toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

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

RE: ontap 6.0 only 350 cif-sessions?
by Bagg, Rod 26 Sep '00

26 Sep '00

Various load, configuration, and performance testing and analysis were done at length on ONTAP 6.0 before its release. Unfortunately we can't catch all bugs in every possible scenario. We are taking immediate action to understand the root cause of why this bug was not discovered internally and correct the situation. Rod... -----Original Message----- From: Ulrich Neumann [mailto:ulrich.neumann@brose.de] Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 1:42 AM To: Bagg, Rod; andrew-m.webster(a)db.com Cc: ulrich.neumann(a)brose.de; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: ontap 6.0 only 350 cif-sessions? would ontap 6.0 not be tested in a highload system? i can't believe it ... thank you for the information ... and the response. newmy -----Original Message----- From: Bagg, Rod [mailto:rod.bagg@netapp.com] Sent: Dienstag, 26. September 2000 01:41 To: 'andrew-m.webster(a)db.com' Cc: 'ulrich.neumann(a)brose.de'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: ontap 6.0 only 350 cif-sessions? We have identified bug 30873 which can impact CIFS performance in ONTAP 6.0 when the number of active CIFS sessions on a filer exceeds 200. Symptoms of the problem can be client session disconnects, hangs or very poor CIFS performance. A 'cifs stat' would typically show the counter named 'Max pBlk Exhaust' to be a very high number - 100,000s or more. We have identified the root cause of this problem and have developed the fix which is currently undergoing QA and load testing. ONTAP release 6.0R1 is tentatively scheduled to be released by the end of this week to resolve this bug. You can view the online bug report on the NOW site at: http://now.netapp.com/NOW/cgi-bin/bugfind.on?bugs=30873&rels= On this same link, you can click on "Bug Watcher" to be automatically notified when the bug fix has been released. Rod Bagg Manager, Sustaining Engineering Network Appliance 408-822-6042 (office) 408-205-9533 (cell) 408-994-2696 (pager) 408-822-4410 (fax) Get answers NOW! - NetApp On the Web http://now.netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Datta, Diptish > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 12:19 PM > To: Bagg, Rod > Subject: FW: ontap 6.0 only 350 cif-sessions? > > > From: andrew-m.webster(a)db.com [mailto:andrew-m.webster@db.com] > <mailto:[mailto:andrew-m.webster@db.com]> > Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 8:17 AM > To: ulrich.neumann(a)brose.de > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: ontap 6.0 only 350 cif-sessions? > > > > > Greetings from Japan, > > We had much the same issue. If you are seeing the same thing, then the "Max > pBlk Exhaust" from the "cifs stat" goes into the millions. It's normally at 0. > We had to rollback to OnTap 5, which wasn't that easy. > We basically had a full day outage, which for an Investment Bank was a very > bad thing. :-( > Regards > > -- > Andrew Webster > PC, NetApp Filer, TSM > Sanno Move Project > Deutsche Real Estate Consulting Ltd. - Tokyo > Internal (but outside Tokyo): 88 408-7542 > Tel. +81-3-5156-7542 > Fax. +81-3--5156-4811 > Mobile: 0907 184 8958 > > Andrew-M.Webster(a)db.com > > > > ---------------------------------------- Message History > ---------------------------------------- > > From: ulrich.neumann(a)brose.de on 22/09/2000 12:16 PM GMT > > > > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > cc: > Subject: ontap 6.0 only 350 cif-sessions? > > > > we just upgrated to ontap 6.0 on out clustered f760. unfortunately wehn more > than 350 connection over cifs are established, the filer isn't responding > anymore. the http and nfs-connections word furthermore. only the cifs > connections are lost an d cannot be established. after a reboot the filer > works till around 350 connections. > > any ideas? > > greetings from germany > Brose Fahrzeugteile > Client-Server-Technologien > > > Ulrich Neumann > > >

1 0

RE: F840
by Sam Schorr 26 Sep '00

26 Sep '00

Good news! I was incorrect in stating that volcopy/Snapmirror would not work. this information came through a misunderstanding, and has now been clarified. I am very, very pleased to be corrected on this as it makes our migration strategy in upgrading from some older F760's with 9 gig drives to the F840's w/36 gig drives a snap (pun intended). -----Original Message----- From: Mike Federwisch [mailto:mikef@netapp.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 8:40 AM To: Sam Schorr Cc: 'Todd C. Merrill'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: F840 > We have 2 F840's in production along side 12 F760's. The big "gotcha" for > us is that you cannot volcopy or Snapmirror between 5.3.6H1 and the F760 > 5.3.6 O/S - really not so good in our case as I would love to use volcopy to > migrate from the F760 to the F840. These things scream, but its early to > compare as our load ramps up. 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. Another piece of folklore I guess. I would really like to hear where you heard that you cannot snapmirror or vol copy between 5.3.6H1 and 5.3.6. This should work just fine and we do different variations of this internally to netapp. Please let me know where you heard this so that I can find out why this rumor started and hopefully stop it from being propagated. If it really didn't work, I would expect a bug to have been filed and I haven't seem one complaining about this situation. Mike Federwisch Network Appliance Inc.

