toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

[toasters] Problems with quotas (or Hurrah ! my first core dump )
by kubek 12 Sep '00

12 Sep '00

Hi, I just populated our F720 but noticed that I forgot some "quota off -- quota on" command sequence in order to enable the last modification i did on quotas... ... I'm still waiting for the output of the "quota on" command as since then the filer is cyclicly trying to dump core (see screenshot at the end of this message) : After each boot the filer notices that the "quota on" command was interrupted by a reboot, it tries to initialize the quotas and then ... reboot Does someone on this list know how to break this cycle ? Either by modifying the quota file (throught the floppy boot menu) or by forcing a reboot *without* quota initialization ? Thanks, Jean-Marie ----- Screenshot of the error message NetApp Release 5.3.6R1: Wed Jun 14 18:21:14 PDT 2000 Copyright (c) 1992-2000 Network Appliance, Inc. Starting boot on Tue Sep 12 17:49:29 GMT 2000 Scanning for disk drives: .......Tue Sep 12 17:49:51 GMT [de0]: Ethernet e0: Link up. Configuring disk drives: 2.5 2.1 2.6 2.2 2.0 2.3 2.4 Disk 2.0 is reserved for "hot spare" 1 disk is reserved for "hot spare". Restoring parity from NVRAM Loading volume vol0 Tue Sep 12 17:49:55 GMT [rc]: wafl: Reboot interrupted quota initialization. Will attempt to reinitialize quotas on volume vol0 after WAFL has started. Replaying WAFL log PANIC: ../common/wafl/quota.c:1863: Assertion failure. on release NetApp Release 5.3.6R1 on Tue Sep 12 17:49:57 2000 version: NetApp Release 5.3.6R1: Wed Jun 14 18:21:14 PDT 2000 cc flags: 1 dumping core: ......Old core present on disk --- not dumped.

2 4

RE: [toasters] Problems with quotas (or Hurrah ! my first core du mp )
by Pettit, Simon 12 Sep '00

12 Sep '00

Please check bug number 26472 This is probably caused by an error in the quotas file. this is fixed in 5.3.6R2 Quick suggestion is boot from floppy upgrade to 5.3.6R2 and find the error in quotas file!! Please check with support on this if you have a case open!! Regards Simon P. -----Original Message----- From: David Schairer [mailto:njal@concentric.net] Sent: 12 September 2000 20:08 To: kubek Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: [toasters] Problems with quotas (or Hurrah ! my first core dump ) Boot via floppy, remove the /etc/quotas file. I'm 99% sure that quota initialization will abort with a warning if it's not there. --DRS On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 08:48:37PM +0200, kubek wrote: > Hi, > I just populated our F720 but noticed that I forgot some > "quota off -- quota on" > command sequence in order to enable the last modification i did > on quotas... > > ... I'm still waiting for the output of the "quota on" command as > since then the filer is cyclicly trying to dump core (see > screenshot at the end of this message) : > > After each boot the filer notices that the "quota on" command was > interrupted by a reboot, it tries to initialize the quotas > and then ... reboot > > Does someone on this list know how to break this cycle ? Either > by modifying the quota file (throught the floppy boot menu) or > by forcing a reboot *without* quota initialization ? > > Thanks, > Jean-Marie > > ----- Screenshot of the error message > > NetApp Release 5.3.6R1: Wed Jun 14 18:21:14 PDT 2000 > Copyright (c) 1992-2000 Network Appliance, Inc. > Starting boot on Tue Sep 12 17:49:29 GMT 2000 > Scanning for disk drives: .......Tue Sep 12 17:49:51 GMT [de0]: Ethernet e0: Link up. > > Configuring disk drives: 2.5 2.1 2.6 2.2 2.0 2.3 2.4 > Disk 2.0 is reserved for "hot spare" > > 1 disk is reserved for "hot spare". > Restoring parity from NVRAM > Loading volume vol0 > Tue Sep 12 17:49:55 GMT [rc]: wafl: Reboot interrupted quota initialization. > Will attempt to reinitialize quotas on volume vol0 after WAFL has started. > Replaying WAFL log > > PANIC: ../common/wafl/quota.c:1863: Assertion failure. on release NetApp Release 5.3.6R1 on Tue Sep 12 17:49:57 2000 > > version: NetApp Release 5.3.6R1: Wed Jun 14 18:21:14 PDT 2000 > cc flags: 1 > dumping core: ......Old core present on disk --- not dumped. >

1 0

Using Omniback for CIFS backups
by Clarke, John L. (CIS) 12 Sep '00

12 Sep '00

> Hello, > > I am looking for anyone who is using Omniback II to back up a Network > Appliance via CIFS. We have an F740 mounted on the tape backup server as > shared disks and we are finding that Omniback does not want to back up all > the directories on the filer. > > Has anyone done this successfully? > > Thanks > John

1 0

comments on netapp filers cifs performance
by neil lehrer 12 Sep '00

12 Sep '00

hi, i'd appreciate hearing what you think of the cifs performance on netapp filers. i am considering a f760, our wkstations are primarily nt 4.0 sp5. thanks --

