toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

Re: Backup ; ndmp
by Mark D Simmons 09 Apr '98

09 Apr '98

Now I understand there's quite a bit of work going into backups just now, and I too have a number of questions to add to Philip's: o When is the new, fast backup feature going to be available? o Will it work with NDMP? o Will it work with Networker? o Will it support backups to two concurrent local devices (2xDLT7000 at the same time, for example)? o Can DOT backup to 2 (or more) local devices right now? o Can it do so under NDMP under the control of Netbackup? o Will DOT be able to do backups to multiple local devices concurrently under Networker? o Can an F630 stream two DLT7000's concurrently using any technique you care to name? o Will the new fast backup technology allow for specific-file recoveries or just full-filer-after-disaster recovery? o Are the indexes of NetBackup or Networker maintained on their servers even when backup data is going to locally attached tape drives? o Would this remain possible with concurrent backups as described above? o Does anyone have this sort of aggressive approach to backups already in place? We're looking to breach the TB barrier using 3 F5/600 series machines in the near future and I want to be able to back each filer up no slower than the current longest backup, which is just over 12 hours. Ideally I want to actually cut the backup window and improve our ability to restore data at the same time (because these are worthy goals and because at this time the money seems to be available to do the job 8). > One of our groups is evaluating NetApp for NFS server. > Apparently, their backup concerns are not being satisfactorily addressed > by local NetApp contact. Since backup is a key factor in their > decision, they would appreciate if someone could shed some more > light to their following questions/concerns. > Please feel free to copy the group at: > mannyk(a)msil.sps.mot.com > --------------------------------------------------- > It seems that they have a few select tape drives > that are now able to be connected to the netapps and are recognized > by netbackup. > > The problem I still see and have not recieved a clear answer to is > will ndmp support the tar protocol or just dump? > Does the ndmp protocol support the full dump command - > different levels of dump (incremental, differential and full)? > When and if we will be able to hook up several netapps to one > large tape library unit (STK 9710)? > > What in the ndmp protocol will allow several backup streams > to work simultaneously, so that a full backup of an 800 GB > netapps won't span over several days. > --------------------------------------------------- > > Philip Thomas > Motorola - ATL, M/S M350 > 2200 W. Broadway M350 > Mesa, AZ 85202 > rxjs80(a)email.sps.mot.com > (602) 655-3678 > (602) 655-2285 (fax)

2 1

Re: File Locking
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 09 Apr '98

09 Apr '98

On 04/08/98 11:35:09 you wrote: > >sirbruce wrote: > >> To actually break the locks, you have to log into the filer >> and blow away that user's session. This just seems needlessly >> cumbersome. Assuming most environments have one with root >> access to the filesystem also having access to the filer, >> you are ultimately not "preventing" any behavior... you're >> just making it harder for the administrator. In other words, >> that UNIX rm should result in that CIFS user being logged out >> if need be. > >I think having to take explicit action to terminate a CIFS session is >preferable to blowing it away as a side-effect of a remove. I would worry >about making it too easy to accidently remove something that is in use. I agree with your concerns, but this is exactly why such power is restricted to root. People doing removes as root are already well aware of the dangers of their actions. Removing something in use is already something that has to be faced under NFS, so why do they need additional hand-holding when dealing with a file used via CIFS? Your argument isn't a bad one but it just doesn't fit the paradigm UNIX folks have come to expect. This is just one of many "clashes" between two worlds that will have to be resolved over time. Bruce

1 0

DLT Libraries and Netapps
by Fred Ab 08 Apr '98

08 Apr '98

Looking at purchasing a small (2 drives and 10-15 tapes) DLT library to direct attach to my F520. Please reply with any DLT libraries that you have been really happy with and those that have constant problems / jamming. Don't worry about the software being used to control the unit just the library itself. Thanks in advance for any feedback. Fred. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ Fred Abounader Vantis (AMD's PLD Subsidiary) ~ ~ email: fred.abounader(a)vantis.com Mailstop 546 ~ ~ voice: (512)-602-1644 5300 E. Ben White Blvd. ~ ~ FAX: (512)-602-4148 Austin, TX 78741 ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3 2

