toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

Re: NDMP Incremental backup issue
by Larry Nail 12 Jun '00

12 Jun '00

We use Norton AntiVirus 5.0 to scan our filers every evening. Norton has no way to exclude the ~snapshot from bescanned, so they're scanned every evening without incident. Of course, it fails when it tries to repair, but that is not a problem. > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Manley [mailto:stephen@netapp.com] > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 5:38 PM > To: scl(a)sasha.acc.virginia.edu > Cc: stephen(a)netapp.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: NDMP Incremental backup issue > > > > > > > > The history of this bug: > > > > > > Some customers were encountering problems with various Windows > applications > > > using the Win32 API. > > > > > > Apparently, the ctime of an accessed file is updated by a large > number > > > of Windows apps (even if the file is only read) because the apps > > > don't understand "last changed time". > > > > > > Thus, users with virus scanners would find that their incremental > dumps > > > included all files in the system... > > > > This sounds like a similar problem with the unix "file" command on > some > > systems. The "file" command tells you what type of file you have. > > Usually "file" has to read the first few bytes of the file to figure > it > > out. This, of course, trips the atime. But then "file" tries to > cover > > its tracks by setting the atime back to its original value. > > Unfortunately, this trips the ctime, which also causes a needless > > incremental dump of the file. So are you saying that virus scanners > also > > save the atime and set it back? Makes sense because otherwise the > atime > > of all the files on the system are reset whenever a virus scan is run. > > > But resetting the atime trips the ctime, causing all files to be > included > > in an incremental dump. > > > > But there are important reasons to dump files whose ctimes have > changed, > > so ignoring ctime isn't the answer. > > Agreed. > That's why the workaround of "ignore_ctime" is not a standard > documented option, and should not be used by most NetApp customers. > > Those who have used it understand the ramifications of their > decision. > > Longer-term solutions to the problem are mentioned in the > bug description for burt 17767. One possibility is to allow > CIFS users to choose to use the "Archive bit" semantic. > > The archive bit is the Windows way of not worrying about any > of the mtime/ctime business. I believe it is cleared when > the file is backed up, and set when the file is modified... > > Priority 1 was to fix burt 23356, so that those of you > who aren't worried about burt 17767 are not affected by it. > > We are working on the "right" answer for 17767. > > Stephen Manley > NDMP Time Keeper > > > > P.S. > > A possible workaround would be to have the virus scanner check a > snapshot. > > Then the virus scanner can't change any timestamps at all since the > > snapshot is strictly read only. Of course, the virus scanner might > croak > > when its attempt to reset atimes in a snapshot fails. > > BTW -- this was a suggested approach for the virus scanners. I don't > have data on the success rate of this choice. >

1 0

RE: Spares Kit
by daniel.milrad＠netapp.com 12 Jun '00

12 Jun '00

To clarify the last statement about Spares Kits...The first component put into a Spares Kit is the main system board with the CPU...System memory is taken off the board to ease the cost burden to the customer but is available as an a la carte option should you choose to stock it as a spare. Thanks, Danny Danny Milrad Product Manager Network Appliance, Inc. (408) 822-6286 dmilrad(a)netapp.com www.netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Brian Tao [mailto:taob@risc.org] Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 3:54 PM To: Jay Orr Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Spares Kit On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Jay Orr wrote: > > We've since gotten a new F720 and a spares kit. Do most people test > out the spares kit, or do most put it on faith that the spare kit is > good? You (should) test out the spares kit just as you would do your own burn-in of new equipment, even though your vendor or reseller claims they've done their own QA. Nothing here goes directly from a shipping crate and into production here without a physical inspection and an operational burn-in period. Our most recent Netapp had a drive with a mashed SCA connector that somehow (?) passed inspection. It may even have worked if all the pins contacted the connector, and we would not have known about it had we not pulled out every drive and examined them. I bought an entire F740 head unit instead of a spares kit. Last I checked, the spares kit does not include a CPU, so if that fries, you're outta luck. Besides, it is easier to swap entire heads than trying to switch a motherboard around or whatever. -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

