toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

Migrating 2 x F740 => F840
by Brian Tao 12 Oct '00

12 Oct '00

Is it possible to "merge" the disk shelves from two or more F740's onto a single F840 without losing the data? It sounds like it might be as simple as having to rename volumes (to avoid having multiple /vol/vol0's) when attaching the shelves to the F840. Has anyone tried this? Any requirements or caveats to watch out for? -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

1 1

RE: Veritas NetBackup + NDMP == Doh!!
by Alvarado, Michael 11 Oct '00

11 Oct '00

Here are two documents that overview the new library with the Gigabit Ethernet interface along with the ported NDMP tape server. http://www.atlp.com/pdf/ctrjuly2000.pdf ATL supports NDMP/NAS/GbE http://is.pennnet.com/home/articles.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=81787&VERSION_NUM=1&PUBL… ON_ID=23&Section=CurrentIssue -----Original Message----- From: Joe Luchtenberg [mailto:joe.luchtenberg@data-line.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:06 PM To: 'Marion Hakanson'; Scott Mikusko Cc: Cormier, Darleen; 'Jeffrey Krueger'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Veritas NetBackup + NDMP == Doh!! Didn't take time to check the archives, but I believe the NAS w/SAN centralized tape backup has been addressed here before. The "certified" solution incorporates NetApp/Veritas/Vixel/Spectra Logic. Joe Joe Luchtenberg Dataline, Inc. New number and email, please update: 757.858.0600 858.0606 fax joe.luchtenberg(a)data-line.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Marion Hakanson [SMTP:hakanson@cse.ogi.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:27 PM > To: Scott Mikusko > Cc: Cormier, Darleen; 'Jeffrey Krueger'; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Veritas NetBackup + NDMP == Doh!! > > > . . . > > This is where allowing NDMP to dump to a remote tape library is very > > important, because systems such as I support require more than 4 drives > > and having local tapes drives on filers is not really feasible. > > > > -Scott > > I think things are headed toward the use of SAN-connected tape > drives and libraries for this type of setup. The backup software > tells the SAN switch to connect up the appropriate number of drives > to the backup client (NetApp), and then uses NDMP to initiate the > backup on the client, using "direct attached" tape drives. When > that backup is done, you "direct attach" the drives to the next client. > > I think Veritas and NetApp claim to support something like this, but > only with certain SAN switching equipment. If you've got SCSI drives > (as opposed to FC), then you'll need a SCSI-to-FC converter while > you're at it. > > Heck, some libraries (ATL, for one) are becoming available with NDMP > servers right in them, ethernet interface included. Dunno where > you put the file history or tape indexes, but it's getting interesting. > > Speaking of NAS & tape libraries, does anybody have any experience > with the Grau Data "Infinistore Virtual Disk System" (www.graudata.com)? > It's apparently a NAS box with a RAID cache in front of a tape library. > > The brief article I saw in Server/Workstation Expert magazine mentioned > that an "entry level" system starts at around $100k, so I didn't read > beyond that (:-). We sure wish NetApp had something like this, > since somewhere around 80% of our filer's capacity is tied up in > files that haven't been accessed in a year or more. > > Regards, > > -- > Marion Hakanson <hakanson(a)cse.ogi.edu> > CSE Computing Facilities >

