toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

Re: backing up large filers
by mds46523＠ggr.co.uk 13 Nov '97

13 Nov '97

Currently about 700GB's using dump/restore on 6 F330's and F540 and 2 F630's. Judicious snapshotting, decent DLT stackers directly attached to the filers and a reliable admin host mean all but the one F540 (with 200GB totally filled) easily backup overnight - the F540 finishes mid-morning. We've spoken with folk from NetApp who seem to be doing exciting things in the labs, related to faster backups (hopefully more manageable ones, with fast restores too, but I'll take what I can get). Veritas claim they'll support NDMP in one of the next two releases (they do two per year). We're trying to decide upon a backup solution across a large slice of our infrastructure, several flavours of Unix, maybe NT as well, and the filers too (for preference)...Legato and Openvision are still in the running, but Legato has two major demerits: no planned NDMP support and they change the atime values on files during backup and don't rest them! Which is infuriating because backup isn't 'normal use' and you need to know the age of files to be able to make sensible decisions to manage them! 2p or not 2p, yah, let's break the bank. On Nov 13, 9:02, sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > Subject: Re: backing up large filers > On 11/13/97 00:02:12 you wrote: > >dump makes for a fairly poor backup management solution. Ever try to > >maintain ~30 filers with around 600GB? We kinda found that our home > >grown scripts we're scaling to where we needed to be and found it > >increasinly harder to manage the whole mess. > > Well, I admit, not 30. :) But hundreds of gigabytes, yes. The only > real problem in terms of scalability was long restore times; that could > be solved by breaking the backups into smaller chunks. But with > snapshots the need for restores was very rare; I could see how this > could easly be a more frequent need in a different environment. > > Bruce > >-- End of excerpt from sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com -- -Mark, TSG Unix admin and support, int 782 4412, ext +44 1438 76 4412. ... an Englishman in London ...

2 1

Re: Experiences with CIFS
by mds46523＠ggr.co.uk 13 Nov '97

13 Nov '97

Re: lots of interesting stuff from everybody about quotas. On our toasters we have a huge mess called 'home directories' and another huge mess called 'project areas'. We've glass-walled these various areas with qtrees, thus making ersatz filesystems that behave to clients exactly like filesystems except to the filer and admin host. However, many users 'live' and 'work' in the same areas as each other, so a qtree quota on the filer wouldn't necessarily map to any one user's quota. In fact quite the reverse. Quotas, in the Unixy sense are distinct from this, because they would report information about each numeric uid's usage of space in a given filesystem and so would have to be specified in a table for each qtree, mapping: uid->(soft, hard, timelimit, timeleft {, any other useful stuff}) It would be a nice interface-feature to be able to harness qtree quotas to filer-wide quotas, or even groups-of-filers-wide quotas, but only on demand (!) as the control of each qtree quota table would be more generally useful. Perhaps users could be given default quotas for all qtrees on a filer until they appear in specific tables which override the defaults. The provision of soft and hard quotas per qtree for defined sets of uid's would be a real admin bonus for us. BTW I was under the impression that a machine hosting a quota'd filesystem locally and serving NFS, was able to deny space to a client that didn't observe quotas if a transaction would breach the quota conditions..? I think I need to go find out some more, as this sounds reasonable but doesn't gel with what others have prior to this on this discussion. How quotas per user under NFS would map to CIFS quota'ing (does such a beast exist?) I've no idea yet, though I can see a clear need to have the two work synergistically. (Users who flit from Unix to PC and back using all the same files at the same time make life interesting that way). (dang, another 2p gone) -- -Mark, TSG Unix admin and support, int 782 4412, ext +44 1438 76 4412. ... an Englishman in London ...

