toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

Re: Soft Links on NT
by Keith Brown 22 Sep '98

22 Sep '98

>This mentions Release 4.3. However, I'm on 5.1D4 and does this work ? >In a word : NO. Any "bugs" of which I am unaware not withstanding... no! The CIFS symlink following mechanism should work in a Data ONTAP 5.1 release just as it did in the 4.3 releases. So let's see what might be up... >I've got an F520 running release 5.1D4. I've got a problem with reading Unix >soft links on NT. Symbolic links. OK... >NetApps Inc. say that soft links only work on NT within >one quota tree. That is a difficult thing t live with, but I suppose I'll >have to. The limitation that exists with the symlink following mechanism is that the encountered link must point to a location in the filer's file system that resides under the same *share* that the client encountering the link originally connected to in order to be able to hit the link in the first place (if you see what I'm saying? :-)). The "problem" is a rather fundamental one. If a link points to a location on the filer that is outside of the scope of the share being accessed from a client, our software has no way of telling the client to disconnect itself from the existing share and reconnect to another that could *possibly* allow it to go to the destination (even if one existed). Simply taking the client to the destination without regard to share security would be a "well iffy" piece of behavior from the security perspective. As for the quota tree limitation you specifically mention, yes, I believe that might be a new thing in 5.1, but there is a good reason for it and it isn't actually that much of a "new restriction" in practice. The good reason for it is that now our qtrees can have different security styles associated with them. You only get to inform a client about the security of the file system it is connecting to (FAT or NTFS) at connect time, so taking a client from a FAT file system (which actually has UNIX security on it in our case), to an NTFS file system would definately constitute a problematic situation in the eyes of the protocol. There's just no mechanism to cleanly handle such a transition. Oh... and the reason that it isn't actually that much of a (new) restriction is that qtrees are always rooted in the root directory of a volume, so the only share that a client could possibly connect to that would allow inter-qtree jumps while still obeying the "in the same share" rule, would be the C$, D$, E$ etc, etc... administrative shares, which aren't normally used by ordinary users. >I can make soft links with relative pathnames work OK, but what about links >with absolute pathnames ? On the NOW NetApp site, I found a sysadmin man >page mentioning the /etc/symlink.translations file, which is apparently a >way to make this work. It's a way to make *something* work, but not inter-share jumps. From a UNIX client you may have created symlinks that a filer could not possibly follow, because they point to locations that are not actually on the filer. A UNIX client can follow these links elsewhere because it is an NFS client. A filer can't, because it is not. The symlink translation mechanism lets you make a copy of the target data somewhere that *is* on the filer (manually), and then automatically translate the existing symlinks to hook a Windows client over to it. Make sense? Keith

1 0

Quad Fast Ethernet vs. Single Fast Ethernets
by Brian Tao 22 Sep '98

22 Sep '98

I've got two F740's on order, whose sole task will be to provide storage for a couple of Sun E450 Oracle boxes. I plan to have each filer attached to both E450's via crossover full-duplex 100baseT, plus a third 100baseT on the filer to the rest of the LAN. Is there any reason to go with the QFE board besides port density (which I don't really need?) Are there plans to do FastEtherChannel on it? The F740 has six available PCI slots, and I will likely not require more than the one on-board FC-AL controller (plus perhaps an additional one for clustering). Three single Fast Ethernet interfaces are cheaper than one QFE, failure of one only downs one interface, the load can be spread over more than one PCI bus (I don't know if this an issue on the Alpha boards) and they are cheaper to replace. OTOH, will the clustering software failover a filer if any one of its NIC's dies, and will that be support on both the single and quad NIC's? -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

6 10

Re: Quad Fast Ethernet vs. Single Fast Ethernets
by Daniel Quinlan 22 Sep '98

22 Sep '98

Val Bercovici <valb(a)netapp.com> writes: > Unfortunately, one of the things we don't automatically trigger a > failover on in our first Clustered Failover release will be a "normal" > interface link failure (OTOH, if a NIC fries its PCI slot, we will > failover). Using a Cisco Fast EtherChannel across at least two > interfaces would be a nice way to protect yourself from a single > interface failure on a filer. We were hit by an interface link failures once last year. What options are there or will there be (either with or without Clustered Failover) to offer failover or redundancy for failed interfaces? I'm especially concerned about this as we plan to transition from one or two quad fast ethernet cards on each filer to one or two gigabit ethernet cards per filer. Thanks. - Dan