1 0

RE: Veritas NetBackup + NDMP == Doh!!
by Joe Luchtenberg 11 Oct '00

11 Oct '00

Didn't take time to check the archives, but I believe the NAS w/SAN centralized tape backup has been addressed here before. The "certified" solution incorporates NetApp/Veritas/Vixel/Spectra Logic. Joe Joe Luchtenberg Dataline, Inc. New number and email, please update: 757.858.0600 858.0606 fax joe.luchtenberg(a)data-line.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Marion Hakanson [SMTP:hakanson@cse.ogi.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:27 PM > To: Scott Mikusko > Cc: Cormier, Darleen; 'Jeffrey Krueger'; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Veritas NetBackup + NDMP == Doh!! > > > . . . > > This is where allowing NDMP to dump to a remote tape library is very > > important, because systems such as I support require more than 4 drives > > and having local tapes drives on filers is not really feasible. > > > > -Scott > > I think things are headed toward the use of SAN-connected tape > drives and libraries for this type of setup. The backup software > tells the SAN switch to connect up the appropriate number of drives > to the backup client (NetApp), and then uses NDMP to initiate the > backup on the client, using "direct attached" tape drives. When > that backup is done, you "direct attach" the drives to the next client. > > I think Veritas and NetApp claim to support something like this, but > only with certain SAN switching equipment. If you've got SCSI drives > (as opposed to FC), then you'll need a SCSI-to-FC converter while > you're at it. > > Heck, some libraries (ATL, for one) are becoming available with NDMP > servers right in them, ethernet interface included. Dunno where > you put the file history or tape indexes, but it's getting interesting. > > Speaking of NAS & tape libraries, does anybody have any experience > with the Grau Data "Infinistore Virtual Disk System" (www.graudata.com)? > It's apparently a NAS box with a RAID cache in front of a tape library. > > The brief article I saw in Server/Workstation Expert magazine mentioned > that an "entry level" system starts at around $100k, so I didn't read > beyond that (:-). We sure wish NetApp had something like this, > since somewhere around 80% of our filer's capacity is tied up in > files that haven't been accessed in a year or more. > > Regards, > > -- > Marion Hakanson <hakanson(a)cse.ogi.edu> > CSE Computing Facilities >

1 0

RE: Veritas NetBackup + NDMP == Doh!!
by Cormier, Darleen 11 Oct '00

11 Oct '00

Jeff, FYI, Workstation Solutions' Quick Restore package also allows all of the configuration options that Budtools allowed. If you want to take a look at their stuff, the url is www.worksta.com You're right that Veritas requires the drives in the library to be either directly attached to a filer, or attached to another filer. On the second issue, each F760 is able to support up to four tape drives, an F740 can support 2 and our newer F840 can support up to 8, so it depends on the model of filer you have. If your tape library supports splitting the internal bus, by daisy chaining a couple of drives together and cabling them directly to a filer, we have customers who are doing this, using Veritas to control the robotics. A backup package is required to control the robotics because we have no robotics control capability built-in to DataOnTap. Hope this helps. -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey Krueger [mailto:jkrueger@qualcomm.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 7:04 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Veritas NetBackup + NDMP == Doh!! We are currently using BudTool and implementing Veritas NetBackup as a replacement. We want to use NDMP to dump the filer's data off to a NetBackup server (big honkin' sun box w/ lots of library enclosed DLT7k's). Veritas says that in 3.2, they only support NDMP dump/restore to filer attached tape. In 3.4 they claim to support NDMP 3-way dump/restore from one NetApp to another NetApp with locally attached tape. So we are double hosed. Of course, BudTool effortlessly does NDMP to the filer attached tape, 3-way to another filer attached tape, and apparently right back into the BudTool host which is what we want with NetBackup. Anyone else trying to do the same thing? Any other ideas short of sitting on Veritas? On another topic entirely, does anyone have experience attaching many (2-4) DLT7k's per NetApp and using them as a backup tape server via 3-way NDMP? Something tells me that ONTAP and the filer are not designed to handle this well, but we'd like to see if anyone else is trying this. A possible solution for us would be using two or three filers with 4 drives attached to each as a pool of dump/restore servers for the other 20 or 30 filers. Thanks!! -- Jeff -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Krueger E-Mail: jeff(a)qualcomm.com Senior Engineer Phone: 858-651-6709 NetApp Filers / UNIX Infrastructure Fax: 858-651-6627 QUALCOMM, Inc. IT Engineering Web: www.qualcomm.com