[Fwd: Backup ; ndmp]
by David Yu 08 Apr '98

08 Apr '98

Grant Melvin wrote the content below (thanks, Grant), and I thought that I would forward to toasters. David Hi Philip, > One of our groups is evaluating NetApp for NFS server. > Apparently, their backup concerns are not being satisfactorily addressed > by local NetApp contact. Since backup is a key factor in their > decision, they would appreciate if someone could shed some more > light to their following questions/concerns. > Please feel free to copy the group at: > mannyk(a)msil.sps.mot.com > --------------------------------------------------- > It seems that they have a few select tape drives > that are now able to be connected to the netapps and are recognized > by netbackup. > > The problem I still see and have not recieved a clear answer to is > will ndmp support the tar protocol or just dump? > Today NDMP as implemented on the NetApp filer only offers dump format, since this is the only backup method natively available on the filer. However, once the filer has other backup formats available, they will be accessible via NDMP. We are in discussion with many backup vendors to determine the best way to add support for their favorite data format and we are ensuring that the NDMP infrastructure is correct in offering these other formats. We also have been working on a new internal NetApp format that will be made available via NDMP. So the question is not will NDMP support the tar protocol, but when. The answer to this involves the cooperation of the backup vendors who use tar. > > Does the ndmp protocol support the full dump command - > different levels of dump (incremental, differential and full)? > Yes. My understanding of incremental, differential and full is: full = level 0 incremental = last level + 1 differential = level 1 followed by level 1 (each backup grows) > > When and if we will be able to hook up several netapps to one > large tape library unit (STK 9710)? > This can be done today given that your backup vendor software supports the STK 9710. NDMP allows the backup s/w such as netbackup to control the library via SCSI-2 and to perform "local" tape backup on each attached tape drive. In the case of the 9710, 10 volumes or 10 filers simultaneously backing up to one library. Note, we have a current limit of 4 dumps per filer. I'd suspect that Veritas havn't QA'd such a configuration yet and have simply stuck with the minimum NetApp supported devices for their current (beta) release. *** Currently, Veritas is sticking to just the NetApp supported devices but this may change. There is a mutual interest in expanding the set of supported devices, but certification process details need to be worked out. - David > > What in the ndmp protocol will allow several backup streams > to work simultaneously, so that a full backup of an 800 GB > netapps won't span over several days. > There is nothing in NDMP other than allowing multiple dumps to occur on a single filer. We are planning to have our next software release allow quota trees to be dumped so they data can be split into several dumps or you can use 5.0 today and have separate volumes dumped concurrently. The big thing is performance of each individual dump. We have an increase in performance with 5.0 -- our testing has shown two volumes dumping at an aggregate of 23GB/hr and 1 dump running at 15GB/hr. We have still to quantify 4 dumps, however, our goal in the next release is to have a 20GB/hr dump which will definitely help your backup window above. If we could achieve 4 x 20GB/hr dumps to backup your 800GB in ~10 hours we would be very pleased. We'll keep you informed of our progress. Let me know if you need anymore information. Cheers, Grant

1 0

Re: File Locking
by Mark Muhlestein 08 Apr '98

08 Apr '98

sirbruce wrote: > To actually break the locks, you have to log into the filer > and blow away that user's session. This just seems needlessly > cumbersome. Assuming most environments have one with root > access to the filesystem also having access to the filer, > you are ultimately not "preventing" any behavior... you're > just making it harder for the administrator. In other words, > that UNIX rm should result in that CIFS user being logged out > if need be. I think having to take explicit action to terminate a CIFS session is preferable to blowing it away as a side-effect of a remove. I would worry about making it too easy to accidently remove something that is in use. Garrett Burke wrote: [deleted description of using "winfile" to close files] > What's the behaviour on a filer when you do the above? I hope it's > the same or I'm going to have problems. With currently shipping products you will have to issue the commands to do this from the filer console, a web browser, or rsh, but not using the native NT server manager tools. At the risk of bringing down the wrath of the product folks here at Netapp, I'll just say that that will be changing soon, and I think you'll like the change. > Now, on the original question from Jeff about not being able to apply > patches since his QA team have the file locked. > > Surely this is the required behaviour. NT would have a fit if you > patched a DLL or an EXE while it was in use. > > If your QA team really want the latest build, then either copy it (or > snapshot it?) to another area and let them mess with it there. Then > you can patch the original. Interesting you mentioned snapshot. It might be feasible to have the testers use the executables from a filer snapshot. That way you could have the live build system put things in the usual place while testing is going on. Of course, that wouldn't apply to files that need to be modified, since snapshots are read-only. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com