2 2

RE: AIT libraries
by Premanshu Jain 12 Sep '00

12 Sep '00

Yes Qualstar's are really good. We are implementing them now. We could dump 105 GB (Unix format data) on a AIT2 tape. This compression depends on the type of data you are backing up. The CIFS data blocks dumped only upto 60-70 GB per tape. -----Original Message----- From: Larry Goodman [mailto:Larry.Goodman@Intense3D.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 6:45 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: AIT libraries If any of you kind toaster'ites have experience with AIT2 tape libraries, I'd like to here your advice about the different brands available. I've been researching these devices and they all seem to claim pretty much the same specs (duh, they're all using the same Sony drive!). I'm particularly interested in the durability of the robotics. I've been looking at libraries from Spectra Logic, Qualstar, Adic and Overland Data, usually providing from 12 to 24 slots (single drive). The Qualstar folks claim that they're the only supplier that uses a "lead-screw" design instead of belts for better reliability. Any comments? Thanks, Larry.Goodman(a)Intense3d.com

1 0

RE: 2 volumes or 1
by Walters, Mike 11 Sep '00

11 Sep '00

You don't mention what size drives they are (9/18/36GB). As a rule, however, I would suggest that you are correct in thinking you would be better off combining disks to make a single volume. You can use qtrees to segragate data (& give more control if some is NFS & some CIFS, for example). I believe that your 'heavy reads & writes' will benefit from the larger raid group. You would obviously need to destroy vol1 before adding disks to vol0. Just one minor point - I presume you do have a spare disk as well - if not, & you have a disk fail, the filer will squawk at hourly intervals complaining, then if you don't add a drive, shutdown after 24 hours (options raid.timeout defaults to 24 [hours] to configure this) on the basis that you don't want to run degraded for any significant time. Cheers Mike UK SE -----Original Message----- From: Pesce, Nicholas (FUSA) [mailto:Nicholaspesce@firstusa.com] Sent: 11 September 2000 21:30 To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: 2 volumes or 1 Gentlemen, I need your opinion on a creation I am about to unleash on our unsuspecting production site where I work. I currently have a 740 filer with 2 shelves and 7 disks. 3 disks are in the first shelf and configured for volume 0 root volume 4 disks are inthe second shelf and configured for volume 1 Now, since I didn't put this box together. I was wondering if it is better to make all of these disks one volume. There are heavy reads and writes to the volume1, but I don't know if having a heavily used volume combined with root functions will kill my performance. Besides this will make a larger volume for more distributed writes (8 total disks versus 4). Also I will be saving 1 disk of data space because I won't need the second parity disk. Addition information is that they are fibre channel shelves (of course). And that the data is not important (washed away daily). Assuming that the root volume functions do not critically affect my box (and I don't believe that they do, as most of it is running from memory) I believe my choice is correct. Just wondering if you guys agree with this hypothesis or not. Nicholas Pesce Internet Production Services Phone: 847 488-6384 Pager: 888 785 3455 Fax: 847 488 3434

1 0

RE: Restricting CIFS
by Hawley, Rob 11 Sep '00

11 Sep '00

The WINS server must be able to ping each interface on the filer that you want to register with WINS. In situations like you describe where you have a private network that should not be registered with WINS, then you need to turn off WINS registration on that interface. You do that by adding a -wins parameter to the ifconfig for the interface. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ mailto: hawleyr(a)netapp.com US Mail: Network Appliance Inc. Windows Networking Engineering 495 E Java Dr Phone/pager: 408-822-6661 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 http://www.netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Graydon Dodson [mailto:grdodson@lexmark.com] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 1:09 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Restricting CIFS Anyone know of a way to restrict CIFS on a filer to certain network interfaces. Specificaly we need to turn it off on one interface. This interface is to a private net and we keep getting: No WINS servers are responding; still trying warnings clogging up the log. We want CIFS on the other interfaces and it can easily contact the wins servers on those nets. Thanks. Graydon Dodson grdodson(a)lexmark.com Lexmark International Inc.

1 0

RE: Restricting CIFS
by Benn, Paul 11 Sep '00

11 Sep '00

you can disable wins on just that interface by entering: filer> ifconfig <interface> -wins -----Original Message----- From: Graydon Dodson [mailto:grdodson@lexmark.com] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 1:09 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Restricting CIFS Anyone know of a way to restrict CIFS on a filer to certain network interfaces. Specificaly we need to turn it off on one interface. This interface is to a private net and we keep getting: No WINS servers are responding; still trying warnings clogging up the log. We want CIFS on the other interfaces and it can easily contact the wins servers on those nets. Thanks. Graydon Dodson grdodson(a)lexmark.com Lexmark International Inc.

1 0

Restricting CIFS
by Graydon Dodson 11 Sep '00

11 Sep '00

Anyone know of a way to restrict CIFS on a filer to certain network interfaces. Specificaly we need to turn it off on one interface. This interface is to a private net and we keep getting: No WINS servers are responding; still trying warnings clogging up the log. We want CIFS on the other interfaces and it can easily contact the wins servers on those nets. Thanks. Graydon Dodson grdodson(a)lexmark.com Lexmark International Inc.

2 1

RE: Restricting CIFS
by Krause, Oliver 11 Sep '00

11 Sep '00

You cannot restrict CIFS to an interface. you get rid of the error message if you configure the private interface with the "-wins" option. Then the filer doesn't try to register this ip on the wins server. Oliver > -----Original Message----- > From: Graydon Dodson [mailto:grdodson@lexmark.com] > Sent: Montag, 11. September 2000 22:09 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Restricting CIFS > > > > Anyone know of a way to restrict CIFS on a filer to certain > network interfaces. > Specificaly we need to turn it off on one interface. This > interface is to > a private net and we keep getting: > > No WINS servers are responding; still trying > > warnings clogging up the log. We want CIFS on the other > interfaces and it can > easily contact the wins servers on those nets. > > > Thanks. > > Graydon Dodson > grdodson(a)lexmark.com > Lexmark International Inc. >

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