toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

Quota command for users
by Dawn Hamel 14 Aug '00

14 Aug '00

Hi All, Anyone out there have code to allow users to check their own quotas which can not only run on HP-UX 10.20 and 11.0, but also under NT4? I have code from Guy Harris that compiled under Solaris ... but I need portable code Just thought I would check to make sure I am not re-inventing the wheel Thanks, Dawn Systems Programmer SAS Institute, Inc

1 0

Re: Bad NFS performance with Linux.. please help
by Darrell Fuhriman 13 Aug '00

13 Aug '00

chris_good(a)webtop.com (Chris Good) writes: > Unless someone fixes the problem pretty soon our strategy is > going to move away from filers everywhere to just a couple of filers at > the centre of the network. Anyone else think it would be worth netapp Heh, that smacks of shooting the messenger. It silly to blame the server, when it's clearly the client's fault. Darrell

4 3

RE: Filer storage for databases, seriously? (Was: Re: NetApp ques tions)
by Pesce, Nicholas (FUSA) 12 Aug '00

12 Aug '00

I'm sorry Keith. But I've heard this argument before. NFS versus Direct attatch storage? I'm going to have to vote for a good direct attach solution. Why? NFS and CIFS have huge overhead. Also, I took a look at the link you provided. The information was incomplete at best snip: .The following results were obtained with Bluecurve's Dynameasure SQL Professional product. We were running MS SQL Server 6.5 on a Dell 4200 with two 200 Mhz Pentium Pro CPUs and 512 Mb of RAM. The local disk was on a Dell PowerEdge RAID adapter with 6 9Gb UltraSCSI disks. The filer was an F630 with 512 Mb of RAM, and 14 9Gb UltraSCSI disks. The Dell was running RAID 0. The Filer, needless to say, was running RAID 4. snip What were the speeds of the drives? The CPU information here is important but not compared to drive information. Also I'd like to point out that writing to 3 disks (you are using raid 0 so the 6 disks are now effectively 3) spindles is most likely going to be slower than writing to 14 spindles. Following the logic of this link. (ignoring obvious disk information questions) Netapp would like me to believe that a machine running a non-parity raid platform (mirroring) and having a low protocol overhead (scsi) is slower that a Network appliance running a parity system (raid 4) and running NFS or CIFS (I'm assuming it was CIFS because it was a MS sequel server, but I could be incorrect). I think I would like to see a test where the Disk sizes and number were similar, I sincerely doubt the Netapp would do as well. I believe that Network Appliances are solid machines that perform their functions effectively, but they are NOT a replacement for direct attach where speed is essential. -----Original Message----- From: rdobbins(a)netmore.net [mailto:rdobbins@netmore.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 8:47 PM To: keith(a)netapp.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Filer storage for databases, seriously? (Was: Re: NetApp ques tions) No one thoughout recorded history, apart from assorted nuts, has ever believed that the Earth was flat; Eratosthenes calculated both its circumference to within 1% of the true value as well its tilt relative to the plane of the ecliptic no later than 200 B.C. The only real problem was that of terra incognita - i.e., nobody knew exactly where the landmasses were located until a) someone sailed there, and b) accurate chronometers were developed by John Harrison in the 18th Century, enabling navigators to calculate longitude with a high degree of accuracy, and then relay that information to cartographers. Advances in spherical geometry a la Mercator assisted the latter group, of course. Historical