1 0

Re: File Locking
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 08 Apr '98

08 Apr '98

On 04/08/98 10:00:04 you wrote: >Now I know this is our files are on a NT server, but if you fire up >'winfile' from an NT box, connect to the share on ther server, >highlight the file, select properties (ALT-Enter), select 'Open By', >you are given a list of users who currently have the file open AND >can chuck them off. > >What's the behaviour on a filer when you do the above? I hope it's >the same or I'm going to have problems. This is a great question and I'd like to know the answer myself. I suspect that you couldn't in ONTAP 4 but you might be able to with NT SMB support in ONTAP 5. But the old method is to log into the filer manually and do a cifs terminate on the user. The filer, while supporting CIFS, doesn't necessarily support all of the extra NT "administrative" tools - but I think that is Netapp's ultimate goal. Bruce

1 0

persons from auspex
by Tom Yates 08 Apr '98

08 Apr '98

this is not related to toasters. unless you're connected with auspex, please ignore it. if there's anyone still on this list from auspex, would you *please* tell your colleagues who subscribe to this list to do it openly? i'm getting a *large* number of bounces recently, all from accounts at random ISPs, all of which end up with > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- > <USERNAME(a)auspex.com> > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > 554 <USERNAME(a)auspex.com>... mail relaying prohibited > 554 <USERNAME(a)auspex.com>... Service unavailable > > ----- Message header follows ----- i don't know what changes you've made wrt your mail provision recently, but it looks like anyone who's trying to sneak mail into auspex by having it forwarded from another account has been torpedoed. <rant> i don't mind people from auspex on this list. i don't think anybody minds it. i *do* mind having to read umpty hundred bounce messages because people are trying to do it sneakily and getting it wrong(ish). just subscribe the simple way, ok? </rant> Tom Yates - Unix Chap - The Mathworks, Inc. - +1 (508) 647 7561 MAG#65061 DoD#0135 AMA#461546 1024/CFDFDE39 0C E7 46 60 BB 96 87 05 04 BD FB F8 BB 20 C1 8C

1 0

Re: File Locking
by Jeff Stampes 08 Apr '98

08 Apr '98

> Our goal is to match the CIFS behavior of an NT server as closely as > possible. Do you see a difference between NetApp and NT in this area? I honestly can't tell you that...I've never used an NT box as a server in my life. I guess that's why I'm asking. This is different behavior than I'm used to from out relugar UNIX servers (Solaris), and have no experience with NT servers. I'll echo Bruces comments though. It seems silly that when I have a file locking issue, my sysadmin can't just blow it away as root from the UNIX side...immunity to the big hammer is not a feature I was looking for. I just got some support mail...anyone have any experiences with sm_mon -l? I just got mail from someone saying they heard it would help break locks, but had not tested it themselves. -Jeff

2 1

RE: File Locking
by Weeks, Thomas 08 Apr '98

08 Apr '98

> -----Original Message----- > From: hitz(a)netapp.com [SMTP:hitz@netapp.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 11:39 AM > To: jeff.stampes(a)xilinx.com > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: File Locking > > > If someone opens up one of our > > applications, the NAC keeps all related libraries, execs, and > > datafiles locked until the application is exited. > > Our goal is to match the CIFS behavior of an NT server as closely as > possible. Do you see a difference between NetApp and NT in this area? > > Of course, where NFS and CIFS interact, there is no model to emulate > exactly, but for CIFS-only interactions, NT is the target behavior. > > Dave [Weeks, Thomas] What version of OnTap are you running? We need to start evaluation of 5.0 but didn't want to instll it (for testing) on our production server until I can be assured that it won't crash and burn. Tom

1 0

Re: File Locking
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 08 Apr '98

