toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

RE: Linux-NFS list recommended I post here -- RE: NetApp versus L inux
by jeff.mohler＠netapp.com 21 Jul '00

21 Jul '00

You miss that it could take 5 minutes, in the situation of a core dump. This is a rather rare ocurrance however. -----Original Message----- From: Bennett Todd [mailto:bet@rahul.net] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 10:29 AM To: Bruce Sterling Woodcock Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Linux-NFS list recommended I post here -- RE: NetApp versus Linux 2000-07-20-16:25:44 Bruce Sterling Woodcock: > > +++ NetApp (F720) > > Boots in under 2 minutes due to the use of NVRAM even after an > > improper shutdown. [...] > > 2 minutes is really unlikely unless you're just using vanilla NFS > and haven't generated a core. Think more like 5 minutes (still > impressive). That is such a bummer! I remember only a couple of years back, the proud boast was that you could kick the plug out of a netapp, and no more than 45 seconds after plugging it back in, it'd be live serving NFS data once again. I even remember a salescritter saying (I think on this list) that they'd had customers take that boast and try and feed it to 'em, with a line like ``Ok, let's try it, if it's not back in 45 seconds by my watch, you're outa here'', and stood by with confidence while the box passed the test. When did the time increase to 2.6-6.6 times that once-proud 45-second figure? At 5 minutes, that means Netapps are no longer booting significantly faster than generic servers. -Bennett

3 2

RE: Linux-NFS list recommended I post here -- RE: NetApp versus L inux
by jeff.mohler＠netapp.com 21 Jul '00

21 Jul '00

Accepted. You can probly account anywhere from 15-30 seconds for the RAM count at bootup. Why we count this..I dunno, but two minutes seems excessive with what Ive been used to in the field and as a customer. The more CIFS share you have..the longer it takes to get totally up..depends how quick your PDC responds, the more errors in your exports and hosts files (and DNS) there are will hold up the initial exportfs -a when nfs comes on, if you have an open loop FCAL adapter (one not being used) that will add a 10second delay in booting, in a failover situation the MAC address hashing thru your switched network could hold up services..etc. All things being equal, An F760 can be online serving data within a minute of a 'reboot' command WITH memory count. -----Original Message----- From: Bennett Todd [mailto:bet@rahul.net] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 1:09 PM To: jeff.mohler(a)netapp.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Linux-NFS list recommended I post here -- RE: NetApp versus L inux 2000-07-21-13:45:38 jeff.mohler(a)netapp.com: > You miss that it could take 5 minutes, in the situation of a core dump. > > This is a rather rare ocurrance however. So 5 minutes may be rare. But Bruce also said that 2 minutes is unlikely quick. This is a radical change from the old line of 45 seconds is so reliable that account reps will happily bet a contract on it. A sad change, too. -Bennett

1 0

Re: F760 on Ebay
by Marc Nicholas 21 Jul '00

21 Jul '00

It was about $4000 when the original poster sent the email...naturally in the last few hours of the auction is rocketed. -marc On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Fred Ab wrote: > $22,600. not $4,000. > > > ===}From: busy(a)dave.web-host.net > ===}Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 09:25:37 -0500 (CDT) > ===}To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > ===}Subject: F760 on Ebay > ===}Mime-Version: 1.0 > ===} > ===}All, > ===} > ===}There is an F760 filer head on ebay for about 4,000 right now. Here is > ===}the link: > ===} > ===}http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=382392343 > ===} > ===} > ===} > >

1 0

Re: RE: Re-skinning the cat, might go with the F720 wo/CIFS ... -- WA S: Linux versus NetApp
by Brian Hostetter 21 Jul '00