canards aside, let me restate that I'm very interested in hearing about production experience with NetApp filers and Oracle over NFS. I've a 740 with a Gigabit Ethernet interface, plugged into a Catalyst 5509 doing MPLS, and so would be willing to entertain the notion if someone can give me anything beyond benchmarks. I know all about snapshots and all that, by the bye. It's -performance- which is the question. Thanks for the pointer to the link, I'll be sure and check it out. ----------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins(a)netmore.net> // 818.535.5024 voice -----Original Message----- From: Keith Brown [mailto:keith@netapp.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 5:48 PM To: rdobbins(a)netmore.net; Perry.Jiang(a)bmo.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Filer storage for databases, seriously? (Was: Re: NetApp questions) > As to running Oracle with the data and logfiles on a filer via NFS, > I should think that even with a NetApp using Gigabit Ethernet, > you'd take a -huge- performance hit as compared to a local > disk array. Beware conventional wisdom Roland. People used to think the Earth was flat too. :-) While I wouldn't be so bold as to *guarantee* performance boosts in utilizing the filer storage approach for every database application under the Sun, the simple fact is that filers contain a myriad of features that are very attractive to the database market, and NetApp now draws a significant and growing portion of its revenues from this space. Snapshots & SnapRestore greatly simplify and enhance database backup and restore environs. The WAFL RAID design puts failure resiliancy into the disk subsystem without forcing you take the performance hits inherent in general purpose RAID-5 designs or going to disk-doubling RAID-1 approaches. SnapMirror gives you database replication to offsite locations for disaster recovery purposes. WAFL's ready expandibility lets you make room for growing databases without disrupting their operation. The list goes on... Oh.. and yes... performance very often gets a shot in the arm too! > I've no empirical data > to back this up, mind you; Don't worry. Nobody ever does, not even our direct-attach competitors, not that they can be too harshly criticized. Meaningful performance comparisons are tricky to architect, usually have a short shelf life, and customers have an understandable tendency not to believe vendor funded benchmarks anyway (due to the fact that the vendor performing and/or funding the benchmark almost always wins!). Nevertheless, we did publish a relatively innocuous one some time ago, which can be viewed here: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3044.html > it's just that there's so much overhead > associated with NFS even on an optimized platform > like the NetApp filer, I can't see it as being a win. There are certainly some "swings-and-roundabouts"-type things to consider when looking at the two approaches, and some people do conclude that there is more overhead in the network attach approach, dismissing it offhand. However, as far as performance goes, all the theory in the world is no substitute for the practical experience that could be gained by trying a solution for the application you have and actually bearing witness to how well it works and what it performs like. > If there's anyone out there with Oracle experience on filers > via NFS, either pro or con, I'd love to hear from you. I'm hoping there will be some on this list. As I mentioned, beware conventional wisdom. America might have been discovered hundreds of years before Columbus sailed over the horizon, if only all his ancestors hadn't been terrified of falling off the edge of the world! Keith