6 10

Soft Links ON NT ( again)
by Raymond Brennan 22 Sep '98

22 Sep '98

Hello, Look what I found in the mailist list archive : From madhatta Tue Nov 18 18:52 EST 1997 Received: from odin.netapp.com (odin.netapp.com [198.95.224.183]) by turing.mathworks.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA03647 for <toasters(a)mathworks.com>; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 18:51:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from herra.netapp.com (172.20.6hide.netapp.com [198.95.224.200]) by odin.netapp.com (8.8.7/8.8.7/GNAC-GW-2.1) with ESMTP id PAA11514; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:44:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from netapp.com (keith-pc.netapp.com [172.20.6.61]) by herra.netapp.com (8.8.7/8.8.7/GNAC-GW-2.1) with ESMTP id PAA26897; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:47:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3472290E.C00B8959(a)netapp.com> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:47:27 -0800 From: Keith Brown <keith(a)netapp.com> Reply-To: keith(a)netapp.com Organization: Network Appliance, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: quinlan(a)transmeta.com CC: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: links using CIFS References: <199711182300.PAA22605(a)sodium.transmeta.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------FBDEBC85A108A84A65F02E8D" Content-Length: 2731 X-Keywords: Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------FBDEBC85A108A84A65F02E8D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Daniel Quinlan wrote: > Could someone explain exactly what works and what doesn't when using > symbolic links from a CIFS client (Windows95 or WindowsNT, primarily) > from a Netapp with Unix symbolic links? Certainly. In Data ONTAP releases prior to 4.3, Windows systems saw symbolic links that had been created in the WAFL file system (from the UNIX side) as exactly what they *really* are. That is to say, plain files which contain the full or relative pathname to the place that they are a symbolic link to. Technically, the UNIX symlink attribute has no meaning in the Windows client world, and so they don't treat symlink files as "special" in the same way that UNIX systems do. However, in our brand spanking new 4.3 release, this has changed. If you install and run this release on your filer(s), you will find that Windows systems will now automagically follow UNIX symlinks, with a single, necessary limitation. The symlink must point to a place that the client *can* actually make the jump to. The client can only be redirected to another location under the same share in which it encountered the symlink in the first place. Just in case you have designed your symlinks in such a way that this is not entirely feasible for you to easily arrange, the new mechanism also features a symlink pathname translation mechanism that works very simililarly to the existing "httpd.translations" mechanism with which customers may already be familiar. You can use this mechanism to yank meandering symlinks back into your share, but of course you probably have to put a copy of the data that they were originally going to take you to in the share also. Ooh.. I should probably mention that the new symlink following feature does contain machinery to stop a Windows client from looping in a file system when it is following the symlinks. That base is covered! :-) Keith This mentions Release 4.3. However, I'm on 5.1D4 and does this work ? In a word : NO. Yours beleaguredly, Raymond the Depressed "Your future depends on your dreams. So go to sleep "- Lao Tse

1 0

Soft Links on NT
by Raymond Brennan 22 Sep '98

22 Sep '98

Hello All, I've got an F520 running release 5.1D4. I've got a problem with reading Unix soft links on NT. NetApps Inc. say that soft links only work on NT within one quota tree. That is a difficult thing t live with, but I suppose I'll have to. I can make soft links with relative pathnames work OK, but what about links with absolute pathnames ? On the NOW NetApp site, I found a sysadmin man page mentioning the /etc/symlink.translations file, which is apparently a way to make this work. Well, I've tried it and for the life of me I can't get it to work. Anyone else have a similar experience with this ? Raymond Brennan mailto: ray_brennan(a)mentorg.com "Children in back-seats cause accidents; Accidents in back-seats cause children!" -Ike Turner