1 0

Re: backing up large filers
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 13 Nov '97

13 Nov '97

On 11/13/97 00:02:12 you wrote: >dump makes for a fairly poor backup management solution. Ever try to >maintain ~30 filers with around 600GB? We kinda found that our home >grown scripts we're scaling to where we needed to be and found it >increasinly harder to manage the whole mess. Well, I admit, not 30. :) But hundreds of gigabytes, yes. The only real problem in terms of scalability was long restore times; that could be solved by breaking the backups into smaller chunks. But with snapshots the need for restores was very rare; I could see how this could easly be a more frequent need in a different environment. Bruce

1 0

Re: backing up large filers
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 13 Nov '97

13 Nov '97

On 11/12/97 15:53:59 you wrote: >Any ideas? We're all pretty frustrated at the lack of a solid backup >solution from Network Appliance. Hell, I'd go for something proprietary >so long as it worked! Straight dump and restore works well, IF you have one of the latest versions of the software... at least then if there is a problem, Budtool won't be involved and you can address the bug right to Netapp. I'm not sure why you'd be having so much trouble with Budtool, though. Bruce ]

2 1

Re: backing up large filers
by Lars Wean 13 Nov '97

13 Nov '97

Hi, > > Has anyone found a "good" solution to backing up large filers? No.... > > Someone convinced me that this ndmp thing was the way to go and I bought > into the whole BudTool scheme (since they're the only ones supporting > ndmp). I have an issue with that too - only one vendor. > NetApp tried with us too... > However, it's been nothing but a disaster and I'm looking for something > far better. We've gotten the impression that no one at PDC has bothered > to test BudTool with large filers with BreeceHill stackers (PDC and > NetApp recommeneded these to us). There appears to be a general lack of > interopibility. And finger pointing between Network Appliance and PDC. > > Right now we have an issue that keeps rebooting our filers every few > days. > > Don't even talk about restoring data... as part of our general backup > policy, we do periodic restores. I believe the wording from PDC was > something to the effect that BudTool is a backup management software and > not geared towards restores. Suffice it to say that we rarely have a > successful restore. > > I'm basically fishing for alternative backup solutions. We have three > F540s with ~100GB disk and about 20 other boxes with ~50GB or so each, > all code development and all needs to be backed up. > > Any ideas? We're all pretty frustrated at the lack of a solid backup > solution from Network Appliance. Hell, I'd go for something proprietary > so long as it worked! My best solution is based on using Legato Networker 5.02, running on Solaris 2.6 2 CPUx 200MHz Ultra with 256 MByte of memory, and 2 x 100Mbit ethernet interfaces against the filers.The tape drives are 2 x DLT7000 in a 10 slot jukebox. The filers contains about 5 million files, using 192 Gbyte of data. Occasional restores never failed us, online file indexes has 1 month of history. A restore of a single file usually takes about 5 minutes, including overhead in mounting tapes. A disaster recovery takes *far* to long, but the potential for restoring files to something other than NetApp is promising, I can restore a full saveset of 100GByte in 6 hours ( to /dev/null, or scanning in files not contained in the online index) Needless to say, we are looking into something else..... Best Regards, Lars Wean

1 0

Re: Experiences with CIFS
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 13 Nov '97

13 Nov '97

On 11/12/97 16:13:05 you wrote: >I have answered this question many times, and I am sick of it. Hey, you don't have to convince *me*. I didn't mean it as a personal attack. But I do know it has been a source of confusion. As you see yourself, different people here had different expectations. So perhaps it's not quite as obvious as it seems? >Go onto your own SunOS or Solaris system and try it yourself, soft >quotas have been around for a very long time and so far, I have not >heard a single technical reason why it should not work. My investigations into this tell me they work much like Guy Harris says. Do you agree with his assessment? If your version of soft quotas differs, in what way does it differ? Does your SunOS system report you as over soft quota over NFS as soon as it happens? I'm only trying to facilitate the questions and answers here. >FreeBSD does it, shoddy Linux does it, hell, I can't name a unix >system off the top of my head that doesn't. > >Is it so much to ask? What would a Netapp implementation do, other than report a "time left" or somesuch in the field reported via the quota command? Bruce

