toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

RE: DLT 8000
by Darleen.Cormier＠netapp.com 08 Jun '00

08 Jun '00

Hi Uros, The F700 series will support the DLT8000 in an emulation mode, if your DLT drive is an HVD model, not LVD or SE. That's on the hardware side. On the software side, the DLT8000 will not be supported until the next release of software, so you will have to emulate a DLT7000 until then. You do that by creating an entry in the /etc/cloned_tapes file, that says DLT8000 EMULATES DLT7000 Be aware that the DLT8000 will now act like a DLT7000, so you will only get the same speed and capacity of a 7000, not the 8000. Once the new software is released, you can remove that entry and the drive will act like a normal 8000. -----Original Message----- From: Uros Lampret [mailto:uros.lampret@ourspace.si] Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 7:03 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com <mailto:toasters@mathworks.com> Subject: DLT 8000 Does anybody know if F700 series supports DLT 8000 on the onboard SCSI port ?

1 0

DLT 8000
by Uros Lampret 08 Jun '00

08 Jun '00

Does anybody know if F700 series supports DLT 8000 on the onboard SCSI port ?

1 0

RE: BudTool incremental backups behaving differently when using N DMP
by Andy.Hatcher＠netapp.com 08 Jun '00

08 Jun '00

Bug 21837 did not require a change to Legato. The change was completely in OnTap. The question was semantics ctime is the inode change time. [i.e. changes associated with the inode should update the ctime field.] The access time is also part of the inode. Therefore in the strict sense of things, ctime should be updated when the access time is updated. However, backup programs are the only ones likely to explicitly change access time and for those types of applications updating the inode change time doesn't make much sense. Backup programs usually try to set all the times explicitly. Greg is pretty new (and a manager) and hopefully you can forgive him. :) -----Original Message----- From: Matt Phelps [mailto:mphelps@cfa.harvard.edu] Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 6:07 AM To: Linn, Greg Cc: cet1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: BudTool incremental backups behaving differently when using NDMP Greg.Linn(a)netapp.com wrote: > > I believe that Matt's problem is different from bug ID 21837. > > 21837 was identified during investigation of a Legato Networker problem where > ctime was being updated inappropriately. The net effect of this was that files > that hadn't changed were being processed as if they had. I believe that Matt's > problem is the opposite; files that have changed are not being picked up by NDMP > incremental dumps. Matt's problem is currently being investigated. > That's right. Greg (or anyone), can/has someone confirmed this behavior? I'm concerned about missing something obvious. > FYI: the resolution for Bug ID 21837 required a change to Networker as well as > Data OnTap. > I'm hopeful we won't need a change to BudTool, those are hard to come by these days ;-) -- Matt Phelps System Administrator, Computation Facility Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics mphelps(a)cfa.harvard.edu, http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~mphelps

1 0

UK Customs problems
by Dave Atkin 07 Jun '00

07 Jun '00

We just received some replacement LRC cards for our FC8 shelves, but I've had endless conversations with Federal Express about VAT. Apparently because they are new parts, UK Customs require VAT to be paid on them (Universities can't generally reclaim VAT). The fact that they are warranty replacements seems to make no difference. I'm trying to get our reseller to sort this out but it would be really helpful if Netapp could do someting with the paperwork to avoid this in the future when they ship replacement parts to us. Dave Atkin -- Dave Atkin, Head of Technical Services Computing Service, University of York, YORK YO10 5DD Phone: +44-1904-433804 (ddi) Fax: +44-1904-433740 Email: D.Atkin(a)york.ac.uk

2 1

RE: BudTool incremental backups behaving differently when using N DMP
by Greg.Linn＠netapp.com 07 Jun '00

07 Jun '00

I believe that Matt's problem is different from bug ID 21837. 21837 was identified during investigation of a Legato Networker problem where ctime was being updated inappropriately. The net effect of this was that files that hadn't changed were being processed as if they had. I believe that Matt's problem is the opposite; files that have changed are not being picked up by NDMP incremental dumps. Matt's problem is currently being investigated. FYI: the resolution for Bug ID 21837 required a change to Networker as well as Data OnTap. Greg Linn Manager, NDMP Development 408.822.3752 telephone -----Original Message----- From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 1:33 PM To: mphelps(a)cfa.harvard.edu Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: BudTool incremental backups behaving differently when using NDMP mphelps(a)cfa.harvard.edu (Matt Phelps) writes: > OK, an update. I have removed the ufsdump/restore part from the > equation. The same behavior exists when I move files to the NetApp > with gtar using the "p" option as root to preserve file properties. > > NDMP incremental dumps are still not picking up the moved files. > Again, an rsh'ed Ontap "dump" command DOES pick up the moved files. Is this the same as, or related to, | Bug ID 21837 | Product Data ONTAP | Title setAccTime() sets the atime correctly, but also sets the ctime | Problem Attempts to set only the access time of files end up changing the inode | change time as well. This is an issue for restore programs which are | trying to restore the exact state of a file. ? What do the ctimes for for the files actually look like? (use "ls -lc") 21837 is supposedly fixed in 5.3.6 (maybe even 5.3.5R2P2?). Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1(a)ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG, Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.