3 2

FS: F200/F300/F500 parts and upgrades
by ScottUCE＠aol.com 11 Oct '00

11 Oct '00

Various older Netapp parts are priced as follows: X1101 FDDI dual attached cards 395.00 X1001 10Base-T/100Base-T cards 65.00 X311 2mb NVRAM expansions 75.00 X312 64mb system memory expansions 125.00 X212 4gb narrow disk drives 125.00 X217 4gb wide disk drives 250.00 X219 9gb fiber channel drives 450.00 Further, we have many other hard-to-find parts and upgrades for the F200, F300, F500 and F600 series systems. Please call for availability and pricing; we invite any offers. Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, MN 55436 (952) 935-7282 (952) 935-5056 - FAX www.unioncomputer.com

1 0

Veritas NetBackup + NDMP == Doh!!
by Jeffrey Krueger 11 Oct '00

11 Oct '00

We are currently using BudTool and implementing Veritas NetBackup as a replacement. We want to use NDMP to dump the filer's data off to a NetBackup server (big honkin' sun box w/ lots of library enclosed DLT7k's). Veritas says that in 3.2, they only support NDMP dump/restore to filer attached tape. In 3.4 they claim to support NDMP 3-way dump/restore from one NetApp to another NetApp with locally attached tape. So we are double hosed. Of course, BudTool effortlessly does NDMP to the filer attached tape, 3-way to another filer attached tape, and apparently right back into the BudTool host which is what we want with NetBackup. Anyone else trying to do the same thing? Any other ideas short of sitting on Veritas? On another topic entirely, does anyone have experience attaching many (2-4) DLT7k's per NetApp and using them as a backup tape server via 3-way NDMP? Something tells me that ONTAP and the filer are not designed to handle this well, but we'd like to see if anyone else is trying this. A possible solution for us would be using two or three filers with 4 drives attached to each as a pool of dump/restore servers for the other 20 or 30 filers. Thanks!! -- Jeff -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Krueger E-Mail: jeff(a)qualcomm.com Senior Engineer Phone: 858-651-6709 NetApp Filers / UNIX Infrastructure Fax: 858-651-6627 QUALCOMM, Inc. IT Engineering Web: www.qualcomm.com

3 2

RE: Mac G4 with Netapp
by Mike Sphar 11 Oct '00

11 Oct '00

As others have mentions, you could either make sure you have a good NFS or CIFS client for the Mac installed. Or, depending on how much traffic you expect from the Mac and how many macs you have, it might be easier to re-share the Netapp through a Windows or UNIX box. Netatalk I believe is the name of a free appletalk file server for UNIX. And Windows NT/2000 Server also comes with a free Services for Macintosh package as well, I believe. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services, BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Mathew Anderson [mailto:mathew@nm.net] Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 9:59 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Mac G4 with Netapp Has anyone tried to get a G4 to mount a netapp share? We have the netapp setup with both nfs and cifs, and we are using a PDC. Any pointers on where to start? (apples KB does not help at all).. Thanks -Mathew Mathew Anderson Systems Administration NM Technet Oso Grande Technologies, Inc. mathew(a)nm.net mathew(a)osogrande.net

