toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

Postmark
by Marc Nicholas 17 Oct '98

17 Oct '98

Out of interest, anyone run Postmark benchtests on F700 series filers as per the whitepaper on the NetApp website? I'd be interested to see the results and don't have access to any of the 700 series... -marc -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Hippocampus OSD, Inc. "Industrial Strength Internet Solutions" vox://416.979.9000 fax://416.979.8223 http://www.hippocampus.net =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Host your business website for only $29/month! 1.877.GO.HIPPO

1 0

RE: Logging CIFS logins
by Allison, Bridget 16 Oct '98

16 Oct '98

I'm late into this thread so my apologies if someone has already given this info. The release of DataONTAP targeted for 1st quarter CY99 will include access logging for CIFS. You'll be able to track file and directory access and user logon/off for CIFS users. This is a subset of the auditing available for NT servers. More details will be available as the release gets closer. ===================================== Bridget Allison Manager, NetApp Windows Networking Network Appliance Inc. office: (408) 367 3419 cell: (408) 823 1126

1 0

Re: fcal and the 760
by Daniel Quinlan 16 Oct '98

16 Oct '98

Scott Schoenthal <sas(a)netapp.com> writes: > Support for the SNTP subset of NTP is currently scheduled to ship in > the next major release of ONTAP which is targeted for Feb/Mar '99. That's good news. Will it work against the standard xntpd server as well as against SNTP servers? - Dan

2 1

Backing up data
by Jason Middlebrooks 15 Oct '98

15 Oct '98

Since the 700 series filers only allow one SCSI backup device to be attached to a Filer how is it possible to back up 1TB of data in timely manner. I am talking about backing up in a 8 to 12 hour time frame. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Jason Jason Middlebrooks Systems Engineer Direct Connect Systems Phone: 770-933-9327x270 2264 Northwest Parkway, Suite I Pager: 888-502-1625 Marietta, GA 30067 Fax: 770-933-9272

3 2

None
by jason 15 Oct '98

15 Oct '98

toasters unsubscribe

1 0

Re: fcal and the 760
by Keith Brown 15 Oct '98

15 Oct '98

>| As far as performance goes, the three FCAL loops are peers in the system. > >Is this true in a clustered failover environment as well Sure. >or can I tag >the failover loops as having a lower priority than the "local" loops? What exactly do you mean by "local loops"? If by "local loops" you mean FCAL loops that are private to an individual filer within the cluster, then I'm not entirely sure that we support that type of configuration anyway. In a cluster configuration, each filer requires at least two FCAL adapters, one to connect it to its primary disk array, and another to connect it to its secondary disk array which it takes over in the event of a failure (which is the primary of the other filer in the cluster) . It is "normal" for that to be the beginning and end of the story, except in the case of a large capacity cluster that requires two pairs of FCAL adapters per filer (see below). Just from the quantity perspective, the only filers that can or will be able to receive a third FCAL loop are the F630 and F760 units, so this discussion is somewhat moot in the context of an F740. As a point of information though, the Data ONTAP 5.2 release only supports F630 filer clustering. It does include support for the "large capacity" cluster I mentioned above (4 FCAL adapters per system, but topping out at 168 drives across the 4 loops, not 224, so an "obvious" sample configuration would involve implementing 42 drives per loop, giving each *individual* system a capacity of 84 drives or ~722 GB gross, adding up to the ~144 GB gross in the whole cluster), but F700 series clustering for the F740 and F760 systems is not yet shipping. Patience... :-) >| Well yes, but distance-from-the-controller is not a significant influencer >| of device performance on an FCAL loop. This type of fibre channel > >There must be some guidelines though. I would think that you would not >want to keep all the loops within some reasonable distance. I don't think so. That's kinda like worrying about communications between the nodes at the opposite ends of an Ethernet segment being slower because the bits have further to walk! :-) >That is, I >would probably want to put my filer in the middle of the rack so all >loops are semi-equal as opposed to at the end of the rack (thinking that >a filer that takes up 3 racks with 3 fully populated loops). Yes, there may be some physical "can it reach" issues on a three FCAL loop system. At the moment, I know that our standard issue FCAL cable that takes an FCAL adapter output plug on a filer to the input of the first shelf is just one meter long. That's no problem on a two loop system, as you can just go taking off in opposite directions to go along the shelf chain for each loop (one chain heads off up the rack, the other down, that kind of thing...) but I guess it does get kinda interesting when you've got three loops to worry about. I'll have to leave this one to someone at NetApp who knows exactly how we recommend this work physically. >Indeed. fcal is quite spiffy. It is a thing of beauty. :-) >Actually, why the decision to use copper instead of fiber? I think the reasons were plentyfold. Affordabality was certainly in the mix. Keith

