toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

SV: Replacing defective DLT7000 drives without rebooting the fil er
by Karl Erik Øyøygard 09 Aug '00

09 Aug '00

Klaus, I change drives on the fly all the time. ESD is a big issue here, so get out your antistatic wrist-strap and make sure the host and library share the same power connection/ground! Make sure the new drive is the same type, SCSI-ID and if possible same FirmWare. The host will see the new drive, just make sure it is not down/offline when you are finished. This is not the recommended way, but often you just can't wait several weeks for the next sheduled downtime. This goes for most systems, not just filers. -OYOY- Med hilsen - Best Regards, Karl Erik Øyøygard ProAct Systems AS Postboks 3047 - Lade Haakon VII's gt. 7 7002 Trondheim Tlf: 73 92 21 44 Fax: 73 92 08 88 Mob:93 25 24 24 E-mail: karl(a)proact.no SMS: +4793252424(a)sms.netcom.no --------------------------------------------- For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken

1 0

Fwd: RE: Moving from one NT domain to another.
by Joan Pearson 09 Aug '00

09 Aug '00

Burt 14378 addresses this problem. It is fixed in a future release. When changing the filer's domain, if the builtin/administrators group contains the old domain's administrators group, it is removed and the new domain's administrators group is added. Joan Pearson >From: Karl Erik Øyøygard <karl(a)proact.no> >To: toasters(a)mathworks.com >Subject: RE: Moving from one NT domain to another. >Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 19:23:44 +0200 >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) >X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by smtp.mathworks.com id NAA27433 >Sender: owner-dl-toasters(a)netapp.com > >Jeremy, > >You are right, the administrator (DomainAdmins) of the OLD domain will still >be member of the local administrators on the filer after the move, because >Lclgroups.cfg is not updated. > >This is how I do this: > >Rename cifssec.cfg, filersid.cfg and lclgroups.cfg in /etc on the filer. >Add filer via servermanager to the new domain. >Run `cifs setup` >Edit /etc/cifsconfig.cfg and remove all referances to users/groups in the >old domain. They will not show up correctly in FilerView! >And you may have to correct the ACL's on a LOT of files... Remember to set >new users as owner of home directory's for cifs homedir to work... > >I'm not sure you need to get cifssec and filersid out of the way, but it >will work if you do. > >Good luck! > >-OYOY- > >Med hilsen - Best Regards, >Karl Erik Øyøygard >ProAct Systems AS >Postboks 3047 - Lade >Haakon VII's gt. 7 >7002 Trondheim >Tlf: 73 92 21 44 Fax: 73 92 08 88 >Mob:93 25 24 24 > >E-mail: karl(a)proact.no >SMS: +4793252424(a)sms.netcom.no >--------------------------------------------- >For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and >wrong. -- H L Mencken >> We have an interesting problem that I'm hoping somebody on the list has >> first-hand experience with. We could use some suggestions. >> >> We are going to be moving from one NT domain to another. An account in >> Domain A, user1 does not have the same SID as the same account name in >> Domain B, so once you move, you would have to go through and reassign >> access permissions with the account in Domain B. This would be acceptable >> >> to us, but the problem is the same situation occurs for Administrator >> between the two domains, so we're worried about losing Administrator >> access >> to our filer. We would be able to put up with reassigning all user >> permissions afterward if we could resolve the Administrator problem. >> >> The question is, how do we move a filer from one NT domain to another, and >> >> still have Administrator access to it afterward? >> >> Thanks, >> >> -- jeremy >

1 0

RE: Moving from one NT domain to another.
by Karl Erik Øyøygard 09 Aug '00

09 Aug '00

Jeremy, You are right, the administrator (DomainAdmins) of the OLD domain will still be member of the local administrators on the filer after the move, because Lclgroups.cfg is not updated. This is how I do this: Rename cifssec.cfg, filersid.cfg and lclgroups.cfg in /etc on the filer. Add filer via servermanager to the new domain. Run `cifs setup` Edit /etc/cifsconfig.cfg and remove all referances to users/groups in the old domain. They will not show up correctly in FilerView! And you may have to correct the ACL's on a LOT of files... Remember to set new users as owner of home directory's for cifs homedir to work... I'm not sure you need to get cifssec and filersid out of the way, but it will work if you do. Good luck! -OYOY- Med hilsen - Best Regards, Karl Erik Øyøygard ProAct Systems AS Postboks 3047 - Lade Haakon VII's gt. 7 7002 Trondheim Tlf: 73 92 21 44 Fax: 73 92 08 88 Mob:93 25 24 24 E-mail: karl(a)proact.no SMS: +4793252424(a)sms.netcom.no --------------------------------------------- For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken > We have an interesting problem that I'm hoping somebody on the list has > first-hand experience with. We could use some suggestions. > > We are going to be moving from one NT domain to another. An account in > Domain A, user1 does not have the same SID as the same account name in > Domain B, so once you move, you would have to go through and reassign > access permissions with the account in Domain B. This would be acceptable > > to us, but the problem is the same situation occurs for Administrator > between the two domains, so we're worried about losing Administrator > access > to our filer. We would be able to put up with reassigning all user > permissions afterward if we could resolve the Administrator problem. > > The question is, how do we move a filer from one NT domain to another, and > > still have Administrator access to it afterward? > > Thanks, > > -- jeremy