21 Jul '00

>>> Bryan -TheBS- Smith <thebs(a)theseus.com> 07/21 8:13 AM >>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Darleen.Cormier(a)netapp.com wrote: > Bryan, You have several options, and some cost more money than others. Money is of issue. ;-> > There are several software packages that are certified with NetApps > and your library. Legato, Veritas, Workstation Solutions and > SyncSort are some of the options. Also wanted to get your opinion on Quadratec. They are a French company that has largely a European market, but Exabyte gave them a good reference for Linux, NetApp for my EZ17 + [proposed] Mammoth-2. I am testing out Quadratec's time navigator right now. So far it is pretty impressive. We had a little trouble getting it to communicate with one of our 760's. But that has been resolved and everything is happy again. Their NDMP solutions are pretty new and do not support too many media changers right now, but they tell me my qualstar 4660 will be supported soon. > These all have different configurations that they support, (you > can find the configuration info on the various web sites) > depending on where you want to put the library. All of them > support backing up the filer with the library attached locally, > but if you want to attach the library to a Solaris server, > Workstation Solutions will support that, and is also the least > expensive of the solutions listed above. Check out their website > at www.worksta.com However the cheapest solution is to attach > the library to the back of the filer, and use the dump and > restore utility. Hmmm, I'll have to check them out. Can I use Linux instead of Solaris (I'll find out, thanx for the URL ;-)? Yes, Quick Restore does work under linux, I have the cd sitting here in front of me right now. I am going to install and test it Monday. So far I have been most impressed with Backup Express from Syncsort. Their NDMP solution is great. I went from installing the CD in one of our Alpha servers to restoring files in 45 min!!! I would love to see any product that can beat that. > Several things to check out are, the library needs to be HVD > not single-ended. Hmmm, not sure I can. I guess I could get a HVD to SE converter, correct? Yes there are converters. I had to buy one from qualstar for my drives, maybe the manufacturer has one. > It needs to be set in sequential or stacker mode, That's the current mode it is in (for BRU, yuck!). The EZ17 is also set to emulate the popular EXB-210 library. > and you need to emulate an Exabyte 8900, since the filer > will not support Mammoth until the next release of software. Er, will it support it's capacity? That's crucial. Especially for Mammoth-2. Thanx for all your help and insight. -- TheBS -- Bryan "TheBS" Smith CONTACT INFO *********************************************************** Chat: thebs413 @ AOL/MSN/Yahoo (see http://Everybuddy.com) Email: mailto:thebs@theseus.com,b.j.smith@ieee.org Legal: http://www.SmithConcepts.com/legal.html

1 0

Re: F760 on Ebay
by Fred Ab 21 Jul '00

21 Jul '00

$22,600. not $4,000. ===}From: busy(a)dave.web-host.net ===}Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 09:25:37 -0500 (CDT) ===}To: toasters(a)mathworks.com ===}Subject: F760 on Ebay ===}Mime-Version: 1.0 ===} ===}All, ===} ===}There is an F760 filer head on ebay for about 4,000 right now. Here is ===}the link: ===} ===}http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=382392343 ===} ===} ===}

1 0

F760 on Ebay
by busy＠dave.web-host.net 21 Jul '00

21 Jul '00

All, There is an F760 filer head on ebay for about 4,000 right now. Here is the link: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=382392343

1 0

RE: Re-skinning the cat, might go with the F720 wo/CIFS ... -- WA S: Linux versus NetApp
by Darleen.Cormier＠netapp.com 21 Jul '00

21 Jul '00

Bryan, You have several options, and some cost more money than others. There are several software packages that are certified with NetApps and your library. Legato, Veritas, Workstation Solutions and SyncSort are some of the options. These all have different configurations that they support, (you can find the configuration info on the various web sites) depending on where you want to put the library. All of them support backing up the filer with the library attached locally, but if you want to attach the library to a Solaris server, Workstation Solutions will support that, and is also the least expensive of the solutions listed above. Check out their website at www.worksta.com However the cheapest solution is to attach the library to the back of the filer, and use the dump and restore utility. Several things to check out are, the library needs to be HVD not single-ended. It needs to be set in sequential or stacker mode, and you need to emulate an Exabyte 8900, since the filer will not support Mammoth until the next release of software. -----Original Message----- From: Bryan -TheBS- Smith [mailto:thebs@theseus.com] Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 2:33 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: thebs(a)theseus.com; b.j.smith(a)ieee.org Subject: Re-skinning the cat, might go with the F720 wo/CIFS ... -- WAS: Linux versus NetApp Re-skinning the cat, might go with the F720 wo/CIFS ... -- WAS: Linux versus NetApp All -- My boss and I took a step back and looked at the problem again. We remembered that 90% of our traffic is NFS. As such, paying an additional $8K for the CIFS support is probably not needed on the NetApp ($27K for the F720, 7x36GB, 1000Base-SX upgrade). I've had no problems with Samba on the Linux side and it's not our primary focus (we don't have a PDC BTW). I guess the only thing now is to figure out how to backup. I have an Exabyte EZ17 (7-bay autoloader, can and does emulate an EXB-210B) with a 20/40GB Mammoth[-1] drive. I don't (and never did) think much of the Mammoth, but the new 60/150GB Mammoth-2s are actually getting good reviews, only cost $3K and will allow me to re-use my autoloader. Again, anyone got any experiences with any backup software either on the NetApp or a NetApp agent to a backup server (like Solaris or Linux) that supports my autoloader? Dump might do though. Thanx ... -- TheBS -- Bryan "TheBS" Smith CONTACT INFO *********************************************************** Chat: thebs413 @ AOL/MSN/Yahoo (see http://Everybuddy.com) Email: mailto:thebs@theseus.com,b.j.smith@ieee.org Legal: http://www.SmithConcepts.com/legal.html