4 5

Macintosh Access
by Graham C. Knight 15 Oct '98

15 Oct '98

Help! Does anyone know of a piece of software that will run on Unix or NT that will allow a NAC file system to be used by a Macintosh? Or any tricks that will allow NT to re-export a CIFS share via appletalk? I've had it with CAP - after finding yet another bug. Our usage of Filers depends on being able to access the filers from macintosh (with no client software on the mac!). If anyone has any suggestions i'd really like to hear them. Thanks, Graham

7 8

Re: file system size limit
by mds＠ns.gbnet.net 15 Oct '98

15 Oct '98

> I know that the argument will be that I should break up the single filesystem into > multiple volumes, since then I can fine tune the options (snapshots, snap schedules, > etc) per volume. That is all good, but when you start getting 100's of GB of data, > sometimes it does not split cleanly (and updating the vfstab N clients becomes a chore, > no matter how automated you have it (well, save for NIS, but who does that?)). We do. It works. We're happy.

1 0

Re: Macintosh Access
by mds＠ns.gbnet.net 15 Oct '98

15 Oct '98

Xinet. Comes free with SGI IRIX ASE, also available as a separate product last time I looked. Works very well.

1 0

ONTAP 5.2
by alexei＠cimedia.com 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

now that the manuals are up on NOW, when is 5.2 going out the door? thanks. Alex

2 1

Large files
by Jason Middlebrooks 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

I was wondering how Filers handle large files compared to small files. I am talking about storing music files to be accessed via the internet. Is the performance very good? I will be using a 700 series filer. Thanks Jason Middlebrooks Systems Engineer Direct Connect Systems Phone: 770-933-9327x270 2264 Northwest Parkway, Suite I Pager: 888-502-1625 Marietta, GA 30067 Fax: 770-933-9272

3 2

Re: snapcopy -> volcopy?
by Keith Brown 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

Hi Alexei... >Is volcopy the same as what snap copy was being touted as? Yes. >If volcopy >requires a separate license, why not make it part of the basic >OS instead? Volume copy did initially ship as a component that required a separate licence, but it is now free. Contact customer service or your sales rep if you have a version of ONTAP that requires a license code to enable it. I believe you will find that our latest GA release, 5.1.2, does not though. >That is, why does it require another license key? Because initially it was supposed to cost money, but now it is a base OS feature. Keith

3 4

snapcopy -> volcopy?
by alexei＠cimedia.com 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

This is probably a question better answered by my sales rep, but it is late and I doubt she would appreciate a page right now :) Is volcopy the same as what snap copy was being touted as? If volcopy requires a separate license, why not make it part of the basic OS instead? That is, why does it require another license key? Just curious. Thanks. Alex

3 2

Re: Macintosh Access
by Keith Brown 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