7 6

Re: Experiences with CIFS
by Rajiv Khemani 12 Nov '97

12 Nov '97

>I'm considering a F230 with CIFS support to replace several creaking >NT file servers which are being used in a SW development environment. > ... >I note from the netapp site that Windows Networking Software 2.0 is >out, but I quote from the FAQ: > >" The next release of Windows Networking Software will also provide >NTFS-style file and directory permissions for Windows users." > >This is what was said about version 1.0 > >Q to Netapp people on the list (yes, I have asked directly a week or >2 ago and am still awaiting a reply ) > > When can file level ACLs be expected? Garrett, I apologize for the delayed response. Just like the FAQ says, NTFS-style file and directory level ACLs will be available in the next release of Windows Networking Software. This is the first time we have publically said this, and are working hard to deliver on it. We expect that this functionality will be available in the first half of 1998. Rajiv Khemani Group Marketing Manager Network Appliance > I know having file level ACLs is more complex to manage, but it does >allow us to have multiple groups with different ranges of access >(which stops the Analysts & Business people deleting/changing the >developers work and project teams to have read access to other teams >work) > >Even directory level ACLs would go a long way to meeting our >requirements, but I think that if netapp is serious about the CIFS >market then they need to duplicate the NT ACLs on the filers. > >Thanks, >GB > > >-- >Garrett Burke, Network Admin,Managed Solutions Corp. >32 Upper Mount St., Dublin, Ireland. >burkeg(a)msc.ie +353-1-661-4840 >A jug of wine, a loaf of bread and thou. > > ---- Rajiv Khemani Group Marketing Manager Network Appliance, Inc. Direct: 408-367-3758 Fax: 408-367-3151 HTTP: http://www.netapp.com

2 1

Re: rsh and date
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 12 Nov '97

12 Nov '97

On 11/11/97 17:38:46 you wrote: >So my question is: how do I get around this? Change your network configuration so that your filer *does* have access to port 37 on some (reasonably correct) time server, and use rdate. Wait until date is rsh-able or NTP is supported. Bruce

1 0

rsh and date
by Brian Candler 11 Nov '97

11 Nov '97

Hello all from a new member of this list. I want to set the clock on a Netapp like this: # rsh netapp "date +$(date +%y%m%d%H%M)" I can't use rdate because this Netapp is on a private RFC1918 network and doesn't have access to a port 37 time server. NTP _is_ running on the admin host, but NetApp doesn't support NTP :-( However when I try the above command, it gives: date not found. Type '?' for a list of commands It seems that the list of commands which can be executed via rsh is restricted, and 'date' is not on that list :-( # rsh netapp '?' cifs df dump exportfs halt httpstat mt netstat nfsstat options raid reboot quota rdate restore route snap snmp sysconfig sysstat timezone uptime version # rsh netapp version NetApp Release 4.0.1c: Wed Jan 8 05:07:02 PST 1997 So my question is: how do I get around this? [And _please_ can we have NTP support...!] Regards, Brian.

3 2

Re: Solaris and NetApps
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 10 Nov '97

10 Nov '97

> One of my clients is complaining that performance between Solaris 2.5.1 > systems (mainly Ultra 1s and 3000s) and an F210 is pretty damn awful. (The > 210 is to be used for syslog, so the amount of disk writes isn't *that* > high). > > I got him to switch to NFS v2 and UDP to get around timeout issues, but > performance still sucks. We use "hard,intr,bg" for an NFS v2 mount with a NetApp connected to a 2.5.1 Ultra box with a crossover cable. Works like a charm for us, as a News spool. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