3 2

Wanted: Cricket config-files for toasters??
by Thaller Horst (MDCA Villach) 12 Jun '00

12 Jun '00

Cricket is the successor of mrtg, a powerful snmp grapher. Who has written Cricket config-files for F740 and F760?? Horst Thaller Infineon Technologies Microelectronic Design Centers Austria GmbH Design Center Villach Siemensstrasse 2, A-9500 Villach Tel. ++43 4242 305-6212 Fax ++43 4242 305-6389 email: Horst.Thaller(a)infineon.com internet: www.infineon.com/ezmvi

2 1

Did anyone else get this?
by Tuc 12 Jun '00

12 Jun '00

From daemon Sun Jun 11 20:59:42 2000 Received: from localhost (localhost) by heimdall.ttsg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with internal id UAA07790; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 20:59:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 20:59:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON(a)heimdall.ttsg.com> Message-Id: <200006120059.UAA07790(a)heimdall.ttsg.com> To: ttsg(a)ttsg.com Subject: Returned mail: User unknown Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure) Status: OR Hi, Did anyone else get this? Forwarded message: > From MAILER-DAEMON(a)valhalla.ttsg.com Sun Jun 11 20:48:27 2000 > Message-Id: <200006120046.UAA05395(a)gevjon.ttsg.com> > Date: 12 Jun 2000 00:09:16 -0000 > From: MAILER-DAEMON(a)mx01.netapp.com > To: XXXXXXX(a)ttsg.com > Subject: failure notice > > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mx01.netapp.com. > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > > <autosupport(a)netapp.com>: > Sorry, I couldn't find any host named 10.10.20.91. (#5.1.2) > > --- Below this line is a copy of the message. > > Return-Path: <XXXXXXX(a)ttsg.com> > Received: (qmail 20179 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2000 22:57:06 -0000 > Received: from inbound.sys.gtei.net (HELO burlma1-smrly1.gtei.net) (4.2.35.14) > by mx01.dmz.netapp.com with SMTP; 11 Jun 2000 22:57:06 -0000 > Received: from XXXXXXX.ttsg.com (XXXXXXX.ttsg.com [1.2.3.31]) > by burlma1-smrly1.gtei.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB6F4791 > for <autosupport(a)netapp.com>; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 04:01:24 +0000 (GMT) > Received: from XXXXXXXXXX (XXXXXXXXXX.ttsg.com [1.2.7.121]) > by XXXXXXXX.ttsg.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id AAA06968; > Sun, 11 Jun 2000 00:00:05 -0400 (EDT) > From: XXXXXXXX(a)ttsg.com > Message-Id: <200006110400.AAA06968(a)XXXXXXXX.ttsg.com> > To: autosupport(a)netapp.com, ttsg(a)ttsg.com > Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 00:00:09 -0400 > Subject: System Notification from XXXXXXXXXX (WEEKLY_LOG) > > GENERATED_ON=Sun Jun 11 00:00:09 EDT 2000 > VERSION=NetApp Release 5.3.4R3P2: Thu Feb 24 11:41:46 PST 2000 > SYSTEM_ID=XXXXXXXXXX > HOSTNAME=XXXXXXXXXX > Console is using unspecified character set > (etc) Tuc/TTSG

2 1

Spares Kit
by Jay Orr 09 Jun '00

09 Jun '00

I have a general question - we got burned earlier this year when we had an F330 fail and our spares kit had problems. We've since gotten a new F720 and a spares kit. Do most people test out the spares kit, or do most put it on faith that the spare kit is good? ----------- Jay Orr Systems Administrator Fujitsu Nexion Inc. St. Louis, MO