1 0

Re: Quad Fast Ethernet vs. Single Fast Ethernets
by Daniel Quinlan 22 Sep '98

22 Sep '98

kls(a)netapp.com (Karl Swartz) writes: > On the other hand, there probably are a lot of customers who would > rather have failover *now* even if it only works with 100base-TX or > FDDI (or requires extra GbE NICs). If we told a FDDI customer that > we'd be able to give them failover today but we won't because we've > not finished a driver for a GbE NIC that can handle multiple MAC > addresses, they'd probably be a bit peeved. I agree about "failover *now*". FDDI -- isn't it dead yet? ;-) > So, your options at the moment are > (a) use GbE but not have failover > (b) use failover but not GbE > (c) buy a second GbE NIC and have both failover and and GbE > (d) wait until we have a GbE NIC and driver which will allow you > to have failover with a single GbE What about GbE and failover to non-GbE (fast ethernet)? Just to make sure, does failover require EtherChannel? - Dan

2 1

Log rotation.
by just me. 22 Sep '98

22 Sep '98

Anyone know of a knob i can turn to adjust the log rotation interval, or, alternately, a way to turn it off? I'd much rather have my own script doing this, but don't want to mess around with race conditions. Thanks. matto --matt(a)snark.net----------------------------------------------------- Matt Ghali MG406/GM023JP - System Administrator, interQ, Inc AS7506 "Sub-optimal is a state of mind." -Dave Rand, <dlr(a)bungi.com>

1 0

subscribe : toasters
by Ron Neuenberger 21 Sep '98

21 Sep '98

1 0

(no subject)
by ian.gardner＠vf.vodafone.co.uk 21 Sep '98

21 Sep '98

unsubscribe toasters

1 0

None
by DESCHAMPS, Stephane 21 Sep '98

21 Sep '98

> unsubscribe >

1 0

(no subject)
by ian.gardner＠vf.vodafone.co.uk 21 Sep '98

21 Sep '98

unsubscribe

1 0

Re: Does your e0 on the F330 work? HELP (Solved)
by Daniel Wong 19 Sep '98

19 Sep '98

The Catalyst 5000 port that the laptop had verified is indeed the culprit. I am now up at 100tx-fd. Why it verified I don't know. I don't know why swaping the e0/f7 didn't work either. TGIF Guess now if have to figure out why it says the fan has stopped, else find the fan that has stopped. Thanks all, Dan -- Daniel E Wong GIS System/Network Administrator City of Spokane mailto:dewong@sprintmail.com 808 W Spokane Falls Blvd mailto:dwong@spokanecity.org Spokane WA 99201-3344 (o) 509/625-6499 (fax) 509/625-6550

1 0

RE: A netapp failover possibility...???
by Steve Strange 18 Sep '98

18 Sep '98

On Friday, September 18, 1998 2:11 PM, Guy Harris [SMTP:guy@netapp.com] wrote: > > I don't know if hot spares can be left > > unassigned, so it may be necessary for each filer to have its own hot > > spare(s) assigned to it. > > Hot spares are, as I remember, owned by particular members of the CF > pair. Right -- ownership is based on how the disk shelf is wired up to the filers. So all the disks in any given shelf are "owned" by the same filer, regardless of whether they are part of a filesystem or a hot spare. Steve

2 1

[Fwd: Quad Fast Ethernet vs. Single Fast Ethernets]
by Zack Rivette 18 Sep '98

18 Sep '98

Please remove me from this list...

1 0

Re: Bad HD
by Daniel Quinlan 18 Sep '98

18 Sep '98

hitz(a)netapp.com (Dave Hitz) writes: > Our motivation was really your second guess: > > To make sure the admin knows something is wrong. > > We couldn't come up with any way to absolutely, reliably *guarantee* > that the sysadmin would get notified except to have the box turn itself > off. We even joked about putting lights and sirens on the box, but the > problem is, at smaller sites, people sometimes stick these things in a > closet somewhere and forget about them. What does the system do when the raid.timeout is reached? Does the LCD display anything, is there an SNMP trap, autosupport email, autosupport note, etc. ? Also, does it completely power off? I'm wondering if we should disable the feature or possibly extend the timeout. Thanks. - Dan