2 1

Come join NetApp at Usenix This Year
by michael.lapides＠netapp.com 07 Jun '00

07 Jun '00

To all those wondering, yes NetApp will once again host a party this year at USENIX. Please come join us Tuesday evening, June 20th, at the Marriot. The fun will start at 8PM, so as I always say go out and enjoy dinner (no hotel food please) or attend you favorite BOF then stop by for some fun, games, desert and beverages. There will be flyers at the show with specific ballroom location details. See ya in San Diego. -Michael

1 0

RE: BudTool incremental backups behaving differently when using N
by chang-ping.hu＠netapp.com 06 Jun '00

06 Jun '00

That is correct. Even though in most circumstances a ufsdump can be restored using a filer's "restore" command, it is NOT a supported feature. -----Original Message----- From: Matt Phelps [mailto:mphelps@cfa.harvard.edu] Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 6:33 PM To: Hu, Chang-Ping Cc: jkrueger(a)qualcomm.com; mphelps(a)cfa.harvard.edu; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: BudTool incremental backups behaving differently when using N > > It is true NetApp recommends using NetApp's dump and restore command formats. > ufsrestore is also supported as an alternative way to retrieve data in case > filer is unavailable. However, ufsdump is NOT supported. > > C.P. Hu > Are you saying that using Solaris ufsdump to a file (or stdout, in our case) and the filer's "restore" command to restore the data is NOT supported? -- Matt Phelps System Administrator, Computation Facility Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics mphelps(a)cfa.harvard.edu, http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~mphelps

3 2

RE: ISL
by Adam.Fox＠netapp.com 06 Jun '00

06 Jun '00

Not currently. I have heard rumors of it being on the roadmap, but not sure exactly when. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Jack Verdirame [mailto:jack@zerowait.com] > Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 8:49 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: ISL > > > Does anyone know if ISL (Inter-Switch Link by Cisco) is > support by a filer. > I don't believe it is. > > Thanks for your time, > > Jack Verdirame > www.zerowait.com > www.loadbalancing.net > Las Vegas: 302.559.5962 > Corp: 302.266.9408 >

1 0

RE: BudTool incremental backups behaving differently when using N DMP
by chang-ping.hu＠netapp.com 06 Jun '00

06 Jun '00

It is true NetApp recommends using NetApp's dump and restore command formats. ufsrestore is also supported as an alternative way to retrieve data in case filer is unavailable. However, ufsdump is NOT supported. C.P. Hu -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Krueger [mailto:jkrueger@qualcomm.com] Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 4:43 PM To: Matt Phelps Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: BudTool incremental backups behaving differently when using NDMP I may have said this before on toasters, but our general experience with NetApp's dump format is that it should be written and read via NetApp's dump and restore command. Yes, we've all heard the claims that it is ufsdump/restore compatible, but at every turn there seems to be some new slight inconsistancy that causes problems in some cases. -- Jeff >From Matt Phelps on Mon, 05 Jun 2000 17:14:54 EDT: > > >Hi All, > >We recently turned on NDMP on our filer and have noticed >different behavior with incremental backups. If we level 0 >a qtree, then use Solaris ufsdump piped to the NetApp >restore command to move files from a Solaris box to that qtree >(such that the file attributes like ctime and mtime are older >than the level 0 time), a subsequent level 9 dump will not see >the added files. If we turn off NDMP on the filer, so BudTool's >dump.NetApp class reverts to rsh'ing a Ontap "dump" command, then >that DOES pick up the added files. > >We opened a call with NetApp (110424), they claimed to have made >"incremental backups with NDMP available" in 5.3.5R2P2 which we >upgraded to, but we are still seeing the same behavior. > >We are using Budtool 4.6.1 on a Solaris machine. > >-- >Matt Phelps >System Administrator, Computation Facility >Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics >mphelps(a)cfa.harvard.edu, http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~mphelps >

2 1

ISL
by Jack Verdirame 06 Jun '00

06 Jun '00

Does anyone know if ISL (Inter-Switch Link by Cisco) is support by a filer. I don't believe it is. Thanks for your time, Jack Verdirame www.zerowait.com www.loadbalancing.net Las Vegas: 302.559.5962 Corp: 302.266.9408

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

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