4 5

Re: Solaris and NetApps
by mer＠world.evansville.net 10 Nov '97

10 Nov '97

On Nov 10, 12:30pm, Marc Nicholas wrote: > One of my clients is complaining that performance between Solaris 2.5.1 > systems (mainly Ultra 1s and 3000s) and an F210 is pretty damn awful. (The > 210 is to be used for syslog, so the amount of disk writes isn't *that* > high). > > I got him to switch to NFS v2 and UDP to get around timeout issues, but > performance still sucks. > > The entire LAN fabric is full duplex 100baseT switched through Cisco > Catalyst 5000s. Can I ask a dumb question? Is his 2.5.1 box running full duplex 100BT? We experienced the same symptom with an Ultra 2. We also noticed lots of late collisions on the Cisco EtherSwitch 1200 uplink port serving the Ultra. When we switched the port to half duplex, the problem went away. On a related topic, I spent a fruitless half hour trying to figure out how to configure our Ultra to do full duplex -- anyone know how to do it? -- Marc Rouleau VP and Chief Technology Officer Voice: (812) 479-1700 Fax: (812) 479-3439 Network WCS http://www.networkwcs.com

3 3

New IBM drives
by joe＠vpop.net 10 Nov '97

10 Nov '97

Does anyone know if the new Hi Capacity IBM drives will work with toasters? IBM to unveil disk technology: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,16190,00.html?dtn.head Thanks, -joe ============================================================================= * NewsHub: Updated every 15 minutes/24 hours a day! * http://web.NewsHub.com/

1 0

Solaris and NetApps
by Marc Nicholas 10 Nov '97

10 Nov '97

One of my clients is complaining that performance between Solaris 2.5.1 systems (mainly Ultra 1s and 3000s) and an F210 is pretty damn awful. (The 210 is to be used for syslog, so the amount of disk writes isn't *that* high). I got him to switch to NFS v2 and UDP to get around timeout issues, but performance still sucks. The entire LAN fabric is full duplex 100baseT switched through Cisco Catalyst 5000s. Anyone got any ideas why things might be so sloooow? :-/ What mount options are the rest of you using with Solaris? Thanks, -marc --- Marc Nicholas - Hippocampus OSD Inc. 416 979 9000 - fax: 416 979 8223 - http://www.hippocampus.net 125 John St. - Suite #100 - Toronto - Ontario - M5V 2E2 - CANADA "Inter/Intra/Extra[net] consulting, services, hardware and software sales"

3 2

Re: Possible software cause for total data loss?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 08 Nov '97

08 Nov '97

On 11/08/97 01:39:24 you wrote: >> The fact that it continues to be the same machine leads me to think >> that swapping out the NVRAM card and/or the SCSI cards may be in >> order. > > I managed to capture the original kernel panic only once: "PANIC: >../common/wafl/nvlog.c: 1088: Assertion failure", although your guess >is as good as mine why all subsequent reboots panic in disk.c. The >suggestions I've received from Netapp support all involve getting a >core dump over to them for analysis. Unfortunately, the filer never >gets up to the point where it can do a savecore. :( Well, if the NVRAM error caused something bogus to be written to disk, creating bad metadata in the unclean shutdown, then this could trigger another bug in the disk code where it reads the disks and recomputes parity. Or the NVRAM itself may actually have caused the error. It could even be that the disk.c message is misleading and is really talking to the NVRAM at that point. Alternatively, the bad data on the disk could have been caused by bad SCSI, but I admit this is less likely. Frankly there's no way to know without seeing the code (even the best modular code can have subtle dependencies and side effects that make it appear the error is something other than where it is). I'm surprised support did not understand that your filer was actually DOWN, and thus you couldn't get the core. There are ways to boot from floppy to dump the NVRAM and fix the filesystem; I would press them for advice in that direction if they didn't understand your problem fully. In any case, like I said, if it consistently is happening to this machine you could replace the NVRAM card, re-install it all over again, and see if it happens again. Bruce

1 0

Re: Possible software cause for total data loss?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 08 Nov '97

