toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

RE: vif between 740 & 520 problems & questions
by Thompson, Arnold 08 Sep '00

08 Sep '00

Hi John, You're not doing anything wrong - it's the load-balancing algorithm used by etherchannel that's causing you to use only one interface. In a nutshell, etherchannel does a hash on the last two bits of the source MAC address and comes up with one of four possible combinations. Your NDMPcopy connection starts up on only one port, using a single MAC address, so essentially there are no multiple MAC addresses to load-balance. Additionally, the balancing decision based on this hash is made by an etherchannel-enabled switch, not the Netapp box itself. Etherchannel requires all ports to be on the same switch and only really works when you have multiple clients (and consequently multiple possible hash combinations) accessing one server - it fails completely when you have a single "client" accessing a single server. In brief, to get the best migration performance, use gigabit ethernet between two systems. You can simply reverse the optical cable leads - you don't even need a switch. The good news is that more sophisticated load-balancing algorithms are under consideration, although I can't give you specifics or tell you when Netapp will have them available. Good luck, Arnie > -----Original Message----- > From: John Stoffel [mailto:john@casc.com] > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 7:11 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: vif between 740 & 520 problems & questions > > > > Hi all, > > I've got a couple of questions on setting up and using vifs between > two filers to help speed up data migration from the old F520 to a new > F740. > > They're configed like this: > > F520 F740 > OnTap: 5.2.1 OnTap: 5.3.6p2 > RAM: 256Mb RAM: 512Mb > Quad Ethernet Quad Ethernet > Gigabit Ethernet > > I've networked the two systems together using three ports on each Quad > Ethernet board, but due to distance limitations, I'm going through > three seperate hubs. So the two filers are basically hooked up > back-to-back over a private network. > > I did the various vif commands, and they are setup correctly, and they > are passing traffic properly, but just over one of the three links. I > know I need to upgrade the F520 to match OnTap versions, and will do > so next weekend when I have some down time, but I wanted to play > around with ndmpcopy beforehand to see how the performance will be. > > Doing a test this morning, I managed to crash the new F740 with a PCI > Parity error while doing another test of ndmpcopy. Whee! > > My questions: > > - will vifs work properly across direct connections between filers? > > - Has anyone used a Lucent Cajun P220 switch to implement a VIF? I > could easily run a fiber link from the F740 to a Cajun which would > then run the three ethernet links. > > And while I work for Lucent, the Cajun wasn't made in our division and > I haven't used it. > > Thanks, > John > John Stoffel - Senior Unix Systems Administrator - Lucent > Technologies > stoffel(a)lucent.com - http://www.lucent.com - 978-952-7548 > john.stoffel(a)ascend.com - http://www.ascend.com >

1 0

SUMMARY: vif between 740 & 520 problems & questions
by John Stoffel 08 Sep '00

08 Sep '00

Hi all, The general consensus is that a VIF won't help me at all, since all the data will just go via the primary interface, and won't use the two other interfaces at all. This is what I'm seeing on the system anyway, so I guess I'm out of luck. Thanks for all your comments! John John Stoffel - Senior Unix Systems Administrator - Lucent Technologies stoffel(a)lucent.com - http://www.lucent.com - 978-952-7548 john.stoffel(a)ascend.com - http://www.ascend.com

1 0

vif between 740 & 520 problems & questions
by John Stoffel 08 Sep '00

08 Sep '00

Hi all, I've got a couple of questions on setting up and using vifs between two filers to help speed up data migration from the old F520 to a new F740. They're configed like this: F520 F740 OnTap: 5.2.1 OnTap: 5.3.6p2 RAM: 256Mb RAM: 512Mb Quad Ethernet Quad Ethernet Gigabit Ethernet I've networked the two systems together using three ports on each Quad Ethernet board, but due to distance limitations, I'm going through three seperate hubs. So the two filers are basically hooked up back-to-back over a private network. I did the various vif commands, and they are setup correctly, and they are passing traffic properly, but just over one of the three links. I know I need to upgrade the F520 to match OnTap versions, and will do so next weekend when I have some down time, but I wanted to play around with ndmpcopy beforehand to see how the performance will be. Doing a test this morning, I managed to crash the new F740 with a PCI Parity error while doing another test of ndmpcopy. Whee! My questions: - will vifs work properly across direct connections between filers? - Has anyone used a Lucent Cajun P220 switch to implement a VIF? I could easily run a fiber link from the F740 to a Cajun which would then run the three ethernet links. And while I work for Lucent, the Cajun wasn't made in our division and I haven't used it. Thanks, John John Stoffel - Senior Unix Systems Administrator - Lucent Technologies stoffel(a)lucent.com - http://www.lucent.com - 978-952-7548 john.stoffel(a)ascend.com - http://www.ascend.com

1 0

FC card slot exchange helped us [Was : gigabit ethernet performance]
by kubek 08 Sep '00