2 1

Re: High Performance volume configuration
by Rick Hulsey 11 Oct '00

11 Oct '00

They (Netapp) spent a fair amount time in the Netapp 202 class teaching about how it is best to keep a RAID group on one controller. If you have a single RAID group that spans more than one FC-AL interface, it is called a fractured RAID group, and there was even a lab in the class where they went through how to correct a fractured RAID group and put the disks back on one FC-AL controller. It looks like the configuration that was used in the benchmark was a single volume that had 2 RAID groups (RAID group 0, and RAID group 1, presumably), and each of these RAID groups was cabled up to separate interfaces. I'm guessing that this configuration would yield a filesystem that is striped across both FC-AL interfaces. Since the RAID calculations are done at the RAID group level rather than at the volume level it makes sense that more than one RAID calculation can be done in parallel. Based on that assumption, splitting a volume across 2 controllers (while preventing RAID group fracturing) should improve performance. Rick Hulsey Southwest Airlines 2425 Wyman Mail Stop 4DC Dallas, Tx., 75235 rick.hulsey(a)wnco.com (214) 792-7188 Office (972) 880-6882 Cell (800) 915-3747 Pager >>> Graydon Dodson <grdodson(a)lexmark.com> 10/09/00 04:22PM >>> > I also had a 760 survive doing 17,000 nfs ops/second once. ... When running compiles, it is not unusual for us to see numbers over 22,000 on the op-panel of our 760. Anyone know where the top end of an 840 is? Support has been unable to answer that one for us. So in our move to an 840 I want to configure it's volume for maximum performance. The ground rules are two FC-AL adapters, seven full trays of 18G drives. All one volume is very desirable. Now the SPECsfs97 benchmark on the 840 states: * The F1 filesystem was composed of two RAID groups, each containing 17 data disks and one parity disk. Two spare disks were present * The F1 filesystem was striped across both disk controllers Since I have to assume that NetApp would use a high performance architecture for the benchmark I am guessing that this is the way to go, but there is quite a bit of detail missing. Is it a good or bad idea to split a raid group over two FC-AL interfaces? What does "striped across both disk controllers" mean? If there are spare disks (same size) on both FC-AL interfaces and a disk fails Which one is used to rebuild? (Same FC-AL or random choice) Is it a good or bad idea to split a volume over multiple FC-AL interfaces? The need for speed Graydon Dodson (606) 232-6483 grdodson(a)lexmark.com Lexmark International Inc.

3 4

RE: Mac G4 with NetApp
by Mike Sphar 11 Oct '00

11 Oct '00

Actually, I've worked with TotalNet before in the past as well, though we didn't use the Appletalk features. It's been a while, but I'm almost positive that Totalnet could be pointed at NT domain controllers for authentication. The question would be whether the appletalk module would utilize that as well. We were pretty happy with Totalnet as I recall. The only issue we had was that it sprinkled little .tn<something> hidden files everywhere that we had to remember to remove before burning our final software releases to CD. Speaking of CAP, I did a little checking up on it, and it does appear to be falling by the wayside. Even one of the major contributors says he uses Netatalk instead now. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services, BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Knight, Graham [mailto:Graham.Knight@netapp.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 2:43 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Mac G4 with NetApp When I was with Lockheed we were faced with a similar dilemma. We tested a number of Unix based solutions. The best we found was the "totalnet advanced server" by Syntax software ( www.syntax.com <http://www.syntax.com> ). It can take an NFS mount served by a Netapp and export it to a Mac. CAP has fallen badly behind and I honestly don't think it will ever catch up with the level of support that it gets. There are serious file locking and file rename problems with CAP and Microsoft applications. We never had the same type of problems with Syntax. To solve the specific problem as I understood it (need to use NT authentication for the NFS mounted Appletalk share (Phew!)), I think you would have to bundle something like Syntax software with some sort of LDAP solution pointing to the PDC for user authentication. Not an easy problem to solve. It could be that Syntax has a solution nowadays. It's been a couple years since I looked into this. I don't have anything to do with Syntax (Neither does Netapp to my knowledge) I just used it, and it worked well for Macintosh services. It might be a good place to start the search for the solution to the problem. Graham -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@remedy.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 2:58 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Mac G4 with NetApp Ah, my mistake. Thanks for the correction. I only played with the Services for Macintosh a little bit, and I foolishly assumed you could re-share a mounted network share. Also, now that I think about it, we used to use CAP a few years ago when we needed such things and I remember it being pretty reliable and easy to maintain. Netatalk is also supposed to be good, but I've never used it. Generally, my preference is to install new services on a server when I can rather than be forced to deploy and support new client software. Letting the client OS access data using its native capabilities usually results in less maintenance and support headaches. (Ugh, now I'm having flashbacks of supporting ChameleonNFS on hundreds of machines.) -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services, BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Benn, Paul [mailto:paul.benn@netapp.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:50 PM To: 'Mike Sphar'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Mac G4 with NetApp Just to clarify.... Exporting a CIFS share (whether from a filer or another NT server) to AFP won't work with the Microsoft service for Macintosh (at least it didn't with NT4 and AutoExNT was no help either). I tried an early W2K beta but it was no help either. The Microsoft service only supports local disk. Sorry :( As for a gateway type product, I've only heard of NFS/AFP solutions. Paul Benn Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@remedy.com] Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 1:24 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Mac G4 with Netapp As others have mentions, you could either make sure you have a good NFS or CIFS client for the Mac installed. Or, depending on how much traffic you expect from the Mac and how many macs you have, it might be easier to re-share the Netapp through a Windows or UNIX box. Netatalk I believe is the name of a free appletalk file server for UNIX. And Windows NT/2000 Server also comes with a free Services for Macintosh package as well, I believe. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services, BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Mathew Anderson [mailto:mathew@nm.net] Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 9:59 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Mac G4 with Netapp Has anyone tried to get a G4 to mount a netapp share? We have the netapp setup with both nfs and cifs, and we are using a PDC. Any pointers on where to start? (apples KB does not help at all).. Thanks -Mathew Mathew Anderson Systems Administration NM Technet Oso Grande Technologies, Inc. mathew(a)nm.net mathew(a)osogrande.net