>Does anyone know of a piece of software that will >run on Unix or NT that will allow a NAC file system >to be used by a Macintosh? I can't give you the names of any packages that are "officially certified" to work with NFS mounted file systems and our filers, but I can give you some alternatives to the Columbia AppleTalk Package if this is proving unsatisfactory for what you are trying to accomplish. First, there is another free alternative to CAP called Netatalk. This one is from the University of Michigan and I am led to understand that it is a "better" implementation. For details, see: http://www.umich.edu/~rsug/netatalk Then there are some commercial alternatives. One comes from a company called IPT Technology and is called uShare. See: http://www.iptech.com Another comes from a company called Helios and is called EtherShare. See: http://www.helios.com >Or any tricks >that will allow NT to re-export a CIFS share >via appletalk? Unfortunately this is not possible today. >Our usage of Filers depends on being able to access >the filers from macintosh (with no client software >on the mac!). If anyone has any suggestions i'd >really like to hear them. Are you aware of the way that does involve a little client software on the Macs? A company called Thursby make a CIFS client for the Macintosh called DAVE. Thursby are at: http://www.thursby.com Keith

2 1

fcal and clustered failover
by alexei＠cimedia.com 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

According to the white paper http://www.netapp.com/technology/level3/1004.html, in a clustered failover (CF) setup 2 filers would be attached to the same fc loop, 1 filer to the A port and 1 to the B port (to determine who is "master" for that set of disks). Now, I take this to mean that on any given loop, only 1 filer can be master for that loop. Based on this assumption, how does this alter the max shelves per filer? That is, on a f740 I can have 2 loops (based on the 8 shelves per loop guideline and 16 shelves per filer on a 740). If this f740 and another f740 were part of the same CF setup and both filers were "active", would I be limited to a single loop of active shelves on each filer? Or would I be able to have 4 loops, 2 active and 2 in standby (ie: my partners shelves)? Or does the 8 shelves per loop guideline not apply to the CF setup? I just looked through the f700 hardware guide as well as the ONTAP 5.2 sys admin guide (thanks for having that up). The chapter on CF is good. Definitely. Ok, so the hardware guide says that a f740 and an f760 can both only have 112 fcal drives, 2 fcal loops max. How does the 760 then do 1.4TB of storage and the 740 960GB? Seems there are 56 or so drives missing.... another loop? So, my bottom line question is: in a CF setup with 2 f740's, what is the maximum *useable* storage space I will have (combined)? Also, why does a f630 get to have 3 fcal loops? Boy, I am just full of questions tonight... Thanks. Alexei

2 1

Re: fcal and clustered failover
by Keith Brown 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

Alexei... I'm going to leave your shelves-per-loop and loops-per-filer in the cluster scenario questions for our clustering product manager to address. He will have the latest information on exactly what configurations we have tested and are supporting on which filer. However, I will take a shot at the obvious question... >Ok, >so the hardware guide says that a f740 and an f760 can both only have 112 >fcal drives, 2 fcal loops max. > >How does the 760 then do 1.4TB of storage and the 740 960GB? Seems there are >56 or so drives missing.... another loop? This was/is just a quality assurance and testing lag. The F760 should be going to the full three FCAL loop configuration in the near term (if it hasn't happened already?). Our latest GA release, 5.1.2, just officially gave the full 3 FCAL loop / 168 drive capability to our former high end unit, the F630, so hopefully the new F760 isn't too far behind! :-) >So, my bottom line question is: in a CF setup with 2 f740's, what is the maximum >*useable* storage space I will have (combined)? Don't take it as gospel, but I *think* you'll probably be looking at a couple of FCAL loops-worth. In other words, ~960 GB combined (~480 GB per filer). The actual *useable* space is dependent on some other configuration specifics. >Also, why does a f630 get to have 3 fcal loops? Because it's been tested, certified and stamped as "approved" in a 3 FCAL loop configuration by our quality people. >Boy, I am just full of questions tonight... Tell me about it! :-) Keith

3 2

file system size limit
by alexei＠cimedia.com 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