5 4

Re: Bad NFS performance with Linux.. please help
by Mohan Srinivasan 12 Aug '00

12 Aug '00

--- Chris Good <chris_good(a)webtop.com> wrote: > Unless someone fixes the problem pretty soon our strategy is > going to move away from filers everywhere to just a couple of filers at > the centre of the network. Anyone else think it would be worth netapp > sponsoring someone to fix up the linux nfs client to perform well under > load? I'm guessing that the cost-benefit to netapp would be pretty > convinving. Did you pick up NFSv3 client support and the latest NFS performance/stability patches from nfs.sourceforge.net ? Client performance (and stability) improved considerably after I picked up these patches (I use NFSv3/UDP with 32KB xfer sizes). __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail � Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/

1 0

AW: user quota crashes filer
by Waschkewitz, Dirk 12 Aug '00

12 Aug '00

Hi, we had the same problem, we had to run WAFL_check from the bootdisks to fix the inconsistency: Boot from floppy, at the Prompt (1-5) enter WAFL_check (casesensitiv!) the filer will then prompt you which volume to check. PS: Our Netapp case for this was [NetApp Log#133892]. Dirk Waschkewitz Tel.: 08457 - 8 - 1314 Fax : 08457 - 8 - 2499 E-Mail: Dirk.Waschkewitz(a)bayernoil.de BAYERNOIL Raffinerigesellschaft mbH Postfach 10 08 58 D-85008 Ingolstadt -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Jiang, Perry [mailto:Perry.Jiang@BMO.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 11. August 2000 20:48 An: 'Heller, Jeffrey' Cc: toasters Betreff: RE: user quota crashes filer Hi, Jeff I upgraded to 5.3.6R2. It didn't fix the problem. The filter still keep on panic on quota. What does the error message: "WAFL inconsistent" mean? Thanks. Perry Jiang -----Original Message----- From: Heller, Jeffrey [mailto:Jeffrey.Heller@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 10:10 AM To: Fairchild, Peter; Heller, Jeffrey; Krishnan, Prabhakar; Jiang, Perry Cc: toasters Subject: RE: user quota crashes filer Floppy booting 5.3.6R2 and then downloading that release should solve the problem. Call customer service if you are having problems with the procedure. Once 5.3.6R2 is loaded you should have no problem turning quotas back on. Jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: Fairchild, Peter [mailto:Peter.Fairchild@netapp.com] > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 6:42 AM > To: Heller, Jeffrey; Krishnan, Prabhakar; Jiang, Perry > Cc: toasters > Subject: RE: user quota crashes filer > > > That doesn't fully answer the question. > How does one deal with this problem *before* patching 5.3.6R2? > Does one have to nuke the filer to get quota functional again? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Heller, Jeffrey [mailto:Jeffrey.Heller@netapp.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 6:14 PM > To: Krishnan, Prabhakar; Jiang, Perry > Cc: toasters > Subject: RE: user quota crashes filer > > > This problem is fixed in 5.3.6R2 which is on NOW as of today. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Prabhakar Krishnan [mailto:kpkar@netapp.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 1:54 PM > To: Jiang, Perry > Cc: toasters > Subject: Re: user quota crashes filer > > > > this was a bug. > > - patch is availabe , contact the SE/CS > - fixed in the next release > > "Jiang, Perry" wrote: > > > Hi, > > I have a 740 filer with Data OnTAP 5.3.6 > > I put a quota entry for username "perry" into /vol/vol0/etc/quotas > > perry user 50M - > > > > But there is no entry for "perry" in /vol/vol0/etc/passwd, > so there is no > > UID for perry(No NIS running, of course). > > When I run "quota on vol0", the filer crashes. > > > > I have to boot up the filer from floppy disk, remove the > entry of "perry" in > > /vol/vol0/etc/quotas file, then reboot the filer. > > > > After the filter is up, everything is ok. However, I can't > enable quota > > anymore. Every time > > I run "quota on vol0", the filer would crash. > > > > The only thing I have in /vol/vol0/etc/quotas now is couple > of entries for > > Qtree quota. > > > > Can anybody explain when the filer still crashes after I > remove the "perry" > > entry? > > How can I make the quota work again? > > Do I have to rebuild the filer? > > > > Thanks > > > > Perry Jiang >

1 0

Bad NFS performance with Linux.. please help
by Henrique Pantarotto 12 Aug '00

12 Aug '00

Hello toaster friends! This week I experienced a very strange NFS performance in our POP3 servers. We've 4 POP3 Linux clients mouting 2 netapp boxes, like this: /var/spool/mail1 - F760 (cluster) /var/spool/mail2 - F760 (cluster) /var/spool/pop - F720 Our Linux clients are Pentium III 650Mhz Dual with 1GB RAM running a Red Hat-like distribution with Kernel 2.2.14-19smp. This solution has worked very fine until this week, when we started experiencing high Load Average in our Linux boxes and accumulation of pop processes. Copies from /var/spool/mail to /var/spool/pop are verrrrrrrrry slowwwwwwwwww... so pop processes get status of "D" (Disk Waiting right?, and caos takes place. I don't know what it is. We're crazy here... Anyone has ever had hard times like this before with Linux? Thanks a lot for any help!!!!!!! PS: We've Brazilian NetApp guys giving us a hand here. Regards, _______________________________________________ Henrique Pantarotto SysOp Site São Paulo Terra Networks Brasil S/A A Internet mais sua do que nunca Tel: (11) 5505-5728 r.316/238 ICQ: 6934285 IT: henpa henrique(a)corp.terra.com.br

