIFS that may, or may not, be relevant. NT uses a thing called oplocks (opportunistic locking) as a "performance enhancement". The filer supports this method of locking. In our environment, we do not have individual user shares - we have a number of NT servers running Microsoft's IIS. Thus our Internet servers (IIS) receive both PUT (file write) and GET (file read) requests through the internet that come in as anonymous users. IIS has several NT user accounts that it uses to make the corresponding access calls. In our case, those calls are to create directories and files which we put on a 740. Well, it turns out that there is some "feature" in NT that causes IIS to hang if oplocks are on. Essentially, somewhere in the SMB traffic that is hitting a shared file from multiple "users", if the number of simultaneous requests is large, NT timeouts which hangs the user - in our case, an entire IIS server. Doing a CIFS TERMINATE on that server can free it, but this is a horrible practice. The workaround is to turnoff oplocks and control file access through application logic. The second issue is a hardcoded limit in the filer that does not allow for more then slightly more then 65K of directories in one directory tree. Most folks wouldn't run into this, but we create an NT folder for every user who uses our site to build their own web pages. This limit is not documented (there is a limit of approx. 300,000 file sin one directory and a maxfiles limit that is dependent on number/capacity of disk drives that are documented). The last issue is multi-homing on an NT domain environment. If you want more info on that, let me know - it doesn't sound like you would run into this. Sam Schorr Homestead Technologies ph: (650) 549-3152 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: Berkenbush, Richard E. [mailto:BERKENBUSH@pcmail.systems.gec.com] Sent: Friday, November 20, 1998 7:05 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: NetApp soon to be user Hello all, I am in the process of purchasing a 720 to be used for TDM storage for SDRC in a mixed UNIX and NT environment. We also would like to consider its use for PDM storage using Sherpa and Oracle. Our intentions are to pilot the 720 with SDRC and phase in the PDM data base for pilot purposes only. Should this be successful, we would then purchase a higher end model such as the 740 or 760. Also we have a need to consider an enterprise wide data storage solution which would involve UNIX and NT data up to 3500 G. Has anyone out there had any bad experience with the Network Appliance products that I should be aware of? End Thank you, Rick Berkenbush Marconi Aerospace Systems Inc.

1 0

NetApp soon to be user
by Berkenbush, Richard E. 20 Nov '98

20 Nov '98

Hello all, I am in the process of purchasing a 720 to be used for TDM storage for SDRC in a mixed UNIX and NT environment. We also would like to consider its use for PDM storage using Sherpa and Oracle. Our intentions are to pilot the 720 with SDRC and phase in the PDM data base for pilot purposes only. Should this be successful, we would then purchase a higher end model such as the 740 or 760. Also we have a need to consider an enterprise wide data storage solution which would involve UNIX and NT data up to 3500 G. Has anyone out there had any bad experience with the Network Appliance products that I should be aware of? End Thank you, Rick Berkenbush Marconi Aerospace Systems Inc.

2 1

subscribe toasters
by Ståle Aartun 20 Nov '98

20 Nov '98

1 0

None
by Frans van Aken 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

subscribe toasters

1 0

snapshot and df does not match?
by Madhu Chandra 17 Nov '98

17 Nov '98

Hi All, Eventhough my snap list shows less than 100%, Why my df command shows 130%? Is there any hidden files that I need to delete? How does this sanp list matches with df's capacity? Following is the snap list and df commands for my F520 version 5.1 snap list Volume vol0 working................. %/used %/total date name ---------- ---------- ------------ -------- 4% ( 4%) 3% ( 3%) Nov 17 00:00 nightly.0 4% ( 4%) 3% ( 3%) Nov 16 16:00 hourly.0 5% ( 4%) 3% ( 3%) Nov 16 08:00 hourly.1 5% ( 4%) 4% ( 3%) Nov 16 00:00 weekly.0 5% ( 4%) 4% ( 3%) Nov 15 00:00 nightly.1 9% ( 4%) 6% ( 3%) Nov 14 00:00 nightly.2 12% ( 5%) 9% ( 3%) Nov 13 00:00 nightly.3 28% (21%) 26% (17%) Nov 09 00:00 weekly.1 df Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on /vol/vol0/ 50603952 45514752 5089200 90% /vol/vol0/ /vol/vol0/.snapshot 12650988 16497100 0 130% /vol/vol0/.snapshot Thanks for the help Madhu