1 0

RE: F840
by Sam Schorr 26 Sep '00

26 Sep '00

We have 2 F840's in production along side 12 F760's. The big "gotcha" for us is that you cannot volcopy or Snapmirror between 5.3.6H1 and the F760 5.3.6 O/S - really not so good in our case as I would love to use volcopy to migrate from the F760 to the F840. These things scream, but its early to compare as our load ramps up. 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. Another piece of folklore I guess. -----Original Message----- From: Todd C. Merrill [mailto:tmerrill@mathworks.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 4:39 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: F840 Okay, so it appears as if the F840 runs ONTAP 5.3.6H1, and the "Start Here" documentation says (p. 10) that "This release runs only on F840 filers." Hmmm... Hmmmm.... Uh-oh. There is no common release that will run on the F760's I already have, so I can test how things go there first before putting this champagne beauty through its paces? Plus, it's not clear (and I think I know the answer to this) how one might take the root volume on a shelf/shelves from an F760 to an F840. If I can't install 5.3.6H1 on an F760.... And, I assume the alpha boot code on my existing F760's won't boot the new F840's... Answer: Catch-22! That puts me into a pickle. "I don't want a pickle; I just wanna ride on my motorsickle..." I'm gonna continue digging through NOW and the docs, but if anyone can respond to me before I give a call into our VAR or NetApp support tomorrow... <help> (Man, that NVRAM battery is *big*!) Until next time... The Mathworks, Inc. 508-647-7000 x7792 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick, MA 01760-2098 508-647-7001 FAX tmerrill(a)mathworks.com http://www.mathworks.com ---

3 3

tar against netapp NFS exported FS reports ACL errors?
by Herbert Kornfeld 26 Sep '00

26 Sep '00

I'm running HP-UX 11 and mounting a handful of filesystems ovber NFS v3 from a filer. This is fine. The only fly in the ointment is that when I use tar to backup a small set of files, I get error messages like these: "optional ACL entries for </foo/bar/baz> not dumped" I understand that I can avoid these messages with the A switch to tar, but I don't understand what these ACLs are, how tar knows they're there and how they got set. I certainly haven't set any extra ACLs up -- I'm relying purely on the native rwx type permissions here. Can anyone enlighten me? --herb end _________________________________________________________________________ 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

NetApp Filer
by Klaus Wiedemann 26 Sep '00

26 Sep '00

Hi, which company uses the NetApp filer with ONTAP 6.0? If you use CIFS: How many users/sessions ? Regards Brose Fahrzeugteile GmbH & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft, Coburg Basisssysteme und Systemprogrammierung i.V. Klaus Wiedemann

1 0

RE: ontap 6.0 only 350 cif-sessions?
by Ulrich Neumann 26 Sep '00

26 Sep '00

would ontap 6.0 not be tested in a highload system? i can't believe it ... thank you for the information ... and the response. newmy -----Original Message----- From: Bagg, Rod [mailto:rod.bagg@netapp.com] Sent: Dienstag, 26. September 2000 01:41 To: 'andrew-m.webster(a)db.com' Cc: 'ulrich.neumann(a)brose.de'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: ontap 6.0 only 350 cif-sessions? We have identified bug 30873 which can impact CIFS performance in ONTAP 6.0 when the number of active CIFS sessions on a filer exceeds 200. Symptoms of the problem can be client session disconnects, hangs or very poor CIFS performance. A 'cifs stat' would typically show the counter named 'Max pBlk Exhaust' to be a very high number - 100,000s or more. We have identified the root cause of this problem and have developed the fix which is currently undergoing QA and load testing. ONTAP release 6.0R1 is tentatively scheduled to be released by the end of this week to resolve this bug. You can view the online bug report on the NOW site at: http://now.netapp.com/NOW/cgi-bin/bugfind.on?bugs=30873&rels= On this same link, you can click on "Bug Watcher" to be automatically notified when the bug fix has been released. Rod Bagg Manager, Sustaining Engineering Network Appliance 408-822-6042 (office) 408-205-9533 (cell) 408-994-2696 (pager) 408-822-4410 (fax) Get answers NOW! - NetApp On the Web http://now.netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Datta, Diptish > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 12:19 PM > To: Bagg, Rod > Subject: FW: ontap 6.0 only 350 cif-sessions? > > > From: andrew-m.webster(a)db.com [mailto:andrew-m.webster@db.com] > <mailto:[mailto:andrew-m.webster@db.com]> > Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 8:17 AM > To: ulrich.neumann(a)brose.de > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: ontap 6.0 only 350 cif-sessions? > > > > > Greetings from Japan, > > We had much the same issue. If you are seeing the same thing, then the "Max > pBlk Exhaust" from the "cifs stat" goes into the millions. It's normally at 0. > We had to rollback to OnTap 5, which wasn't that easy. > We basically had a full day outage, which for an Investment Bank was a very > bad thing. :-( > Regards > > -- > Andrew Webster > PC, NetApp Filer, TSM > Sanno Move Project > Deutsche Real Estate Consulting Ltd. - Tokyo > Internal (but outside Tokyo): 88 408-7542 > Tel. +81-3-5156-7542 > Fax. +81-3--5156-4811 > Mobile: 0907 184 8958 > > Andrew-M.Webster(a)db.com > > > > ---------------------------------------- Message History > ---------------------------------------- > > From: ulrich.neumann(a)brose.de on 22/09/2000 12:16 PM GMT > > > > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > cc: > Subject: ontap 6.0 only 350 cif-sessions? > > > > we just upgrated to ontap 6.0 on out clustered f760. unfortunately wehn more > than 350 connection over cifs are established, the filer isn't responding > anymore. the http and nfs-connections word furthermore. only the cifs > connections are lost an d cannot be established. after a reboot the filer > works till around 350 connections. > > any ideas? > > greetings from germany > Brose Fahrzeugteile > Client-Server-Technologien > > > Ulrich Neumann > > >

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