1 0

RE: Filer storage for databases, seriously? (Was: Re: NetApp ques tions)
by Eyal Traitel 09 Aug '00

09 Aug '00

Nicholas, 1. It depends how you define performance. Restoring a database in a very short time is also great performance, and you will not get that in DAS, no unless you pay for 1 more copy of the data. 2. You should always look not at performance alone, but on price/performance, which today is with all these TCO-based calculations. This brings to the point where a fully loaded F760 with Gigabit card, can perform better than you can think of compared with those DAS systems, which forces you to the old world of static unshared copies of volumes... I believe that the fact that more and more eCommerce sites are choosing NAS (and mainly from its market leader...) as the solution will prove you better than any benchmark that this is totally possible and usable solution. Eyal. (I ran a small Orcale database of ~5gb, no problems, have no idea on bigger configs... sorry!) ===== Yours, Eyal Traitel eTraitel(a)yahoo.com, Home: 972-3-5290415 (Tel Aviv) *** eTraitel - it's the new eBuzzword ! *** __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/

1 0

RE: Filer storage for databases, seriously? (Was: Re: NetApp ques tions)
by Pesce, Nicholas (FUSA) 09 Aug '00

09 Aug '00

Whoops, my screw up. I said raid 0 when I ment raid 1. This would make it 6 disks, not 3. But still the point is valid. 6 disks versus 14 is a large amount of disks.

1 0

RE: NetApp questions
by Rick Hulsey 09 Aug '00

09 Aug '00

We are running Oracle on our filers currently and we didn't put the Oracle account in the /etc/passwd file on the filer. That really only comes into play if there are multiple systems attached to the filers and you are trying to do data sharing on these boxes, but the UIDs are not synced with NIS or something like that. Roland, I have been charged with a storage consolidation project. As part of this project, we did a survey of available storage technologies and looked at more from a "does this solve our problems?" perspective that from a "what is the fast storage available?" perspective. We did not however ignore the performance issues because I believed as you currently do that NFS just can't be as fast as local storage. We constructed a series of perl scripts and C programs to do I/O and log progress, timings, etc. I did this because I have in the past worked for a hardware manufacturer. My experiences working for a hardware manufacturer made me very jaded as to anything that any of the sales or marketing people said about performance. What we found out was that for general filesystem I/O, our F760 using a Gigabit interface was slightly faster than our JBOD SCSI disks if we used separate channels on the SCSI and used the same Gig-e interface. Otherwise the filer was way faster. When we compared the performance on the filer versus HP's mod-20 disks (a differential SCSI attached disk array that has 20 drive slots using a RAID5 LUN - it's really a 20-slot CLARiiON), we found that reading data on the mod-20 was about the same as reading data on the filer, but writing data was again way faster (2 - 3X depending on block sizes) on the filer. I think that this was caused by the advantages the WAFL in the filer has over other RAID5 implementations. All of these tests were done using an HP K-class and N-class boxes. If you were thinking that this is because Gig-e is just way fast, and that is what has to be used to get this type of performance, we also tested it with 100BaseT full duplex and found that it was about the same speed as locally attached SCSI. If I have a performance complaint it would be that Gig-e has shown as much improvement as I hoped for over local storage and 100BaseT full duplex. I'm hoping that Netapp will build boxes with more ram and/or fasters NICs to get the performance on Gig-e up to the 70+ MB/sec range. When we tested database accesses using Sybase we found that database loads on the filer ran as much as 50% faster, general queries, inserts and deletes, ran about 30% faster, and backups ran about 15% faster without even using snapshots. We did not capture specific stats on Oracle, but our DBAs expect similar results. There is another performance issue that is often overlooked that you get with filers or other systems that have 3-way mirror capabilities, and this is the part where we actually see some value in the storage. This is backup and recovery. On one of our database systems, we currently have a backup process that runs for about 10 hours. During this time our users are impacted because the database is in a state where all transactions are logged, but not actually committed to the database. This means that we can't do any heavy processing during this 10 hour window. With snapshots we will put the database in to backup mode only long enough to take a snapshot, and then return the database to online mode and continue normal processing. Next we use a separate Unix box to mount the newly created snapshot and send the files to tape without putting overhead on the database server. So from a performance perspective we gain 10 hours of processing time. This means that if the filer is only equal to our direct attached SCSI storage on a transaction by transaction basis, we get back 10/24ths of our processing time back which is about a 41% increase in 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 >>> <rdobbins(a)netmore.net> 08/08/00 06:38PM >>> No account/password is required for *NIX access to the filer via NFS; that's all handled via the standard NFS permissions and *NIX filesystem permissions. 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. I've no empirical data to back this up, mind you; 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. If there's anyone out there with Oracle experience on filers via NFS, either pro or con, I'd love to hear from you. ----------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins(a)netmore.net> // 818.535.5024 voice -----Original Message----- From: Jiang, Perry [mailto:Perry.Jiang@BMO.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 2:18 PM To: toasters Subject: NetApp questions Hi, there I have a question regarding NetApp Filer 740. Oracle account I am running a Solaris Oracle server, which is a NFS client of the NetApp Filer. Do I have to create an Oracle account on NetApp Filer and put the entry in /vol/vol0/etc/passwd? If yes, what the purpose of that? An on-line NetApp document, "Oracle for UNIX: Integrating with a NetApp Filer", stated that you need to create an Oracle account on Filer. However, according to the System Admin. Guide, /vol/vol0/etc/passwd is only for CIFS, not for NFS. You explaination is appreciated. Perr Jiang