2 1

NDMP Incremental backup issue
by Stephen Manley 09 Jun '00

09 Jun '00

Some of you may recall Matt Phelps encountering some trouble with NDMP incremental backups. We've identified the problem as bug 23356. The bug description will soon be available ONLINE at NOW. In a nutshell, the problem is this: An NDMP incremental dump will not include files with an mtime which is set to a time BEFORE the timestamp of the last level 0 dump, but created AFTER the timestamp of the last level 0 dump. Thus, your NDMP incremental backup may be missing some files that were created after the level 0 backup. The files that will be affected would primarily be: 1) Files that are restored, untar'ed through NFS, CIFS, or the native filer restore or NDMP restore. 2) Files that have has changed permissions, without the actual file changing (we won't back up the changed permissions). Note that the next level 0 backup WOULD include all of these files. The history of this bug: Some customers were encountering problems with various Windows applications using the Win32 API. Apparently, the ctime of an accessed file is updated by a large number of Windows apps (even if the file is only read) because the apps don't understand "last changed time". Thus, users with virus scanners would find that their incremental dumps included all files in the system... So we added a hidden option to NDMP and dump to ignore_ctime. (see online burt 17767 for more details on this issue) Unfortunately, all incremental NDMP backups incorrectly invoke that option as the default, and it cannot be overridden. The solution: We will soon have a 5.3.6 patch available that fixes this problem. This is also a good time to mention the NOW Bug Watcher utility. When we do a patch release that fixes this bug, those watching the bug will be automatically notified. (I'm guessing it probably works for other bugs, too. ;) http://now.netapp.com/cgi-bin/relfind?bugs=23356&rels= And thanks to Matt for being so helpful with this issue. Stephen Manley NDMP Spokesmodel

2 2

RE: Unix group permissiosn and NT access on a filer
by mark.muhlestein＠netapp.com 09 Jun '00

09 Jun '00

You want to turn on the cifs.perm_check_use_gid option. Thay way you will get normal UNIX group permission checking semantics. The entry in the security FAQ is intended to explain why that is not the default. Let us know if you still have problems. Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Elizabeth Schwartz [mailto:eschwart@genuity.net] > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 12:55 PM > To: Muhlestein, Mark > Cc: eschwart(a)genuity.net; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Unix group permissiosn and NT access on a filer > > > Thanks! > > IT sounds like what we need is a "cred-GID" am I reading this right? > > I want to give an NT user the right to access files from his > NT box that > members of his unix > group can access on the Unix side, on a filer set to unix file perms > > > At 11:21 AM 6/9/00 -0700, mark.muhlestein(a)netapp.com wrote: > >This is controlled via the option cifs.perm_check_use_gid. See > > > >http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troub > leshooting/faq > >.shtm > >l#anchor1392048 > > > >"My CIFS clients are seeing strange group access with > UNIX-style security > >files" > > > >Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Elizabeth Schwartz [mailto:eschwart@genuity.net] > > > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 8:19 AM > > > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > > Subject: Unix group permissiosn and NT access on a filer > > > > > > > > > Please forgive any NT terminology mangling, I'm a Unix person: > > > > > > We've got a filer that is set up as a Unix filesystem (as > opposed to > > > multiprotocol.) > > > Our NT users access their home directories as NT shares on > > > this filer. > > > Their NT login names match their Unix user id's. > > > > > > On the unix side, I created a group and made a > > > group-writeable directory > > > that is not readable to others. When the NT users log > into our unix > > > machine, they can write files in this directory. When they > > > access this > > > directory from the Unix side, only the owner can write files. > > > > > > Is this fixable? Without making dramatic changes to the > > > filer? (I do have > > > enough space to make a small extra partition if I really had to) > > > -- > > > Elizabeth Schwartz 781-262-6565 > > > Unix System Administrator eschwart(a)bbnplanet.com > > > Genuity, Inc > > > > > -- > Elizabeth Schwartz 781-262-6565 > Unix System Administrator eschwart(a)bbnplanet.com > Genuity, Inc >

1 0

RE: Unix group permissiosn and NT access on a filer
by Elizabeth Schwartz 09 Jun '00