1 0

subscribe fva@oce.nl
by Frans van Aken 16 Nov '98

16 Nov '98

1 0

Re: DLT 4500's?
by Jim Ripley (49er Fan) 13 Nov '98

13 Nov '98

The DLT4500 is supported in multiple D patch releases. The latest D patch release for the 4.3.4 tree is 4.3.4D9 and can be obtained at: http://now.netapp.com/download/software/ontap/4.3.4D9/ Hope this helps. Jim -->>Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 22:39:04 -0800 (PST) -->>From: Brian Rice <brice(a)gnac.com> -->>To: toasters(a)mathworks.com -->>Subject: DLT 4500's? -->> -->>Looks like DLT 4500's are not supported, or at least not by 4.3.4 on F630's. -->>sysconfig -t says "non-qualified tape drive," and one gets no tape devices. -->> -->>Anyone had any experience to the contrary? I plan to call 888-4-NETAPP -->>and make nice in the morning, but I wanted to find out if anyone has had -->>other experiences, say with later revs of the OS. -->> -->>I'd rather not run permanently with a non-supported library, even if -->>NAC has a back-door patch for it. I think I need to bite the bullet -->>and buy a real tape drive. But this 4500 (which we found in the tomb -->>of Ramses II, believe it or not) would be a nice stopgap if that were -->>possible. -->> -->>Thanks, y'all. -->> -->>Brian Rice -->>brice(a)gnac.com

1 0

Re: DLT 4500's?
by Jason D. Kelleher 13 Nov '98

13 Nov '98

In message <199811130639.WAA15113(a)tweety.main.gnac.com>, Brian Rice writes: >Looks like DLT 4500's are not supported, or at least not by 4.3.4 on F630's >. >sysconfig -t says "non-qualified tape drive," and one gets no tape devices. > >Anyone had any experience to the contrary? I plan to call 888-4-NETAPP >and make nice in the morning, but I wanted to find out if anyone has had >other experiences, say with later revs of the OS. > >I'd rather not run permanently with a non-supported library, even if >NAC has a back-door patch for it. I think I need to bite the bullet >and buy a real tape drive. But this 4500 (which we found in the tomb >of Ramses II, believe it or not) would be a nice stopgap if that were >possible. The problem with the 4500's is that ONTAP looks at the SCSI ID string and barfs if it's not a value it expects. You have two options, get NetApp to give you a "D" release which supports 4500s or change the SCSI ID which your drive returns. I've tried both. Getting the "D" releases is annoying, they come out at a several week lag to the production release. I managed to get an app from our drive vendor, BoxHill, which allows me to change how the drive reports itself. Now my filer happily writes 40GB to an "Exabyte 8500". good luck, jason

1 0

DLT 4500's?
by Brian Rice 13 Nov '98

13 Nov '98

Looks like DLT 4500's are not supported, or at least not by 4.3.4 on F630's. sysconfig -t says "non-qualified tape drive," and one gets no tape devices. Anyone had any experience to the contrary? I plan to call 888-4-NETAPP and make nice in the morning, but I wanted to find out if anyone has had other experiences, say with later revs of the OS. I'd rather not run permanently with a non-supported library, even if NAC has a back-door patch for it. I think I need to bite the bullet and buy a real tape drive. But this 4500 (which we found in the tomb of Ramses II, believe it or not) would be a nice stopgap if that were possible. Thanks, y'all. Brian Rice brice(a)gnac.com

2 1

Re: copying a snapshot file back over a recently-edited file
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 13 Nov '98

13 Nov '98

Yes, it's perfectly normal, and I think it's even documented in the manual. cp and other programs make the assumption that if it's the same inode, the files are identical, and due to the way snapshots work, it's the same inode. Copying it from what looks like another filesystem to the client is the easiest way to get around it. If you don't want people accessing the snapshot directories that way, just mv or remove the old file first. Bruce

1 0

copying a snapshot file back over a recently-edited file
by Rob Windsor 12 Nov '98

12 Nov '98

I was dinking with my .mime.types and decided to restore the original file back into place. I received some real odd behavior, and was curious if this was "normal", or if things were screwey. I'll just cut'n'paste what came out of the xterm, it will explain itself. (Solaris/sparc v2.6 and OnTapp v4.3.5 on a F520, if you must know..) : wst103:~; cp .snapshot/hourly.0/.mime.types . cp: .snapshot/hourly.0/.mime.types and ./.mime.types are identical : wst103:~; /usr/bin/cp .snapshot/hourly.0/.mime.types . cp: .snapshot/hourly.0/.mime.types and ./.mime.types are identical : wst103:~; ll -i .snapshot/hourly.0/.mime.types ./.mime.types 591121 -rw-r--r-- 1 windsor staff 328 Nov 12 17:05 ./.mime.types 591121 -rw-r--r-- 1 windsor staff 589 Aug 4 17:22 .snapshot/hourly.0/.mime.types : wst103:~; cp /nac/.snapshot/hourly.0/userdata/windsor/.mime.types . : wst103:~; /nac and ~ are two different mountpoints (two different filesystems as far as cp(1) knows), as you may have already figured out. I haven't had any users query me about this yet, fortunately. Am I to remove the file completely before copying back in from the snapshot? -- 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

Max Number of drives
by Jason Middlebrooks 12 Nov '98

12 Nov '98

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

4 3

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

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