08 Nov '97

On 11/07/97 18:43:45 you wrote: >On Tue, 4 Nov 1997 sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: >> >> 1. Filer crashes while running - Reboot >> 2. Filer crashes replaying NVRAM - Reboot >> 3. Filer crahses again while replaying NVRAM - Reboot >> 4. Filer realizes it's failed replaying NVRAM twice in a row, so >> it flags it as bad, dumps the NVRAM, and - Reboot > > After replacing all the disks with new ones, the same crash popped >up again on that filer, after two more days of heavy reads and writes. >I rebooted it ten times in a row... kernel panic every time on >"../driver/disk/disk.c:2633: Assertion failure" right after the >"Recomputing parity in NVRAM" message (I assume that means it never >gets around to replaying the WAFL logs?). Did it ever mention dumping the NVRAM? Or is it always crashing before it ever replays NVRAM? I think I understand what you're saying above but you didn't mention any other error messages from the other reboots so I wanted to be sure. > Call Netapp tech support, was told an on-call engineer would call >back... haven't heard anything back yet. *sigh* It sounds like the disks themselves have become corrupted in such a way that it's dying on initialization... they will probably have you boot off floppy to wack the filesystem, and/or dump the NVRAM manually. The fact that it continues to be the same machine leads me to think that swapping out the NVRAM card and/or the SCSI cards may be in order. But, I'm no expert support person and I don't have access to the code, so Netapp may have already figured out what this bug is and the solution is totally different. :) Bruce

2 1

Alpha future
by Gregory M. Paris 08 Nov '97

08 Nov '97

Any thoughts on what the Intel/Digital settlement means to NetApp and its customers? It sure looks (to me anyway) as though the Alpha is dead. -- Gregory M. Paris Senior Systems Administrator Bose Corporation Email: paris(a)bose.com The Mountain, MS#258 Phone: +1 508 766-4072 Framingham, MA 01701-9168 FAX: +1 508 820-0173

9 10

Re: Possible software cause for total data loss?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 07 Nov '97

07 Nov '97

On 11/04/97 10:48:56 you wrote: >> During the pre-production testing of one of our F230 filers, we >discovered a problem with one of them that we wereonly able to fix by >rebuilding the RAID (and thus losing whatever OS and data was on the >filer). Be careful with precise words. "Rebuilding the RAID" is something that happens when a disk fails, and it doesn't cause you to lose your data. If you mean, say, re-initialize the filesystem, then that makes more sense. > Part of the tests consisted of filling up the filesystem via NFS >and NDMP copies from a host Ultrasparc. Three other F230's of >identical configuration survived the tests, but the remaining F230 >experienced the following panic four times: > >PANIC: ../common/wafl/nvlog.c: 1088: Assertion failure > > > I will be running the NVRAM diagnostics later today to see if they >turn up anything. However, more distressing is the behaviour of the >Netapp upon reboot: You are correct that it's probably a software bug, although running the NVRAM diagnostics (and perhaps re-seating the card) is certainly something you should try. >[... other boot messages deleted...] >Loading filesystem. >Recomputing parity in NVRAM > >PANIC: ../driver/disk/disk.c:2633: Assertion failure. > >version: NetApp Release 4.2a: Fri Sep 5 09:36:36 PDT 1997 >cc flags: 3 >dumping core: .......... Old core present on disk --- not dumped. >Program terminated >ok > > > At this point the filer is inaccessible, and I can't find a way to >get it up and running. Why was it "innaccessible"? Just reboot it again. >Is there a way to flush the NVRAM or ignore an >existing dump... some way to turn NFS back on so the data can be >retrieved. Yes... just keep rebooting and evetually it will throw away the NVRAM. As for "ignore an existing dump", no I don't think so, but that's okay... the fact that the filer can't dump core isn't preventing you from rebooting (although I think it does prevent the auto-reboot). >Booting the kernel off floppy doesn't help because it >tries to replay the WAFL logs too, and another panic occurs. When NVRAM is corrupt, you have to keep rebooting several times. The sequence is usually like this. 1. Filer crashes while running - Reboot 2. Filer crashes replaying NVRAM - Reboot 3. Filer crahses again while replaying NVRAM - Reboot 4. Filer realizes it's failed replaying NVRAM twice in a row, so it flags it as bad, dumps the NVRAM, and - Reboot 5. Filer comes back up, probably in degraded mode, and is thus reconstructing. If there has been filesystem damage it may crash here again, and reboot again. If you still can't get it up (it may say "Filesystem may be scrambled) or you can't get it up for any length of time, you should call Netapp support and have them help you with the procedure for fixing the filesystem (wack) from floppy. The real kickers in this are you have to "know" that it'll do 2 and 3, and won't just keep rebooting forever. I think I've seen cases where it takes more than that for it to jettison NVRAM, but I can't be positive. This made since from a design point of you, to only give up if you fail to replay the NVRAM twice in a row, but in reality it seems that with most bugs (not all) if it fails once, it'll fail again. Furthermore, once it decides NVRAM is corrupt, it tries to dumb core and reboot *AGAIN*. The design thought here was again a sound one - get a core dump so we can look at the corrupt NVRAM and figure out what's wrong. However, in reality, if you've gotten to this point you've probably already crashed, and dumped core once, so you'll never be able to see this faulty NVRAM core... at least not until Netapp starts supporting multiple cores. The other bad thing about this sequence is you have several crashes stemming from the original crash, and possibly even several different bugs, but you'll never be able to get the cores from anything but the first one. I think there is a way to bypass some of this by booting off floppy and jettisoning the NVRAM manually, but given the time involved you are probably better off just rebooting the filer again. >The only >way around I've found is to wipe out the filesystem and start over >again (obviously not the optimal solution). Ideas? The above should help. Bruce