08 Sep '00

I do not have a solution but maybe these experiments done with a 720 may help (I must thank our local reseller support here :). We received an F720 some weeks ago (quad ethernet / FC9) A 'systat 1' showed a really bad performance on the administrative Ethernet (100M) interface : the filer was inputting ~4MB/s when creating a 100MB file from a Sparc. By moving the FC card from the slot 8 to the slot 2 and rebooting the (little:() beast we are now going to ~11MB/s . Seems that netapp hardware layer is as poor as some PC cards builders :( Maybe the trick will work for you : try to move your FC card from its current slot (8?) to another one. Jean-Marie

1 0

Budtool woes
by Clawson, Simon 07 Sep '00

07 Sep '00

Hi! We have Budtool 4.6.1, and are currently looking for a replacement. However... I am bacing up a single volume filer with nearly 200GB of data - my backup is constanlty failing due to the process running out of time..anyone seen this? Is there a way round it? Can I increse the allowable time? Can I split the backup into several levels? HELP! Simon Simon Clawson Renoir Group Systems Administrator Mentor Graphics Uk Rivergate London Road Newbury Berkshire RG14 2QB <<Clawson, Simon.vcf>>

4 4

question1:exportfs -au crash ORACLE daemon; question2:snapshot di r. confusion
by Li, Jack 07 Sep '00

07 Sep '00

Hi, Question#1: We have a F740 filer used as the Oracle DB storage. Our platform is : Sun-Solaris 2.7, SUN 420R,using Giga-bit private connection into filer; using recommended NFS mount options for Oracle 816. Situation: when we have a request to "expand" our filer for sharing (exportfs), and as the time the Oracle daemons were running. We changed the filer's /etc/exports, then executed "exportfs -au", "exportfs -a". And, right after those 2 command to the filer, ALL our Oracle daemons crashed and died. Is that supposed to happen? Question#2: We tried to write a SHELL script to automate our daily (filer) snapshot operation. During the course of testing, we found out a very annoying situation. (The HW/SW specification are the same as above.) There is a Q-tree called "/vol/vol01/ismis_oracle_u1" and is mounted under this machine at the mount point of "/oracle/u1". The problem happened after the snapshot was taken. One of our team member set the source PATH (wrong) to /oracle/u1/oradata/.snapshot in the script (supposed to be "/oracle/u1/.snapshot"). And, this PATH actually worked some of the time. But, when it failed , it showed the error message as "cp: can not find files /oracle/u1/oradata/.snapshot/*". Interesting thing is if we insert a "/bin/ls /orcale/u1/oradata/.snapshot/*" right before the "cp" command, the directory seems to be there after the command , hence the "cp" operation was happy. Any idea? Thanks! Jack Li UNIX System Admin. Team, Toronto Production Support, Capital Markets, Nesbitt Burns Emf!sys, Division of Bank of Montreal Group of Company 416-867-3527,(fax)416-867-7157 <mailto:Jack.Li@bmo.com> Jack.Li(a)bmo.com

3 2

RE: dlt autoloaders
by Premanshu Jain 07 Sep '00

07 Sep '00

I would like to discuss with you in detail about implementing NDMP via gig bit .Let me know the best time I should call. thanks prem Premanshu Jain IS Engineering Support Lead Nortel Networks, Carrier Packet Solutions IP Services Division 2305, Mission College Blvd, Santa Clara, CA 95054 Direct: (408) 565-3573 ESN: 655-3573 eMail: prjain(a)shastanets.com Web: http://www.nortelnetworks.com/ipservices -----Original Message----- From: Kamenzin, Marcus [mailto:kamenzin@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 1:57 PM To: Premanshu Jain; 'Stephen J. Wilcox'; neil lehrer Cc: toasters Subject: RE: dlt autoloaders Hi there, a) AIT II is really good!! b) Quick Restore is the best NDMP-Solution (best NDMP-implementation - really 3-way) c) Don't use FC-Backup, only if you really want the advantage of tape sharing. The supported FC-Backup-solution has a lot of limitations. So, use direct att. SCSI or new Libraries with implemented NDMP-Servers via GBit. Regards Marcus Marcus Kamenzin System Engineer Network Appliance GmbH Unterreut 6 D-76135 Karlsruhe Tel.: (0721) 86901-17 Fax: (0721) 86901-11 Mobile: (0170) 4464341 Mail: kamenzin(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Premanshu Jain [SMTP:PrJain@shastanets.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 6:15 PM > To: 'Stephen J. Wilcox'; neil lehrer > Cc: toasters > Subject: RE: dlt autoloaders > > a) Why don't you try AIT II instead of DLT. I am getting excellant > performance on those 8 mm. Writing more that 100 GB per tape. We are using > Qualstar and spectra logic tape libraries. > > b) Veritas seems to be OK. With lot of limitations and bugs. I have heard of > a better s/w from www.worksta.com > > c) You may use a Vixel Fibre channal switch with fibre channal interfaces on > the concerened servers and the Filers. This will enable accessing tpaes from > anywhere. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen J. Wilcox [mailto:steve@opaltelecom.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 1:07 AM > To: neil lehrer > Cc: toasters > Subject: Re: dlt autoloaders > > > Actually on that subject I am looking to buy a system soon, I'm thinking > of getting an HP surestore library and using Veritas. Theres a lot of > systems to back up altho they dont have that much data on them, then I > have (for now 1) netfiler, does anyone > > a) think surestore are good? > b) think veritas is good? > c) know if i can do anything to save time by directly connecting the tape > library to the filer hence bypassing the server but still keeping the tape > accessible from the server in order to do my network backups? > > Steve > > -- > Stephen J. Wilcox > Internet Manager, Opal Telecom > http://www.opaltelecom.co.uk/ > Tel: 0161 222 2000 > Fax: 0161 222 2008 > > On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, neil lehrer wrote: > > > hi, > > > > i'd like recommendations for a dlt autoloader to be attached to an f760 > > and controlled by legato. thanks. > > -- > >