2 1

Re: Linux-NFS list recommended I post here -- RE: NetApp versus Linux
by Eyal Traitel 21 Jul '00

21 Jul '00

A simple workgroup (non-domain mode) case is easy to use - your PCs just authenticate using /etc/passwd or NIS, and you just need to change the Registry of your PCs to re-enable clear-text password. eT. --- Bruce Sterling Woodcock <sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: > From: "Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith(a)ieee.org> > > > I'm talking about the RAID volume, not the Linux filesystem. Many > > RAID controllers actually cannot resize their own volumes. Or were > > you talking about the NetApp? > > I was talking about Netapp. It's no big deal, just something to be > aware > of; > if you start to run low on inodes you can just make more. > > > TheBS> So I can assign multiple users/groups to a file in > > TheBS> NetApp's CIFS support? > > > Yes. > > TheBS> Does it support all NT permissions? > > > Yes. > > > > Cool! I take it I have to have a full PDC to do that, eh? > > Right. Well, at least to do some of it. I'm not sure how the filer > handles a simple Workgroup case. > > Bruce > > ===== Yours, Eyal Traitel eTraitel(a)yahoo.com, Home: 972-3-5290415 (Tel Aviv) *** eTraitel - it's the new eBuzzword ! *** __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail � Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/

1 0

Re: Linux-NFS list recommended I post here -- RE: NetApp versus Linux
by Eyal Traitel 21 Jul '00