1 0

Bad NFS performance with Linux.. please help
by Henrique Pantarotto 12 Aug '00

12 Aug '00

1 0

RE: user quota crashes filer
by Jiang, Perry 11 Aug '00

11 Aug '00

Hi, Jeff I upgraded to 5.3.6R2. It didn't fix the problem. The filter still keep on panic on quota. What does the error message: "WAFL inconsistent" mean? Thanks. Perry Jiang -----Original Message----- From: Heller, Jeffrey [mailto:Jeffrey.Heller@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 10:10 AM To: Fairchild, Peter; Heller, Jeffrey; Krishnan, Prabhakar; Jiang, Perry Cc: toasters Subject: RE: user quota crashes filer Floppy booting 5.3.6R2 and then downloading that release should solve the problem. Call customer service if you are having problems with the procedure. Once 5.3.6R2 is loaded you should have no problem turning quotas back on. Jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: Fairchild, Peter [mailto:Peter.Fairchild@netapp.com] > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 6:42 AM > To: Heller, Jeffrey; Krishnan, Prabhakar; Jiang, Perry > Cc: toasters > Subject: RE: user quota crashes filer > > > That doesn't fully answer the question. > How does one deal with this problem *before* patching 5.3.6R2? > Does one have to nuke the filer to get quota functional again? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Heller, Jeffrey [mailto:Jeffrey.Heller@netapp.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 6:14 PM > To: Krishnan, Prabhakar; Jiang, Perry > Cc: toasters > Subject: RE: user quota crashes filer > > > This problem is fixed in 5.3.6R2 which is on NOW as of today. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Prabhakar Krishnan [mailto:kpkar@netapp.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 1:54 PM > To: Jiang, Perry > Cc: toasters > Subject: Re: user quota crashes filer > > > > this was a bug. > > - patch is availabe , contact the SE/CS > - fixed in the next release > > "Jiang, Perry" wrote: > > > Hi, > > I have a 740 filer with Data OnTAP 5.3.6 > > I put a quota entry for username "perry" into /vol/vol0/etc/quotas > > perry user 50M - > > > > But there is no entry for "perry" in /vol/vol0/etc/passwd, > so there is no > > UID for perry(No NIS running, of course). > > When I run "quota on vol0", the filer crashes. > > > > I have to boot up the filer from floppy disk, remove the > entry of "perry" in > > /vol/vol0/etc/quotas file, then reboot the filer. > > > > After the filter is up, everything is ok. However, I can't > enable quota > > anymore. Every time > > I run "quota on vol0", the filer would crash. > > > > The only thing I have in /vol/vol0/etc/quotas now is couple > of entries for > > Qtree quota. > > > > Can anybody explain when the filer still crashes after I > remove the "perry" > > entry? > > How can I make the quota work again? > > Do I have to rebuild the filer? > > > > Thanks > > > > Perry Jiang >

1 0

AIT-2 support in 5.3.6R2?
by Michael Galloway 11 Aug '00

11 Aug '00

does OT5.3.6R2 have support for AIT-2 devices? thanks! -- michael

2 2

RE: SQL 7.0 and Oplocks
by Muhlestein, Mark 11 Aug '00

11 Aug '00

The reason the language is vague is that there is no hard and fast rule. It's a tradeoff you can make between performance and risk of data loss. When oplocks are enabled it allows the CIFS client (in this case the SQL server) to aggressively cache data. That can result in a nice performance gain, and everything is great as long as you don't have network problems, and the servers never crash. If that does happen, you are more likely to have data loss with oplocks enabled. On the other hand, many applications do write-throughs and/or flushes to avoid that problem. I haven't heard of anyone losing data on MS SQL because of having oplocks enabled, but if you're worried I'd suggest turning off oplocks on the qtree that has your database files. If the performance suffers too much, you can consider turning them back on if you are in a stable environment. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Mike Hopkins [mailto:Mike@broaddaylight.com] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 10:17 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: SQL 7.0 and Oplocks There are articles on Microsoft's website as well as the NOW site that indicate the possibility of oplocks causing data loss when using a filer to host a SQL 7 datbase device. http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q224/9/92.ASP <http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q224/9/92.ASP> http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/ontap/rel535/html/sag/cifs25.htm <http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/ontap/rel535/html/sag/cifs25.htm> We are running SQL 7.0 on a Win2K server with a gigabit connection to the filer. The database is a repository for a custom web application that we sell, so the database is getting a lot of transactions from the web server. The language in both articles is vague and inconclusive, so I am looking for those of you who have experience running SQL 7.0 with a network connection to it devices. I am not a dba, just the guy who looks after the filer among other things. Oplocks are currently enabled, should I leave them this way? Michael Hopkins mike(a)BroadDaylight.com Systems Administrator phone 408.450.7450 Broad Daylight, Inc. fax 408.327.0177

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