Is the maximum size of a file system going to change in ONTAP? It was my understanding that the max size was limited by a few factors, among them the speed of disk reconstruction (max window of opportunity for duoble failure), the number of physical disks (in a scsi config) and something else. With the advent of multiple raid groups and larger disk sizes, it seems like this might be the obvious progression. Lets say that the next drive size is 18GB. That means that in a 740 I could have 800GB* per loop. That would rock. (800GB when you have 4 raid groups with 12 (11+parity) disks + spares + shared disk for cluster) I know that the argument will be that I should break up the single filesystem into multiple volumes, since then I can fine tune the options (snapshots, snap schedules, etc) per volume. That is all good, but when you start getting 100's of GB of data, sometimes it does not split cleanly (and updating the vfstab N clients becomes a chore, no matter how automated you have it (well, save for NIS, but who does that?)). I don't need a 1.5TB filesystem.... yet. But it sure would be nice to be able to build one :) Yes, the more we get the more we want. Thanks. Alexei

2 1

Re: Macintosh Access
by clark shishido 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

You can use DAVE, a CIFS client for the Mac, from http://www.thursby.com I use it once in a while to connect to my NT servers. We haven't rolled out the filer to our creative users yet, but I'm going to push for Xinet's KAShare running on one of our IRIX boxes mounting the filer. --clark >Help! > >Does anyone know of a piece of software that will >run on Unix or NT that will allow a NAC file system >to be used by a Macintosh? Or any tricks >that will allow NT to re-export a CIFS share >via appletalk? > >I've had it with CAP - after finding yet another bug. > >Our usage of Filers depends on being able to access >the filers from macintosh (with no client software >on the mac!). If anyone has any suggestions i'd >really like to hear them. > >Thanks, > Graham

1 0

RE: file system size limit
by Hunter, Peter 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

And being new what backup device are you going to use ? Another toaster! ;-) > Is the maximum size of a file system going to change in ONTAP? > > It was my understanding that the max size was limited by a few > factors, > among them the speed of disk reconstruction (max window of opportunity > for duoble failure), the number of physical disks (in a scsi config) > and something else. > > With the advent of multiple raid groups and larger disk sizes, it > seems like > this might be the obvious progression. Lets say that the next drive > size is 18GB. > That means that in a 740 I could have 800GB* per loop. That would > rock. (800GB when > you have 4 raid groups with 12 (11+parity) disks + spares + shared > disk for cluster) > > I know that the argument will be that I should break up the single > filesystem into > multiple volumes, since then I can fine tune the options (snapshots, > snap schedules, > etc) per volume. That is all good, but when you start getting 100's of > GB of data, > sometimes it does not split cleanly (and updating the vfstab N clients > becomes a chore, > no matter how automated you have it (well, save for NIS, but who does > that?)). > > I don't need a 1.5TB filesystem.... yet. But it sure would be nice to > be able > to build one :) > > Yes, the more we get the more we want. > > > Thanks. > > > > Alexei >

2 1

Re: Filers and CAP
by Keith Brown 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

>Has anyone succesfully configured CAP (columbia Appletalk >Protocol) to work with an NFS mounted filer? Yes. We have at least one other customer that I'm aware of doing this (NFS mounting a filer file system on a UNIX machine, and then running one of the freeware AppleShare/Talk servers on said UNIX machine to "re-export" that file system to Macintosh clients via the Apple protocols). >I am having problems that appear to revolve around NFS file >locking. >[...] >In some circumstances, CAP AUFS using NFS mounted filesystems may complain >about files being locked when they are not obviously so. This is usually >the result of missing lock daemons or simply brain-dead or buggy NFS code. And they don't define exactly *what* circumstances? Hmmm... :-) Well, there's one thing I can think of that may be catching you/it unawares. If you have Windows/CIFS clients concurrently accessing the data that is being accessed by the Macs via NFS (indirectly), the semantic meaning of any CIFS file/record locks that are being established by your Windows clients are enforced on the NFS side in a mandatory way. The various Windows operating systems from Microsoft implement a mandatory locking scheme, and our SecureShare technology ensure that these mandatory controls are honored in the multiprotocol context. That's something to be aware of. What it means in reality is that when/if CAP "probes" for the presence of locks via fcntl(), it may find locks that have originally come from the CIFS side. Also, if it tries to read and/or write data in a manner that would be in violation of a pre-existing CIFS mandatory lock, it will have those operations failed, even though the attempt is being made via NFS. Keith