2 2

netapp NFS server crash by FreeBSD client [w/patch] (fwd)
by Tom Yates 07 Nov '97

07 Nov '97

this just in from the bugtraq mailing list. i figure *some* of us probably aren't on that. i also don't expect thousands of people to be trying this exploit, but given that it's just gone out on bugtraq, if your toaster panics anytime soon, you might want to bear this in mind. needless to say, i haven't tried it. anyone want to have a go? 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 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 21:34:00 -0800 From: "Dmitry Kohmanyuk [KOI8-R] �� " <dk(a)GENESYSLAB.COM> To: BUGTRAQ(a)NETSPACE.ORG Subject: netapp NFS server crash by FreeBSD client [w/patch] this is only relevant to those using NetApp NFS file servers. background: there are 2 versions of NFS in town, v2 and v3. In v3, one of things introduced was ability to read names of files in directory with stat(2)ing them at the same time; the procedure name is readdirplus. It can be used to speed up programs like ls(1). Apparently, NFS code in FreeBSD 2.2 (derived from 4.4BSD code, so perhaps this applies to all of modern BSD systems here) allow client to specify this in mount options without using NFS v3. This meaningless set of options panics NetApp file server. the following simple patch (attached) for /usr/src/sys/nfs/nfs_bio.c fixes this problem. --- nfs_bio.c.ok Wed Nov 5 20:11:17 1997 +++ nfs_bio.c Wed Nov 5 20:14:06 1997 @@ -1031,6 +1031,8 @@ case VDIR: nfsstats.readdir_bios++; uiop->uio_offset = ((u_quad_t)bp->b_lblkno) * NFS_DIRBLKSIZ; + if (!(nmp->nm_flag & NFSMNT_NFSV3)) + nmp->nm_flag &= ~NFSMNT_RDIRPLUS; /* dk(a)farm.org */ if (nmp->nm_flag & NFSMNT_RDIRPLUS) { error = nfs_readdirplusrpc(vp, uiop, cr); if (error == NFSERR_NOTSUPP)

3 2

archive
by Tom Yates 07 Nov '97

07 Nov '97

ok, i did some work. the list archive is better now, it automatically rebuilds every time someone sends a message to the list, so i'ts a lot more up-to-date than it had got any time recently. it moved a little, too... go to http://teaparty.mathworks.com:1999/toasters/ to find it. hope this is useful for people. 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