09 Jun '00

Thanks! IT sounds like what we need is a "cred-GID" am I reading this right? I want to give an NT user the right to access files from his NT box that members of his unix group can access on the Unix side, on a filer set to unix file perms At 11:21 AM 6/9/00 -0700, mark.muhlestein(a)netapp.com wrote: >This is controlled via the option cifs.perm_check_use_gid. See > >http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/faq >.shtm >l#anchor1392048 > >"My CIFS clients are seeing strange group access with UNIX-style security >files" > >Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Elizabeth Schwartz [mailto:eschwart@genuity.net] > > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 8:19 AM > > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: Unix group permissiosn and NT access on a filer > > > > > > Please forgive any NT terminology mangling, I'm a Unix person: > > > > We've got a filer that is set up as a Unix filesystem (as opposed to > > multiprotocol.) > > Our NT users access their home directories as NT shares on > > this filer. > > Their NT login names match their Unix user id's. > > > > On the unix side, I created a group and made a > > group-writeable directory > > that is not readable to others. When the NT users log into our unix > > machine, they can write files in this directory. When they > > access this > > directory from the Unix side, only the owner can write files. > > > > Is this fixable? Without making dramatic changes to the > > filer? (I do have > > enough space to make a small extra partition if I really had to) > > -- > > Elizabeth Schwartz 781-262-6565 > > Unix System Administrator eschwart(a)bbnplanet.com > > Genuity, Inc > > -- Elizabeth Schwartz 781-262-6565 Unix System Administrator eschwart(a)bbnplanet.com Genuity, Inc

1 0

RE: McAfee's Ghost
by jeff.mohler＠netapp.com 09 Jun '00

09 Jun '00

After more study internally, I was incorrect in my network based assumption. I have Emailed Ferdie back personally with this correction as well. http://now.netapp.com/NOW/cgi-bin/bol?Display=5408&Type=Detail is a link to our NOW site with specific details. :-----Original Message----- :From: Mohler, Jeff :Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 10:07 AM :To: 'Ferdie Mazon'; toasters(a)mathworks.com :Subject: RE: McAfee's Ghost : : :Without any statistics to debug this..dunno what to say. : :Can you check ALL ethernet ports in question here? Sounds :like a blatant speed/duplex mismatch problem. : ::-----Original Message----- ::From: Ferdie Mazon [mailto:ferdie@san.rr.com] ::Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 9:20 AM ::To: toasters(a)mathworks.com ::Subject: McAfee's Ghost :: :: ::Since moving the storage of Ghost images to the Filer, ::creating images has ::gone from .5 hours to just about 6 hours. I use a boot disk ::created from ::the network client program on Windows NT's administration tools. :: ::Does anyone else have this problem? :: ::Thanks, ::Ferdie Mazon :: :: :

1 0

RE: Unix group permissiosn and NT access on a filer
by mark.muhlestein＠netapp.com 09 Jun '00

09 Jun '00

This is controlled via the option cifs.perm_check_use_gid. See http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/faq… l#anchor1392048 "My CIFS clients are seeing strange group access with UNIX-style security files" Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Elizabeth Schwartz [mailto:eschwart@genuity.net] > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 8:19 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Unix group permissiosn and NT access on a filer > > > Please forgive any NT terminology mangling, I'm a Unix person: > > We've got a filer that is set up as a Unix filesystem (as opposed to > multiprotocol.) > Our NT users access their home directories as NT shares on > this filer. > Their NT login names match their Unix user id's. > > On the unix side, I created a group and made a > group-writeable directory > that is not readable to others. When the NT users log into our unix > machine, they can write files in this directory. When they > access this > directory from the Unix side, only the owner can write files. > > Is this fixable? Without making dramatic changes to the > filer? (I do have > enough space to make a small extra partition if I really had to) > -- > Elizabeth Schwartz 781-262-6565 > Unix System Administrator eschwart(a)bbnplanet.com > Genuity, 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