21 Jul '00

Hi Bryan ! Please take into account these issues, which favor the appliance solution over the Linux box: 1. Proven stability of filesystem - NetApp's WAFL has real-life proven stability, which is consistent thru shutdown and powerdowns - even though ext3 is using journaling, WAFL's Consistency Points using the NVRAM should cover stability much better (and faster). 2. Crash recovery - filer's fsck (wack) is much much faster than other vendors' solutions - ~600GB/hr and more. 3. Ease of use - adding capacity is that easy - no extra config. Also - you're wasting time on choosing the right CPU arch. and motherboard bus chipsets - leave that to NetApp's engineering experts, and you can save time (and money, and get anyway better performance). 4. Extra NetApp-specific "bonus-features" - snapshot can lower your restore needs dramatically, and can help for some recovery cases. 5. Enterprise-level features which you can leverage in the future (which Linux doesn't have YET, not that I've seen, others - correct me if I'm wrong) - SnapMirror/SnapRestore, which complement the disaster-recovery issues. 6. Future growth - one filer can grow (now) to 1.4TB, which I don't think many Linux storage solution go that high, and NetApp will upgrade to 3TB and higher for one filer very soon. 7. Performance - CIFS performance should be much higher, NFS also much higher. 8. NFS/CIFS securuty - Linux can only share to PCs with Samba, which is fine, but only a user-level application (slower that Data ONTAP's kernel level implementation), and also the filesystem on Linux will still be Unix-based, and will not be able to maintain NT ACLs etc. I hope it sums it up somehow, Eyal. --- Bryan -TheBS- Smith <thebs(a)theseus.com> wrote: > Linux-NFS list recommended I post here -- RE: NetApp versus Linux > > All -- > > The Linux-NFS list recommended I post here. I am looking at either > a $35K NetApp F720 or a $18K Linux (w/Ext3+NFS3 patches) solution. > I'd greatly appreciate any input anyone has. > > My boss favors the NetApp solution on paper (never used one > himself, nor does he do any admin-level stuff). But IMHO, unless > we spend $70K to buy two (2) NetApp F720s and take advantage of the > NetApp's superior failover/load-balancing capability, I'm not sure > it's the right move. We still have to have a Linux server around > for CVS (and NIS?) anyway, which would put a NetApp at the mercy of > the Linux box anyway (any way to get CVS on NetApp?). > > I break down my limited knowledge below. I currently have a 100GB > Linux 2.2 server (Ext2+NFS2) that I didn't setup (but have heavily > reconfigured because the consulting firm didn't know jack crap, but > some things like using 1KB block sizes in the /home filesystem that > take forever to fsck is something I can't change right now). > > We're looking at going to 250GB (possibly 500-1000GB in the next 6 > months). Most of our clients are Solaris 2.6 (about a dozen > serious production boxes with dual to 6-way processor, 1 to 6GB of > RAM, etc...). We are starting to add more and Linux workstations > (both dedicated and dual-booting with NT). > > Stability: > ---------- > > +++ NetApp (F720) > Boots in under 2 minutes due to the use of NVRAM even after an > improper shutdown. Buying two (2) units is an extremely viable > failover/load-balancing solution. [ Unfortunately, my boss doesn't > want to spend more than $30K). > > --- Linux (Ext2) > Although our Linux systems have averaged >100 days uptime, a > routine power outtage without proper shutdown, unable to umount NFS > clients, etc... causes an fsck. We figure 30 minutes per 100GB for > Ext2 fscks on 8-16KB blocks (currently takes 90 minutes of 1KB > blocks, something the consultants before me did -- dumb!). Never > had a problem with lost data though. > > --- Linux (ReiserFS) > Meta-data journaling, but has NFS locking issues (except for a > SuSE patch to the old knfsd?). Eliminated from consideration > > ??? Linux (Ext3) > Full data journaling means sync I/O??? What about current > stability (I'm using Trond+Higgen 0.21.3 on non-production systems > with Solaris 2.6 clients and I'm happy)? Locking with Ext3 (never > used Ext3, but many others are now)? I know VA Linux now has Linux > 2.2 kernels with Ext3 and NFS3 that are supposively quite stable. > > Performance: > ------------ > > ??? NetApp (F720 + 1000Base-SX NIC) > While the NVRAM in the NetApp allows almost instant sync > acknoledgement to clients, the F720 only comes with 1/4th the NVRAM > of the F740/760 (8MB versus 32MB). The result is that the F720 can > only handle 1/3-1/4th the NFS requests and throughput of the > F740/760. I have seen good marks on the later, but cannot find > much on the former which makes me wonder if we will run into a > performance issue? Transmeta also mentioned that they have had > performance issues with the 700-series on high-loads because the > on-baord CPU, a single Alpha (usually ~600MHz) cannot even keep up > with the number of XORs for just the RAID-4 volume. Of course I > only have a dozen NFS clients and Transmeta has many more. Hard > drives are of older, 36GB, 7200rpm, Ultra2 (aka Ultra80) SCSI type. > > +++ Linux (dual-cpu/memory ServerSet IIIHE chipset + dual-733MHz > Pentium III + 233MHz StrongARM-powered, 4-channel, Ultra160 RAID > controller on its own PCI 64-bit channel + 1000Base-SX NIC card on > it's own 66MHz PCI 64-bit channel) > These ServerSet III-powered mainboards seem to best both the > older 4-way i450HX EDO mainboards, and the 2-way i840 in just about > every memory benchmark. Going to use 2GB of RAM (which is 8x as > much as in the F720), and can expand to 8GB later. The > 3-independent PCI channels (of which, 2 are 66MHz PCI 64-bit) > allows me to put the disk controller and network controller on > their own, 64-bit channels. They Mylex 233MHz StrongARM-powered > RAID controllers are the fastest you can get for just about > anything (including Linux, especially when compared to vendors who > still use a 100MHz i960 ASIC) and I'm going to pair it with 73GB, > 10000rpm, Ultra160 disks with two disks per channel spread over all > 4 channels. > On the software side, I've had no issues running async with > Linux. I'm more worried about Ext3's full-data journaling being > the slouch here. Also wondering how long it takes, exactly, to > recover after an improper shutdown with full-data journaling Ext3 > (I'm assuming <5 minutes for 250GB?). > > [ Further insight wanted: Just wondering if the F720 will be a > slouch compared to this? Or will the NVRAM really kick Ext3's > butt, even if there is only 8MB of it? ] > > Other Considerations: > --------------------- > > NetApp (Failover Option) > Features "ready-to-go" fail-over option via proprietary gigabit > links between units. Another unit can even use the disk controller > and disks on a failed unit CPU unit. Very nice. Also lowers the > admin requirements (like having to keep kernel/apps up-to-date, > etc...). Someone on the Linux-NFS list actually mentioned > administration wasn't so easy with NetApp (no web-based admin???) > and would rather have Linux (I personally couldn't believe this, > but she was a seasoned Linux admin like myself). > > Linux (Software Support) > I still need a Linux box to server as the CVS server, Mail > server (including various Sendmail/Mail-based programs like AV > scanner, HP OpenMail, Majordomo, GNATS, etc...), NIS server (or > does NetApp have NIS server capabilities?), etc... This makes me > wonder if I really will "save on TOC" with the NetApp since my > Linux admin outside of this has only been about 40-80 hours over > the past year (compiling new kernels, installing new NFS, etc...). > > Cost: > ----- > > --- NetApp F720 (7 x 36GB disk = 252GB, 216GB usable RAID-4, 180GB > if using hot spare) > $35K for the configuration (F720 = 600MHz? Alpha, 256MB RAM, > 8MB NVRAM) with both SMB and NFS plus the 1000Base-SX upgrade. > > +++ Linux (5 x 73GB disk = 365GB, 292GB usable RAID-5, 219GB if > using hot spare) > $18K for the configuration as above (dual-733MHz, 2GB RAM, RAID > controller, 1000Base-SX NIC, etc...) with SAF-TE rackmount disk > chassis, ATX rackmount chassis, cabling and redundant power on both > the SAF-TE and ATX case. > > Thanx in advance ... > > -- Bryan "TheBS" Smith > "Lead Computer Geek" > Theseus Logic, Inc. > > -- > Bryan "TheBS" Smith CONTACT INFO > *********************************************************** > Chat: thebs413 @ AOL/MSN/Yahoo (see http://Everybuddy.com) > Email: mailto:thebs@theseus.com,b.j.smith@ieee.org > Home: http://www.SmithConcepts.com > ===== Yours, Eyal Traitel eTraitel(a)yahoo.com, Home: 972-3-5290415 (Tel Aviv) *** eTraitel - it's the new eBuzzword ! *** __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail � Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/