NetApp Release 4.2a bug?
by Steve Losen 07 Nov '97

07 Nov '97

We just got a F630 so I joined this list. I was wondering if anyone else has seen a problem with non-root users on NFS clients being unable to set the set-group bit. We are running Data ONTAP 4.2a on a F630. On a NFS client the following commands have no effect when run by a non-root user on files owned by the user and served by the F630. chmod g+s file chmod 2755 file Neither of these set the set-group bit. If superuser runs these commands on a NFS client with root access, they work. Once the set-group bit is set, a non-root user can unset it with chmod g-s file or chmod 755 file This has been reported to Netapp. Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 804-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

2 1

Experiences with CIFS
by Garrett Burke 05 Nov '97

05 Nov '97

Hi, I'm considering a F230 with CIFS support to replace several creaking NT file servers which are being used in a SW development environment. I would be interested in any experience that people have of using a filer with CIFS. I'm interested in primarily a CIFS only use, but may start using NFS in the future as well (as UNIX development grows) How do people handle backups of data , especially data that NT apps have locked. Anyone running Lotus Notes with the data on a filer? (I currently use ARCServe with their various agents to handle Notes & MS Exchange data) Being able to point ARCServe at the filer and get a consistent backup would be nice. I note from the netapp site that Windows Networking Software 2.0 is out, but I quote from the FAQ: " The next release of Windows Networking Software will also provide NTFS-style file and directory permissions for Windows users." This is what was said about version 1.0 Q to Netapp people on the list (yes, I have asked directly a week or 2 ago and am still awaiting a reply ) When can file level ACLs be expected? I know having file level ACLs is more complex to manage, but it does allow us to have multiple groups with different ranges of access (which stops the Analysts & Business people deleting/changing the developers work and project teams to have read access to other teams work) Even directory level ACLs would go a long way to meeting our requirements, but I think that if netapp is serious about the CIFS market then they need to duplicate the NT ACLs on the filers. Thanks, GB -- Garrett Burke, Network Admin,Managed Solutions Corp. 32 Upper Mount St., Dublin, Ireland. burkeg(a)msc.ie +353-1-661-4840 A jug of wine, a loaf of bread and thou.

1 0

Re: Redundant filer power supplies
by Robert Hamilton 04 Nov '97

04 Nov '97

At 06:52 AM 11/4/97 -0500, Brian Tao wrote: > How do these work? Do they replace the existing power supply with >two separate modules? Does one supply full power while the other is >on standby, or do both supply half power during normal operation? >-- The filer power supply is replaced by a RPS adapter module. This adapter module is connected via an "umbilical" cord to the separate rack-mount RPS unit. Inside this RPS unit are two power supplies, either of which is capable of powering the filer. In normal operations, these power supplies share the load. This load-sharing feature extends the life of the power supplies over a standby implementation. Robert

1 0

Redundant filer power supplies
by Brian Tao 04 Nov '97

04 Nov '97

How do these work? Do they replace the existing power supply with two separate modules? Does one supply full power while the other is on standby, or do both supply half power during normal operation? -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)netcom.ca) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