3 2

Re: F740 and Exchange
by Bridget Allison 18 Sep '98

18 Sep '98

Jason wrote: >Is there anything special that has to be done for a 740 filer and >Microsoft Exchange to work together? *I'm presuming that you have CIFS configured on the filer and the filer is in an NT Domain. * The short answer is no. There's nothing you need to do to the filer. However, if you are wanting to use the filer to store the Information store and directory and transaction logs then you will need to make changes on your Exchange server. Exchange does not allow you to install on a network drive - so you can't specify a mapped drive for the location of your data. You can of course store your pst files on a filer - many people do this today and it works just fine since those files are not part of the central message store. So you would need to install Exchange on local disk and then copy the files over to the filer, update the Exchange keys in the registry to point to the new location and then restart Exchange. NetApp has done quite a bit of testing using filers to house the Exchange Information Stores and we've had excellent results. I am in the process of publishing the config details on that to the NOW web site so that customers can do their own testing. Be aware, however, that this is *completely unsupported* right now - by both NetApp and Microsoft. If you want to see how a filer can help your Exchange environment (performance, snapshots etc) and are willing to explore this unsupported for the moment then we'd be very interested in your results. I'll send a message to the list once the info is up on the NOW site (should be mid-next week). If you have an urgent desire for the config details before then please email me directly at bridget(a)netapp.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bridget Allison Marketing Manager, NetApp Windows Networking Network Appliance Inc.

1 0

Does your e0 on the F330 work? HELP
by Daniel Wong 18 Sep '98

18 Sep '98

To all you wonderful workers of magic: I've been using FDDI on f7 just fine, but management decided to go Fastethernet (dropping FDDI) and I can't get e0 to link with our Cisco Catalyst 5000 at either 10 or 100, half or full. Laptop links OK, e0 can't ping anything on the new subnet except itself. Brought down f7 and ifconfiged e0 with f7's IP and same problem. Thus, dgateway and route hasn't changed => must be e0, right? Does anybody know what I'm not doing? I've already tried my spare motherboard and have an RMA for another board here by my side. Config: F330, 256MB, 8MB NVRAM, NetApp Release 4.2a Dual Attached FDDI, no ethernet card. Thanks in advance, Dan -- Daniel E Wong GIS System/Network Administrator City of Spokane mailto:dewong@sprintmail.com 808 W Spokane Falls Blvd mailto:dwong@spokanecity.org Spokane WA 99201-3344 (o) 509/625-6499 (fax) 509/625-6550

1 0

F740 and Exchange
by Jason Middlebrooks 18 Sep '98

18 Sep '98

Is there anything special that has to be done for a 740 filer and Microsoft Exchange to work together? Jason Middlebrooks Systems Engineer Direct Connect Systems 2264 Northwest Parkway, Suite I Marietta, GA 30067 Phone: 770-933-9327 x260 Email: jason(a)directconnect.com <mailto:jason@directconnect.com> Pager: 888-502-1625 Web: www.directconnect.com <http://www.directconnect.com> Fax: 770-933-9272

2 1

Long filenames with Digital Unix and Network Appliance
by David B. Ritch 18 Sep '98

18 Sep '98

We are experiencing a repeatable problem when creating files with long filenames under Digital Unix 4.0 on a filesystem mounted from a NetApp filer. The files are not visible until the filesystem is remounted - that is, when you create the files, you cannot see them. If you mount the filesystem at another mount point, unmount it or remount it, or simply look at it on another nfs client, you can see the files. This apparently only happens when using nfs version 3. We have observed this bug only between a Digital Unix 4.0 (4.0A and 4.0D, at least) client an a NetApp server. We have tested Solaris 2.5 and 2.6 clients, Digital Unix, NetApp, Auspex, and Solaris servers. Anyone have an idea what could cause this? Naturally, the first response from Digital is that it is likely to be a NetApp problem, and the first response from NetApp is that it is likely to be a Digital Unix problem. Any suggestions on how to determine where the problem lies? Here is a script from a DEC support person that demonstrates the problem: -------------------- !#/bin/csh # create a log of datafiles and links to test nfs problem while ( $num < 100 ) @ num = $num + 1 cat /etc/printcap > reallyreallyverylongnamedatafile.$num ln -s reallyreallyverylongnamedatafile.$num 1.$num echo "$num is done" end echo done exit -------------------- When you run it, it should generate 100 files and 100 links. You should be able to run the script, and then "ls | wc" and see about 200 words. When the bug appears, you see only ~160 words. However, you can run the "ls | wc" on another nfs client mounting the same filesystem, and see the expected 200 words. Thanks, David Ritch

6 6

Re: Long filenames with Digital Unix and Network Appliance
by Ketil Kirkerud Elgethun 17 Sep '98

17 Sep '98

"David B. Ritch" <dbritch(a)Home.com> writes: > > We are experiencing a repeatable problem when creating files with long > filenames under Digital Unix 4.0 on a filesystem mounted from a NetApp > filer. The files are not visible until the filesystem is remounted - [...] > We have observed this bug only between a Digital Unix 4.0 (4.0A and > 4.0D, at least) client an a NetApp server. We have tested Solaris 2.5 > and 2.6 clients, Digital Unix, NetApp, Auspex, and Solaris servers. I tested this right now, on a Digital Unix 4.0D client, mounting a F330/5.1R1, and I can't reproduce your problem. (mountopts are v3, rw, nosuid, udp, hard, intr) > > Anyone have an idea what could cause this? Sounds a bit like a caching/cache synchronization problem on the client. > Naturally, the first response from Digital is that it is likely to be a > NetApp problem, and the first response from NetApp is that it is likely > to be a Digital Unix problem. Any suggestions on how to determine where > the problem lies? If, as you say, the files are actually visible on a different client, then I'd suggest you do a snoop/tcpdump to try to see what the DU client asks for during the 'ls'. -- ---Ketil Kirkerud Elgethun, SOL System

2 1

Re: Bad HD
by Jay Sekora 10 Sep '98

10 Sep '98

Leila wrote: > Is it true that when one HD goes bad, it will be reconstructed on the > hotspare, but if you don't pull out bad HD and replace it within the 24 > hours system will shutdown? Not quite; you're confusing two separate things. When a drive fails, the system goes into `degraded' mode. (A second drive failure in the same RAID group at this point will result in loss of data.) When the system is in degraded mode, it will immediately start copying data to a hot spare (*if* one is available!) to replace the failed drive. When that process is complete, the system is no longer in degraded mode, because the hot spare has been made a part of the RAID group, so the RAID group is no longer down a disk. (Of course, though, the whole system is now down one hot spare.) This can be a somewhat lengthy process, depending on the size of the RAID group. What you're thinking of is that by default, if the system has been running in degraded mode for 24 hours (i.e. if a drive failed 24 hours ago and hasn't been replaced either by a hot spare or a new disk), the system will shut down. I think the idea is to reduce the likelihoood of data loss caused by a second disk failure (and make sure the admin knows that something's wrong). At least under 5.1, you can adjust the time limit, so for instance you could make it long enough to cover a long weekend, or if a system were under 24x7 supervision, you could shorten it. Unless your RAID groups are too large and your machine is very heavily loaded, the only case where you're likely to stay in degraded mode for 24 hours (and risk the machine shutting down) is if you *don't* have a hot spare, so the rebuild can't happen. AFAIK, there's no problem leaving a bad drive sitting in the shelf arbitrarily long, as long as you don't need the drive bay for something else (unless the drive is bad in a way that might affect other drives, like if flames or sparks are coming out of it :-). > What happens in a case if you have 2 hotspare? In the normal case, it doesn't make any difference to this scenario, except that you end up (before you physically replace drives) with one hot spare instead of zero. It means if another drive fails *after the RAID group has been rebuilt*, there's a hot spare to replace it. Also, if a drive fails in a different RAID group, you should be OK. -j. -- Jay Sekora <jay(a)ccs.neu.edu> Northeastern University College of Computer Science

2 1

A netapp failover possibility...???
by ian.gardner＠vf.vodafone.co.uk 10 Sep '98

10 Sep '98

Hi, We have two netapp filers serving mainly static data (updated overnight) to several hp-ux clients. If one server fails we can swap the clients onto the other server by mounting and switching symbollic links. eg. on a client: /discs/data -> /netapp1/data If netapp1 fails we mount data from netapp2 and relink: /discs/data -> /netapp2/data Now this leaves processes hanging on the dead server which can be killed using fuser -k netapp1:/data. This is only necessary if memory/swap on the clients is tight, otherwise the "hung" processes will sleep until the server comes back. This is not ideal so I had a thought, since we have Quad 100BaseT cards, in the event of a failure, we could configure up a spare port to be the same name and IP address as the dead server and therefore take over the nfs requests for it. Since we are LIVE I am unable to test this, but subject to the routers and arp tables becoming updated I would have thought this would work. I'm not sure about file locking, but I didn't think this works very well on nfs anyway - does it ? NFS is stateless so it should be ok. Anyone out there tried this or able to on a couple of test boxes ? Cheers Ian Gardner Vodafone Ltd. Newbury UK. ian.gardner(a)vf.vodafone.co.uk

2 1

Re: Bad HD
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 09 Sep '98

09 Sep '98

On 09/09/98 09:36:36 you wrote: >AFAIK, there's no problem leaving a bad drive sitting in the shelf >arbitrarily long, as long as you don't need the drive bay for something >else (unless the drive is bad in a way that might affect other drives, >like if flames or sparks are coming out of it :-). One gotcha is that if you leave a bad drive sitting in the shelf, and the system reboots, it could think the drive is a hot spare and allow it to be used again. I don't think this happens in all circumstances (I think there's a way to mark the drive bad such that it won't be used), but it certainly can (and has) happened in the past. So it's generally a good idea to remove the bad drive from the shelf as soon as possible. Bruce

1 0

SUMMARY: "Calling all F630/FC-AL users"
by just me. 09 Sep '98

09 Sep '98

Well, its been a week, and as such I suppose time for a summary. Last week, I posted the following request for comments: If you are a NetApp F630/FC-AL user and have encountered any (especially recurring) glitches with interactions between the Fibre Channel host adapter and OnTAP, or recurring FC hardware failures I'd appreciate hearing from you. On the flip side, if you are a NetApp F630/FC-AL user and have seen perfect performance from your filer, I'd love to hear about it too. I was surprised to get only 5 responses, one from a fellow considering buying one. Out of the four owners that mailed me, two reported flawless performance, one mentioned problems caused by extreme environmental conditions, and one reported RAID bugs similar to the ones I had seen. Netapp replaced his shelf, as did they mine. I will post an update after we have the new shelf installed if there are any other notables. Their comment on the problem was "the low-level FC/SCSI system was unaware of a particular error sequence and was passing error codes to the RAID level where they caused a panic." They also recommended upgrading to 5.0.2D4. There were some other FC fixes rolled into 5.0.2, I'm not sure if there are additional ones in D4. Steve Clarke <Steven.Clarke(a)ThePLAnet.net> pointed out, "It has been my opinion for a while that there are people at NetApp who can make things happen and others who just make the right noises but do nothing." This has been my experience, too. However once I've been put in touch with the Clueful Folk, they have been dedicated above and beyond the call to resolving my issues. I've heard mumblings out-of-band about the usual low morale problems among their tech support staff and I sincerely hope that Netapp management recognise their amazing dedication. Thanks to Steven Clarke, Matt Stein, Fritz Feltner and Graham Knight for their time responding to my post. Alohas, matto --matt(a)snark.net----------------------------------------------------- Matt Ghali MG406/GM023JP - System Administrator, interQ, Inc AS7506 "Sub-optimal is a state of mind." -Dave Rand, <dlr(a)bungi.com>

1 0

Re: Bad HD
by Daniel Quinlan 08 Sep '98

08 Sep '98

leila.mutevelic(a)rss.rockwell.com writes: > Is it true that when one HD goes bad, it will be reconstructed on the > hotspare, but if you don't pull out bad HD and replace it within the 24 > hours system will shutdown? No, it's not true. > What happens in a case if you have 2 hotspare? If your system has run out of spares and a disk fails, it will be in degraded mode until you replace one or more spares. If an additional disk fails while in degraded mode, you are hosed. Having two spares helps protect you from a second disk failure, as long as that second failure happens after the first reconstruction has finished. However, even with two hot spares, I would recommend replacing replacing failed disks with new spares as soon as possible. - Dan

1 0

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