1 0

RE: Filer storage for databases, seriously? (Was: Re: NetApp questions)
by Brian Hostetter 09 Aug '00

09 Aug '00

Getting back to the issue at hand. I am running oracle 8.1.5 on a 740 right now. I will be moving it to a 760 over the next few months. I have had nothing but incredible performance from my filers. We had a few problems moving oracle to nfs, first off Oracle consulting was here telling there is no way you can run it on nfs. It physically would not work they told me. It took me all of 2 hours of work to prove them wrong. The only issue we have run into is nfs locking problems with Digital Unix. As for performance, I noticed a huge increase in performance when moving from a local raid5 system to a netapp. Sure I took a hit from NFS, but I also got a huge gain from the speed of the filesystem. I loaded up my server with enough ram to cache the entire database now, so I don't really see any NFS problems, which makes the netapp even better since I can snapshot the databse for full backups in about 45 seconds. All in all, I would never run oracle again on anything but a filer. Course I never run any apps that are not on a filer. --Brian >>> <rdobbins(a)netmore.net> 08/08 8:46 PM >>> 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

1 0

RE: Filer Performance in a CIFS environment
by vance＠corp.theglobe.com 09 Aug '00

09 Aug '00

Mike- We are heavy CIFS users in an NT4, IIS, 100 Mb switched environment with several F740's and F760's, and we do not see this kind of problem. We routinely run at hundreds of files per second with latencies more in subsecond range for any file under a few hundred kB. WINS problems, Ethernet duplex settings, or domain controller problems are the only things I can think of which would result in the kind of performance you describe unless the filer or the webservers are completely overloaded. Of course, we've never tried to do what you are doing on W2K. Good luck, and please let the list know what happens. I hope for all of us that what you are seeing is not a W2K compatibility issue. Vance > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Hopkins [mailto:Mike@broaddaylight.com] > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 11:38 PM > To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: Filer Performance in a CIFS environment > > > I know this is a generalized question where the answer is shaped by a > basketful of variables, but I need to start somewhere. I > have a Filer 740 > that I am using to store files for a Win2000 web server. > > Pages served up by this combination of hardware are > noticeably slower(5 to > 10 seconds versus 1 second) than storing the web content on > the local drive > of the web server. This may not seem like much of a > slowdown, but people > notice these things and it is a big issue. > > So, what are some of the things that cause performance hits in a CIFS > environment. Any suggestions, war stories, magic potions, or good old > fashioned know-how is greatly appreciated. > > > > Mike Hopkins > Broad Daylight, Inc. >

1 0

RE: move command on filer?
by rdobbins＠netmore.net 09 Aug '00

09 Aug '00

Could NDMP be used to copy files to a tape drive hanging off the SCSI port on a filer, or is it strictly limited to the filesystem? -----Original Message----- From: Agnew, Blaine [mailto:Blaine.Agnew@netapp.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 4:59 PM To: ''Nick.Mayrath(a)envoy.com' '; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com ' Subject: RE: move command on filer? NDMPCopy can be handy for this sort of application, however I don't know if someone has ported it to NT yet. It is a freeware utility that runs on the host and controls the filer via NDMP commands. It is similar to having a dump piped through to a restore, except that the data does not have to go through your host. You can get the source from www.ndmp.org if you want to get more information. -----Original Message----- From: Muhlestein, Mark To: 'Nick.Mayrath(a)envoy.com'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Sent: 8/8/00 4:23 PM Subject: RE: move command on filer? If the files are in the same qtree the moves will be fast because this is just a rename; there is no need to copy the data. If not, you will have to copy the files. There is currently no way to do that locally on the filer. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Nick.Mayrath(a)envoy.com [mailto:Nick.Mayrath@envoy.com] Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 4:07 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: move command on filer? This weekend I need to move alot of files around of my F720. Is there any "move" command locally on the filer that I can use instead of using my NT machine? My concern is that using the NT machine will cause the moves to take longer since they have to "pass through" my NT box. Thanks

2 1

RE: Filer storage for databases, seriously? (Was: Re: NetApp ques tions)
by rdobbins＠netmore.net 09 Aug '00

09 Aug '00

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

3 2

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