1 0

RE: Mac G4 with NetApp
by Knight, Graham 10 Oct '00

10 Oct '00

When I was with Lockheed we were faced with a similar dilemma. We tested a number of Unix based solutions. The best we found was the "totalnet advanced server" by Syntax software ( www.syntax.com <http://www.syntax.com> ). It can take an NFS mount served by a Netapp and export it to a Mac. CAP has fallen badly behind and I honestly don't think it will ever catch up with the level of support that it gets. There are serious file locking and file rename problems with CAP and Microsoft applications. We never had the same type of problems with Syntax. To solve the specific problem as I understood it (need to use NT authentication for the NFS mounted Appletalk share (Phew!)), I think you would have to bundle something like Syntax software with some sort of LDAP solution pointing to the PDC for user authentication. Not an easy problem to solve. It could be that Syntax has a solution nowadays. It's been a couple years since I looked into this. I don't have anything to do with Syntax (Neither does Netapp to my knowledge) I just used it, and it worked well for Macintosh services. It might be a good place to start the search for the solution to the problem. Graham -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@remedy.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 2:58 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Mac G4 with NetApp Ah, my mistake. Thanks for the correction. I only played with the Services for Macintosh a little bit, and I foolishly assumed you could re-share a mounted network share. Also, now that I think about it, we used to use CAP a few years ago when we needed such things and I remember it being pretty reliable and easy to maintain. Netatalk is also supposed to be good, but I've never used it. Generally, my preference is to install new services on a server when I can rather than be forced to deploy and support new client software. Letting the client OS access data using its native capabilities usually results in less maintenance and support headaches. (Ugh, now I'm having flashbacks of supporting ChameleonNFS on hundreds of machines.) -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services, BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Benn, Paul [mailto:paul.benn@netapp.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:50 PM To: 'Mike Sphar'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Mac G4 with NetApp Just to clarify.... Exporting a CIFS share (whether from a filer or another NT server) to AFP won't work with the Microsoft service for Macintosh (at least it didn't with NT4 and AutoExNT was no help either). I tried an early W2K beta but it was no help either. The Microsoft service only supports local disk. Sorry :( As for a gateway type product, I've only heard of NFS/AFP solutions. Paul Benn Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@remedy.com] Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 1:24 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Mac G4 with Netapp As others have mentions, you could either make sure you have a good NFS or CIFS client for the Mac installed. Or, depending on how much traffic you expect from the Mac and how many macs you have, it might be easier to re-share the Netapp through a Windows or UNIX box. Netatalk I believe is the name of a free appletalk file server for UNIX. And Windows NT/2000 Server also comes with a free Services for Macintosh package as well, I believe. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services, BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Mathew Anderson [mailto:mathew@nm.net] Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 9:59 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Mac G4 with Netapp Has anyone tried to get a G4 to mount a netapp share? We have the netapp setup with both nfs and cifs, and we are using a PDC. Any pointers on where to start? (apples KB does not help at all).. Thanks -Mathew Mathew Anderson Systems Administration NM Technet Oso Grande Technologies, Inc. mathew(a)nm.net mathew(a)osogrande.net

1 0

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