08 Apr '98

On 04/07/98 09:49:22 you wrote: >Is this indeed proper bahavior? If so, is there a "Big Hammer" >mode we can use to break locks if needed? This doesn't directly answer your question but I did want to throw something out... My view is that both root under UNIX and Administrator under NT should count as "Big Hammer". That is, these two should be able to override any and all locking behavior that would prevent an action. However, I believe there are some things that even NT won't let the Administrator do, so I can see how for the purposes of emulation you would follow the same rules. Under UNIX, though, root has always been able to do just about anything. The problem arises when an NT user has a file locked and in use and root on a UNIX box wants to delete that file. The answer is you can't do it. I think the same is true for modification as well. To actually break the locks, you have to log into the filer and blow away that user's session. This just seems needlessly cumbersome. Assuming most environments have one with root access to the filesystem also having access to the filer, you are ultimately not "preventing" any behavior... you're just making it harder for the administrator. In other words, that UNIX rm should result in that CIFS user being logged out if need be. Does anyone out there really desire to have an environment where even root can't blow such things away? If so, then perhaps this should be an option, but I would believe this group to be in the minority. Bruce

3 2

updated netapp-qdiff
by Daniel Quinlan 08 Apr '98

08 Apr '98

I just put up a new netapp-qdiff, which is a small script that prints the differences between two quota reports from the same filer taken at different times. (There's a separate program to make quota reports readable.) The new version has a few minor changes that should let it work for NetApp release 4.x in addition to 5.0, allows you to query a filer directly for the second report (to compare an old report against the current usage), and will also let you query, delay some seconds, and query again (to get information about disk usage changes during the delay period). It's at <URL:http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/netapp/>. Dan

1 0

Backup ; ndmp
by Philip Thomas 07 Apr '98

07 Apr '98

One of our groups is evaluating NetApp for NFS server. Apparently, their backup concerns are not being satisfactorily addressed by local NetApp contact. Since backup is a key factor in their decision, they would appreciate if someone could shed some more light to their following questions/concerns. Please feel free to copy the group at: mannyk(a)msil.sps.mot.com --------------------------------------------------- It seems that they have a few select tape drives that are now able to be connected to the netapps and are recognized by netbackup. The problem I still see and have not recieved a clear answer to is will ndmp support the tar protocol or just dump? Does the ndmp protocol support the full dump command - different levels of dump (incremental, differential and full)? When and if we will be able to hook up several netapps to one large tape library unit (STK 9710)? What in the ndmp protocol will allow several backup streams to work simultaneously, so that a full backup of an 800 GB netapps won't span over several days. --------------------------------------------------- Philip Thomas Motorola - ATL, M/S M350 2200 W. Broadway M350 Mesa, AZ 85202 rxjs80(a)email.sps.mot.com (602) 655-3678 (602) 655-2285 (fax)

1 0

Re: File Locking
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 07 Apr '98

07 Apr '98

On 04/07/98 14:56:09 you wrote: > >On Tue, 7 Apr 1998 sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > >> Under UNIX, though, root has always been able to do just about >> anything. The problem arises when an NT user has a file locked >> and in use and root on a UNIX box wants to delete that file. >> The answer is you can't do it. I think the same is true for >> modification as well. > >my 10p-worth: i think this is another switch that should get included >under the "UNIX/NT file system semantics" big switch. i, too, find it >very annoying that i have to track down a CIFS lock holder in order to >blow away a file. > >i appreciate dave's desire to completely emulate an NT file server, but >would suggest this as another thing that might be disableable when the >filer is in "i'm not really an NT file server, i'm a UNIX file server that >can talk funny" mode. Of course, this is a UNIX-centric perspective. :) I don't think Netapp wants to appear to prefer one over the other... they also want to sell into the market of NT administrators, who would see it an NT file server that can talk funny. In that case I'm willing to concede the converse, if such a case existed, where a UNIX exclusive lock would otherwise prevent an NT Administrator from removing a file. The NT Admin will still have to do the "normal" NT thing when dealing with a CIFS-locked file, but I would not want to force him to go to UNIX to track down what a UNIX lock in a similar manner. I'm not sure that NFS is capable of such a lock, though, so this may be a moot point. But at least by this logic they would be treating both sides with equal consideration. Bruce

1 0

File Locking
by Jeff Stampes 07 Apr '98

07 Apr '98

We're having a difference of opinion over certain toaster behavior and whether it is desirable or not. The specific issue is CIFS file locking. We use out 630 for building design software. We have a QA-like group who are sort of the front line sof testing. Their goal is to test software as fast as we get it built, so they test our actual build area. If someone opens up one of our applications, the NAC keeps all related libraries, execs, and datafiles locked until the application is exited. This of course prevents us from changing data that is in-use, a behavior I see as desirable. However, it also can cause the build group (my group) heartache because we can't patch a given file if it's in use, which some see as an 'unintended feature'. Is this indeed proper bahavior? If so, is there a "Big Hammer" mode we can use to break locks if needed? -Jeff