1 0

Re: fcal and the 760
by Keith Brown 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

>How far can the fcal cable be and what sort of performace hit >do you take on that 3rd loop (since each loop can only consist of >8 shelves)? As far as performance goes, the three FCAL loops are peers in the system. They are "parallel". Each loop is independently connected into the system via its own FCAL adapter/controller and there is no significant prioritization of requests/responses on any one loop over another. >You figure, the last shelf in the 3rd loop is going to be more than a >few meters away from the filer... Well yes, but distance-from-the-controller is not a significant influencer of device performance on an FCAL loop. This type of fibre channel incorporates some cunning stunts at the MAC layer, borrowed from Token Ring and FDDI, that do an effective job of spreading the available bandwidth betwixt all of the connected players, regardless of their physical position on the loop. Keith

2 1

fcal and the 760
by alexei＠cimedia.com 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

Supposedly the 760 can have up to 24 fcal shelves. Now, that is a whole lot of disk shelves (3 racks worth, give or take). How far can the fcal cable be and what sort of performace hit do you take on that 3rd loop (since each loop can only consist of 8 shelves)? You figure, the last shelf in the 3rd loop is going to be more than a few meters away from the filer... Does that make sense? Alex

1 0

Re: Logging CIFS logins
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

On 10/13/98 15:09:38 you wrote: >If "cifs sessions" can print the active CIFS sessions, then how difficult >could it possibly be to log when these sessions begin and end? No more difficult that logging each NFS mount or unmount, or PC-NFS authentication. >I'm picking on CIFS because each user has an individual session, with an >identifiable beginning and end. Not exactly, as has been identified. Furthermore, you can access a "Microsoft Network" without establishing any session with the filer. You claimed you wanted this not for security, but for knowing if an account is active or not... if I log in, but never access the filer, then you don't have a very good indicator. >NFS works totally differently, but we can >at least get the info we need from unix logs. No. As I pointed out, I could access it via PC-NFS, or straight NFS unless you restrict every host. Furthermore, under unix, I could be accessing other people's files - you might not care about this, but I was just pointing out there's another scenario. >A lot of our students have >their own PCs in their dorm rooms, so we have no access to these PCs. NT >security is not an option for use because we have almost 20,000 accounts >now and will eventually have almost 30,000. I haven't calculated what the >license fee is for 30,000 users on a NT server. At this point, I might suggest that support PCs in dorm rooms isn't an option, unless they use PC-NFS. But that's just me. I view the mapping of CIFS access the UNIX ids and files like the filer does to be something of a hack (not the code, but the concept) - I mean, if you don't like the way Microsoft expects you to use CIFS, don't use it. :) >We are using the same NIS >maps for our unix servers as for CIFS logins on the netapp. It's real >handy for account administration and users have the same password (and >same home directory) for both services. I agree here, but I more universal directory service appears to be in order. LDAP anyone? Bruce

1 0

Re: Logging CIFS logins
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

On 10/12/98 11:11:44 you wrote: >In our environment, any logging that netapp can provide is probably useful >to us in some way or another. For CIFS, the timestamp, loginid, and >hostname or IP address of the login would be invaluable. All of your resonings are fine, but as I pointed out, you don't really have this information for NFS access either, except to the extent that a UNIX server records a login (but wouldn't if from a PC). So I don't think you should be picking on CIFS on the filer! As I said, running NT security with a PDC would track this information for you. However, having the filer log CIFS and PC-NFS authentications would be useful. Bruce

4 3

Gigabit and Extreme Networks
by Roderic Taft 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

I understand that 1000Base-SX is fairly interoperable between vendors these days, but does anybody have any real world experience with a NetApp and an Extreme Networks Summit switch connected with Gigabit? Thanks Rod Taft

3 2

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