1 0

RE: dlt autoloaders
by Kamenzin, Marcus 07 Sep '00

07 Sep '00

Hi there, a) AIT II is really good!! b) Quick Restore is the best NDMP-Solution (best NDMP-implementation - really 3-way) c) Don't use FC-Backup, only if you really want the advantage of tape sharing. The supported FC-Backup-solution has a lot of limitations. So, use direct att. SCSI or new Libraries with implemented NDMP-Servers via GBit. Regards Marcus Marcus Kamenzin System Engineer Network Appliance GmbH Unterreut 6 D-76135 Karlsruhe Tel.: (0721) 86901-17 Fax: (0721) 86901-11 Mobile: (0170) 4464341 Mail: kamenzin(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Premanshu Jain [SMTP:PrJain@shastanets.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 6:15 PM > To: 'Stephen J. Wilcox'; neil lehrer > Cc: toasters > Subject: RE: dlt autoloaders > > a) Why don't you try AIT II instead of DLT. I am getting excellant > performance on those 8 mm. Writing more that 100 GB per tape. We are using > Qualstar and spectra logic tape libraries. > > b) Veritas seems to be OK. With lot of limitations and bugs. I have heard of > a better s/w from www.worksta.com > > c) You may use a Vixel Fibre channal switch with fibre channal interfaces on > the concerened servers and the Filers. This will enable accessing tpaes from > anywhere. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen J. Wilcox [mailto:steve@opaltelecom.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 1:07 AM > To: neil lehrer > Cc: toasters > Subject: Re: dlt autoloaders > > > Actually on that subject I am looking to buy a system soon, I'm thinking > of getting an HP surestore library and using Veritas. Theres a lot of > systems to back up altho they dont have that much data on them, then I > have (for now 1) netfiler, does anyone > > a) think surestore are good? > b) think veritas is good? > c) know if i can do anything to save time by directly connecting the tape > library to the filer hence bypassing the server but still keeping the tape > accessible from the server in order to do my network backups? > > Steve > > -- > Stephen J. Wilcox > Internet Manager, Opal Telecom > http://www.opaltelecom.co.uk/ > Tel: 0161 222 2000 > Fax: 0161 222 2008 > > On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, neil lehrer wrote: > > > hi, > > > > i'd like recommendations for a dlt autoloader to be attached to an f760 > > and controlled by legato. thanks. > > -- > >

1 0

RE: dlt autoloaders
by Premanshu Jain 07 Sep '00

07 Sep '00

a) Why don't you try AIT II instead of DLT. I am getting excellant performance on those 8 mm. Writing more that 100 GB per tape. We are using Qualstar and spectra logic tape libraries. b) Veritas seems to be OK. With lot of limitations and bugs. I have heard of a better s/w from www.worksta.com c) You may use a Vixel Fibre channal switch with fibre channal interfaces on the concerened servers and the Filers. This will enable accessing tpaes from anywhere. -----Original Message----- From: Stephen J. Wilcox [mailto:steve@opaltelecom.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 1:07 AM To: neil lehrer Cc: toasters Subject: Re: dlt autoloaders Actually on that subject I am looking to buy a system soon, I'm thinking of getting an HP surestore library and using Veritas. Theres a lot of systems to back up altho they dont have that much data on them, then I have (for now 1) netfiler, does anyone a) think surestore are good? b) think veritas is good? c) know if i can do anything to save time by directly connecting the tape library to the filer hence bypassing the server but still keeping the tape accessible from the server in order to do my network backups? Steve -- Stephen J. Wilcox Internet Manager, Opal Telecom http://www.opaltelecom.co.uk/ Tel: 0161 222 2000 Fax: 0161 222 2008 On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, neil lehrer wrote: > hi, > > i'd like recommendations for a dlt autoloader to be attached to an f760 > and controlled by legato. thanks. > -- >

1 0

Re: gigabit ethernet performance
by Marcus Smiley 07 Sep '00

07 Sep '00

two of 'em (450MHZ), with 2GB RAM. On Wed, 06 Sep 2000, Jim Patterson wrote: ! Marcus, ! ! How many CPUs do you have in your 220R? We have found that a single CPU ! is needed just to keep the network interface busy so the minimum ! configuration to get better than 10MB/sec is two CPUs. ! ! Jim ! -- ! Jim Patterson ! Pfizer Global Research and Development, La Jolla ! ! Marcus Smiley | Ericsson Wireless Communications, Inc. Unix Sys Admin | 6210 Spine Rd. Boulder, CO 80301 | Ph (303) 473-6903

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