2 1

None
by Weeks, Thomas 07 Apr '98

07 Apr '98

Hi all.. Have a Q about CIFS... Ok.. we are currently using a /etc/passwork file... here is an example of our /etc/password on out FS230 (4.2a9D) root:V5afkI50lIUdj:0:1::/: cifsuser:*:1500:1::/test: cifsadm:*:1502:1::/: weekst:*:682:1::/: Does this look ok? If so.. where the hell does the actual USER PASSWORD reside? Is there even one that exists? If no UNIX user is being used (i.e. no NIS) then how does a user CHANGE their access password? PLEASE email ASAP! Thanx.. Tom Weeks

1 0

ATM interfaces and SPANS load balancing
by Scott Miller 06 Apr '98

06 Apr '98

I'd like to talk to anyone who is using ATM in their toasters, especially with multiple interfaces and Fore Systems SPANS signalling. Specificially, I'd like to know if interface load balancing (somthing that SPANS supports) works with two or more ATM interfaces in the NetApp. Thanks -Skottie -- ----- Scott Miller | Walt Disney Feature Animation skottie(a)fa.disney.com | Digital Studio Technology

1 0

RE: Firmware and such...
by Weeks, Thomas 03 Apr '98

03 Apr '98

> > | Also again.. Why does the book say that you don't have to have > the http > > | license to do http admin and all I can get on our 230 is http man > pages? > > > > This threw me off at first. What they mean by that is that you can > load the > > FilerView software on your filer and do admin of it via a web > interface. > > It is kinda cool. Not the speediest thing over a T1 frame relay > cloud. > > Go to now.netapp.com and get filerview for your OS. It does not > require > > In ONTAP 5.0, FilerView is included by default, no separate install > needed. > Just point your browser at http://{filername}/na_admin > > ...Tim Thompson...tjt(a)netapp.com... > [Weeks, Thomas] Cool.. I'll have to check it out.. Does the current early release of 5.0 have FilerView? Tom D Tek

1 0

re: RE: Firmware and such...
by tjt＠netapp.com 03 Apr '98

03 Apr '98

> Does the current early release of 5.0 have FilerView? Yes. ...Tim...

1 0

Re: Firmware and such...
by tjt＠netapp.com 03 Apr '98

03 Apr '98

> | Also again.. Why does the book say that you don't have to have the http > | license to do http admin and all I can get on our 230 is http man pages? > > This threw me off at first. What they mean by that is that you can load the > FilerView software on your filer and do admin of it via a web interface. > It is kinda cool. Not the speediest thing over a T1 frame relay cloud. > Go to now.netapp.com and get filerview for your OS. It does not require In ONTAP 5.0, FilerView is included by default, no separate install needed. Just point your browser at http://{filername}/na_admin ...Tim Thompson...tjt(a)netapp.com...

1 0

RE: Firmware and such...
by Weeks, Thomas 03 Apr '98

03 Apr '98

Hi all.. I'm new here... No I havn't read any FAQ's yet.. My config: FS230 (FIDDI and e0) 4.2.aD9 128M DRAM 4M SRAM NFS access with mount privs via host/netgroup and client NFS authentication CIFS (to test file space area) Right now it looks like the best way to give my customers both NFS anf CIFS access to the same file space is by using the /etc/passwd file... <sigh>.. this is a real pain... Has anyone been using OnTap 5.0? Any comments about CIFS access/shares via ACLs? Rigth now we're having to relate users to UNIX file permissions and it's a real pain becuase we have to merge over 27 different /etc/passwd files down to the 230's single passwd file... If there is a conflicting UID... we have to do the UID shuffle and go back and change them on the UNIX box to refelct what the NetApp has them down as. (BTW.. our UNIX servers are Solaris boxes and use NIS+, but they were configured wrong and all have their OWN NIS+ domain (stupid eh?))... Also... I am NOT using the CIFS.GUEST setting.. does anyone have good/bad experienve with this? Can the whole homedir thing still be used if this is implimented? Also again.. Why does the book say that you don't have to have the http license to do http admin and all I can get on our 230 is http man pages? Sorry for all the Q's at once... Thanx... Tom D Tek