2 1

Possible software cause for total data loss?
by Brian Tao 04 Nov '97

04 Nov '97

During the pre-production testing of one of our F230 filers, we discovered a problem with one of them that we wereonly able to fix by rebuilding the RAID (and thus losing whatever OS and data was on the filer). The hardware configuration is as follows: NetApp Release 4.2a: Fri Sep 5 09:36:36 PDT 1997 System ID: 0016783805 slot 0: System Board 90 MHz (NetApp System Board Ia rev-b) Firmware release: 1.6_i Memory Size: 192 MB slot 0: SCSI Host Adapter 0 (QLogic ISP 1040B) Firmware Version 2.26 Clock Rate 40MHz. slot 0: Ethernet Controller e0 MAC Address: 00:a0:98:00:0f:1b (100tx) slot 6: NVRAM (NetApp NVRAM I) Revision: D2 Serial Number: 6589 Memory Size: 4 MB Battery 1 Status: 100% (3.07v) Battery 2 Status: 100% (3.07v) slot 7: Ethernet Controller e7 (Znyx) MAC Address: 00:c0:95:f8:49:c9 (Twisted pair) slot 9: Dual SCSI Host Adapter (NetApp SCSI Adapter II) SCSI Host Adapter 9a (Qlogic ISP 1040B) Firmware Version 2.26 Clock Rate 40MHz. 0: SEAGATE ST15150W 9107 Size=3.9GB (8388315 blocks) 1: SEAGATE ST15150W 9107 Size=3.9GB (8388315 blocks) 2: SEAGATE ST15150W 9107 Size=3.9GB (8388315 blocks) 3: SEAGATE ST15150W 9107 Size=3.9GB (8388315 blocks) 5: SEAGATE ST15150W 9107 Size=3.9GB (8388315 blocks) 4: SEAGATE ST15150W 9107 Size=3.9GB (8388315 blocks) SCSI Host Adapter 9b (Qlogic ISP 1040B) Firmware Version 2.26 Clock Rate 40MHz. Part of the tests consisted of filling up the filesystem via NFS and NDMP copies from a host Ultrasparc. Three other F230's of identical configuration survived the tests, but the remaining F230 experienced the following panic four times: PANIC: ../common/wafl/nvlog.c: 1088: Assertion failure I will be running the NVRAM diagnostics later today to see if they turn up anything. However, more distressing is the behaviour of the Netapp upon reboot: [... other boot messages deleted...] Loading filesystem. Recomputing parity in NVRAM PANIC: ../driver/disk/disk.c:2633: Assertion failure. version: NetApp Release 4.2a: Fri Sep 5 09:36:36 PDT 1997 cc flags: 3 dumping core: .......... Old core present on disk --- not dumped. Program terminated ok At this point the filer is inaccessible, and I can't find a way to get it up and running. Is there a way to flush the NVRAM or ignore an existing dump... some way to turn NFS back on so the data can be retrieved. Booting the kernel off floppy doesn't help because it tries to replay the WAFL logs too, and another panic occurs. The only way around I've found is to wipe out the filesystem and start over again (obviously not the optimal solution). Ideas? -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)netcom.ca) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

1 0

Re: raid swap question
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 04 Nov '97

04 Nov '97

On 10/08/97 09:10:10 you wrote: >We have "raid swap"ed almost three shelves worth of drives into >an F330 at one time. The AE recommended this method as >being faster than installing all the drives at config >time and building that large file system from scratch. >This worked fine, but still takes a significant amount >of time. I think by "at one time" you still mean one at a time (a raid swap for each drive). >We later added a fourth shelf and "raid swap"ed all those >drives in at once. The filer was only off the net for >the length of time it took to halt/connect the SCSI cable/ >reboot. A few hours later, after the raid swap completes, >all the additional disk space shows up - it does not show >up one drive at a time. I don't quite understand this... if you added them while the filer was down, you didn't "raid swap" anything. And they show up immediately, not a few hours later. I think perhaps you are talking about *raid add*, i.e. actually adding the drives to the filesystem. In that case you can add them individually one drive at a time (and the filer would get the space on drive at a time), or you can raid add them all at once, in which case they'll all finish at about the same time. >Some comments regarding DLT drives - I have heard that you >want to keep them "streaming" (feed with data) or the >drive has to stop, wait for data, backup, reseek to the >stop point, and start again. This applies to both 4000/7000 >series. You pay a significant speed penalty for dropping >the drive out of streaming mode. Our word from Netapp is >that for an F230, they sell the FW/DIff card and it works, but >it is not officially QA'd in the system, but soon should be. Yes, streaming is important, but my point was I don't think a 7000 non-streaming is going to be much slower than a 4000 streaming. But, I could be wrong on this. In any case, there are *plenty* are start-stop behavior in a Netapp dump even locally, so I don't think you can avoid it. Bruce

2 1

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters