toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

Re: Low SMB throughput
by Alfred Lerch 28 Sep '00

28 Sep '00

Hi Chris, thanks for your quick answer. - autonegotiation and duplex are fine, no errors reported on the switches - pure TCP/IP is fast (like http, ftp etc.) - the Win95 and NT 4.0 which are slow to NetApps are fast to NT fileservers alfred chris(a)webtop.com wrote: > > In toasters(a)mathworks.com, you wrote: > >Any ideas where we might start looking ? Has anyone experienced a > >similar issue ? > > We currently have similar problems. Check network settings, in > particular autonegotiation and duplex. Also check your WINS servers > and PDC/BDC are functioning ok. > > CHris > -- > Chris Good WebTop.com http://www.webtop.com > Tel: +44 (0) 1223 715000 Fax: +44 (0) 1223 715001 -- -- \\\\\/// / ^ _ \ ( (o) (o) ) --- That's all folks --- +=oOOO=====(_)=====OOOo==========================================+ |Alfred Lerch Mentor Graphics Deutschland GmbH| |Network & System Administrator Elsenheimer Str. 41 - 43| |IT - Business Support Team Munich D-80687 Muenchen, Germany| |email: alfred_lerch(a)mentor.com Fax : +49 89 57096-400| |Tel. : +49 89 57096-241 Mobile: +49 172 8915200| | | |Helpdesk IT Central Europe in Munich | |Tel. : +49 89 57096-110 internal: 777| |email: helpdesk_dem(a)mentor.com | +=============Oooo.==============================================+ .oooO ( ) ( ) ) / \ ( (_/ \_)

2 1

(no subject)
by Uros Lampret 28 Sep '00

28 Sep '00

Are there any special considerations on using F740 with VMS? I tried once to mount NFS mount on VMS, there vas no problems, but VMS seems to create some other files. Any experience? _____________________________ Uros Lampret _____________________________

1 0

Re: NFS client performance
by David Lockwood 27 Sep '00

27 Sep '00

We had a very similar situation when we first connected an F760 to HP-UX 10.20. Performance was very poor initially, after some investigation we found that having no (0) biods running we got much better performance. This can be changed on HP-UX (10.20 or 11.00) by changing NUM_NFSIOD in the /etc/rc.config.d/nfsconf file. Nobody could tell me exactly how the system was working with no biod processes but it does. >>> "Rick Hulsey" <RHULSEY(a)wnco.com> 09/27/00 02:01pm >>> We have a couple of HP-UX 11.0 systems running Oracle 8i (8.1.6). Each of these systems has about 10-15 small to medium sized Oracle databases on the system. In order to separate tables, logs, and archives for availability and recovery in the event of a filer volume failure, we are using 3 volumes per database. We are using qtrees allow for the mounting the database tables, logs, and archives separately which allows us to use failover between the HP servers for each database. This all boils down to needing 45+ NFS mounts per client. HP still uses separate biod processes (the default is 4 biod processes) , and I think each running biod can handle 2 concurrent I/O requests (this may or may not be configurable by through some kernel parameter - not sure what the parameter is though). Does anyone know how to tune the HP-UX client for the best performance for this many mounts? I currently think we should bump up the number of biod processes to about 32. We will probably bump up to 16 for a while just as an intermediate test before we go to 32. Does anyone know of other changes that will increase NFS client 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For further information on Benetton Formula 1 visit our web site at www.benettonf1.com. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please destroy and notify Benetton Formula on +44 1608678000. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: NFS client performance
by Herbert Kornfeld 27 Sep '00

27 Sep '00

Well according to Netapp solution id 3.0.2639783.2627617, you should actually _reduce_ the number of biods. There's no reference to a particular version of HP-UX, so I presume it applies to everything. Maybe ;-) --h _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.

1 0

NFS client performance
by Rick Hulsey 27 Sep '00

27 Sep '00

We have a couple of HP-UX 11.0 systems running Oracle 8i (8.1.6). Each of these systems has about 10-15 small to medium sized Oracle databases on the system. In order to separate tables, logs, and archives for availability and recovery in the event of a filer volume failure, we are using 3 volumes per database. We are using qtrees allow for the mounting the database tables, logs, and archives separately which allows us to use failover between the HP servers for each database. This all boils down to needing 45+ NFS mounts per client. HP still uses separate biod processes (the default is 4 biod processes) , and I think each running biod can handle 2 concurrent I/O requests (this may or may not be configurable by through some kernel parameter - not sure what the parameter is though). Does anyone know how to tune the HP-UX client for the best performance for this many mounts? I currently think we should bump up the number of biod processes to about 32. We will probably bump up to 16 for a while just as an intermediate test before we go to 32. Does anyone know of other changes that will increase NFS client 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

1 0

FS: Netapp 9gb Fiber Drives and FC7 Storage Shelves
by ScottUCE＠aol.com 27 Sep '00

27 Sep '00

The following Netapp gear has become available: Qty 28 9.0 GB FC-AL Disk Drives (model no. X219F) Asking price: 450.00@ Qty 4 Storage Shelves FC7 (model no. X650A) Asking price: 1,500.00@ We also have several F330's and F520's available and will entertain any reasonable (or possibly even unreasonable!) 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

Difference in resources?
by TTSG 26 Sep '00

26 Sep '00

Hi, We've had great luck with BSDI and our F720's, so we decided to spec it for a Sun customer. There are 2 machines.. Thor and Sif. Thor is an Ultra 1, 170E running 5.5.1, pretty patched up. Sif is an Ultra 1, 170E running 5.7, pretty patched up. Both systems currently have 2 Multi-pack 12's with 10 disks in each. The systems serve a single web site, DNS load balanced which is usually decent (LB sales people need not apply, customer doesn't want it). We loaded the content onto the F720, and unmounted ALL the disks of Thor, and told it to use the Filer. Immediately the load rose on the box, and infact has gotten as bad as : last pid: 1040; load averages: 48.67, 35.91, 22.98 18:04:24 315 processes: 251 sleeping, 63 running, 1 on cpu CPU states: 0.0% idle, 28.8% user, 71.2% kernel, 0.0% iowait, 0.0% swap Memory: 497M real, 142M free, 175M swap, 1235M free swap PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME WCPU CPU COMMAND 777 www 34 0 2544K 1896K run 0:01 0.22% 1.65% httpd 1030 karupspc 24 0 3232K 2880K run 0:00 0.22% 1.65% ttsgvalidate.c 556 www 34 0 2568K 1936K sleep 0:02 0.20% 1.53% httpd 494 www 34 0 2544K 1896K run 0:01 0.20% 1.53% httpd 618 www 34 0 2544K 1896K sleep 0:02 0.18% 1.40% httpd 800 www 34 0 2544K 1896K sleep 0:01 0.18% 1.40% httpd 762 www 34 0 2552K 1904K sleep 0:00 0.18% 1.40% httpd 926 www 34 0 2544K 1904K run 0:00 0.17% 1.27% httpd While at the same time : last pid: 8293; load averages: 1.02, 1.51, 1.59 18:04:57 312 processes: 310 sleeping, 1 zombie, 1 on cpu CPU states: 55.5% idle, 11.4% user, 22.7% kernel, 10.4% iowait, 0.0% swap Memory: 512M real, 7888K free, 139M swap in use, 1268M swap free PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME CPU COMMAND 8292 root 1 50 0 2384K 1648K cpu 0:00 1.51% top 7903 www 1 58 0 2712K 1856K sleep 0:01 0.79% httpd 8176 www 1 58 0 2696K 1840K sleep 0:00 0.77% httpd 8005 www 1 58 0 2688K 1824K sleep 0:00 0.44% httpd 7838 www 1 58 0 2688K 1816K sleep 0:01 0.43% httpd 8002 www 1 58 0 2712K 1856K sleep 0:00 0.42% httpd 8071 www 1 48 0 2688K 1824K sleep 0:00 0.34% httpd 8066 www 1 49 0 2688K 1824K sleep 0:00 0.34% httpd 8092 www 1 58 0 2712K 1856K sleep 0:00 0.33% httpd Sif was doing that..... Is this expected? ALOT more kernel usage, a LOT higher load average. It ebbs and flow, but it hasn't gotten below 5 since we started. 5 didn't bother me. Almost 50 does. On BSDI, I know I have a daemon called NFSIOD : Nfsiod runs on an NFS client machine to service asynchronous I/O requests to its server. It improves performance but is not required for correct operation. I did notice quite an improvement. Is there anything I need to do on the Sun or Filer to get better performance? Any ideas why I might have degraded the performance so bad? Thanks, Tuc/TTSG

5 6

RE: F840
by Byte, David 26 Sep '00

26 Sep '00

I'm sure that for a price you could have the new faceplate chrome plated or dipped though.. *********************************************************************** *********************************************************************** David Byte Phone: (918) 459-4601 Systems Engineer Fax: (918) 459-4542 Network Appliance, Inc. Email: byte(a)netapp.com One Memorial Place Pager: (877) 5-NETAPP 7633 East 63rd Place Suite 300 Tulsa, OK 74133 *********************************************************************** *********************************************************************** NETWORK APPLIANCE RELIABLE - FAST - SIMPLE - MULTIPROTOCOL URL: http://www.netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Fox, Adam [mailto:Adam.Fox@netapp.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 3:21 PM To: 'Todd C. Merrill'; andrew-m.webster(a)db.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: F840 > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 andrew-m.webster(a)db.com wrote: > > > I'll have to keep the F760es around so I can swap over the > front panel. :-) > > Anybody got any F630 front panels they want to sell? > Those were cool. > > Until next time... Yeah the F630s were cool. But they won't fit a 700 or 800 box cleanly since the LCD/floppy/etc has moved on those boxes. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com

2 1

RE: F840
by Fox, Adam 26 Sep '00

26 Sep '00

> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 andrew-m.webster(a)db.com wrote: > > > I'll have to keep the F760es around so I can swap over the > front panel. :-) > > Anybody got any F630 front panels they want to sell? > Those were cool. > > Until next time... Yeah the F630s were cool. But they won't fit a 700 or 800 box cleanly since the LCD/floppy/etc has moved on those boxes. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com

1 0

RE: F840
by Sam Schorr 26 Sep '00

26 Sep '00

Bruce, I called it "folklore" because I was told about the supposed improvement in disk scrub speed by a couple of Netapp engineers at a recent engineering meeting I attended. Maybe it would have been better to say "from unofficial sources, in a casual conversation, sharing afternoon drinks at a Netapp event". The reconstruct speed is set at the default of 4. The 2 systems are very lightly loaded from a user traffic standpoint, cpu load at under 10% during reads and bursting to 20% during WAFL writes. There are 5 minute periods every 30 minutes when the cpu goes up to 95% during SnapMirror operations. Until there is considerably more user traffic on the F840's, I will not be able to ascertain user impact. My main comment was about the total time to do the scrub. Of course, time isn't the key factor - impact on user file activity would be much more relevant, and I don't have numbers for that yet. -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Sterling Woodcock [mailto:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:36 PM To: Sam Schorr; 'Todd C. Merrill' Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: F840 > One piece of > reality-versus-engineering-claims relates to disk scrubbing. We turned off > disk scrub on the F760's because it really impacted user file access. I was > told this issue would no longer be a problem. Well, it takes the F840's, > each with 12 shelves of 36 gig drives, from 1AM to 2PM (yes, 2 PM) to scrub > under very light load. And the impact on performance was? And your scrub speed was set to? > Another piece of folklore I guess. What folklore? It's not clear from the text that the engineering claim was wrong. 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