2 1

Firmware and such...
by Alexei Rodriguez 03 Apr '98

03 Apr '98

I think some of these issues have been raised before, but I thought I would raise them again :) We just upgraded our filer from 4.2a to 4.3.3 this morning. When we got the 4.3.3 files from NOW, we read the firmware docs. They state that you must have firmware 1.6 and above to run 4.2a and above. So, we thought "no problem; we are running 4.2a so we must have 1.6 on the box". Wrong. We had version 1.4a of the firmware on our f540. So, I had to get someone at the NOC to do all the floppy shuffling (our site is 2500 miles away). No problem. I just get scared whenever I do a firmware upgrade. Some scars never heal :) Ok, the firmware upgrade goes well. We then proceed to do the DataONTAP upgrade. No problem. There should be a note in the docs that warn of the time delay when doing a "download". I had not done one in a while and had forgotten all about it. might be nice to let folks know that this may take a few minutes. Ok, so I now have a f540 filer with firmware 1.6 and ONTAP 4.3.3. Whoohoo. Now, my concerns: - there should be a better way of looking at the firmware rev, other than having to halt the filer. - the system boot should be logged (all of it, including the firmware banner, like a Sun) - a CHANGELOG for firmware revs would be nice I think these changes would be nice. We have been having some odd issues with our FDDI (at around midnight the filer stops doing NFS on the FDDI interface; we down and up the interface and all is good). I wonder if this would have anything to do with an incorrect firmware rev... we have swapped the card and pci slot it is in. I am hoping that the new firmware/os will perhaps clear the problem. Alexei

3 3

First posting test.... Ignore please
by Weeks, Thomas 02 Apr '98

02 Apr '98

Test test..1..2..3.. No Reply needed if this is really working... Tom D Tek

1 0

Re: 4GB/9GB shelf migration from toaster A to toaster B.
by Daniel Quinlan 31 Mar '98

31 Mar '98

Daniel Quinlan wrote: >> You can get back your 4GB spare, since you only need one spare. The >> spare only has to be the same size of the largest data disk in the >> system. If you have a 9GB spare and a 4GB disk fails, you end up >> adding 5 GB to the filesystem when the spare replaces the failed >> disk. kls(a)netapp.com (Karl Swartz) writes: > No, you end up putting 4GB on a 9GB drive and getting no more space in > the file system than you had before. (If there are multiple spares in > the system, the smallest one which is large enough to replace the > failed drive will be used.) That's a shame. Is this information documented somewhere? - Dan

2 1

Re: 4GB/9GB shelf migration from toaster A to toaster B.
by Daniel Quinlan 31 Mar '98

31 Mar '98

Jim Davis <jdavis(a)CS.Arizona.EDU> writes: > Potential plan: buy a shelf of 9GB disks, put it on toaster A, move a > shelf of 4GB disks to toaster B, keeping all of the toaster A data on > toaster A. Toaster B ends up with an empty file system on its 4GB disk > shelf. > > Now the mechanics of the move are a little unclear to me. Presumably we > hook up the 9GB shelf to toaster A and 'raid fail' each 4GB disk in the > shelf we want to move? But there will be 5 9GB data disks, since we have > to burn one as a hot spare and one becomes the new parity disk. Will > there be a problem with having 7 disks to move data from, but only 5 disks > to move data to? There would be enough GBs on the 5 9GB disks, but... Yes, it won't work as you suspect (unless, of course, you do a backup-restore cycle) because the total number of disks in a NetApp RAID group can't be reduced, even if the capacity is increased. You can get back your 4GB spare, since you only need one spare. The spare only has to be the same size of the largest data disk in the system. If you have a 9GB spare and a 4GB disk fails, you end up adding 5 GB to the filesystem when the spare replaces the failed disk. Dan

4 3

Netapp Announces F630 Cluster
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 31 Mar '98

31 Mar '98

So, who wants to get one of the new F630 clusters, aka the F6300? The announcement was out today. Has anyone here had any experience with Tandem's ServerNet technology and can comment on it's strengths and weaknesses? And on a side note, how about that stock price. :) Bruce

4 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