5 5

Re-skinning the cat, might go with the F720 wo/CIFS ... -- WAS: Linux versus NetApp
by Bryan -TheBS- Smith 20 Jul '00

20 Jul '00

Re-skinning the cat, might go with the F720 wo/CIFS ... -- WAS: Linux versus NetApp All -- My boss and I took a step back and looked at the problem again. We remembered that 90% of our traffic is NFS. As such, paying an additional $8K for the CIFS support is probably not needed on the NetApp ($27K for the F720, 7x36GB, 1000Base-SX upgrade). I've had no problems with Samba on the Linux side and it's not our primary focus (we don't have a PDC BTW). I guess the only thing now is to figure out how to backup. I have an Exabyte EZ17 (7-bay autoloader, can and does emulate an EXB-210B) with a 20/40GB Mammoth[-1] drive. I don't (and never did) think much of the Mammoth, but the new 60/150GB Mammoth-2s are actually getting good reviews, only cost $3K and will allow me to re-use my autoloader. Again, anyone got any experiences with any backup software either on the NetApp or a NetApp agent to a backup server (like Solaris or Linux) that supports my autoloader? Dump might do though. Thanx ... -- TheBS -- Bryan "TheBS" Smith CONTACT INFO *********************************************************** Chat: thebs413 @ AOL/MSN/Yahoo (see http://Everybuddy.com) Email: mailto:thebs@theseus.com,b.j.smith@ieee.org Legal: http://www.SmithConcepts.com/legal.html

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