toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

RE: 18G disk and 36G disk coexist on Netapp 720 Filer ?
by Anissa.Mohler＠netapp.com 05 Jun '00

05 Jun '00

Amy, In a word, yes. You can use both 18 and 36G drives in a F720. The 36G drives require the FC9 shelf (which can also hold 18G drives). You can check the System Configuration guide on NOW http://now.netapp.com/ for part numbers and disks and shelves supported. As far as feasibiltiy is concerned... what do you want to do with it? what is your existing configuration? You won't be able to exceed 504 GB no matter what types of disks you use. Anissa -----Original Message----- From: Amy Cheng [mailto:amy.cheng@motorola.com] Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 9:22 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: Mandy Meng (r47701); Simon Zhao (r42552) Subject: 18G disk and 36G disk coexist on Netapp 720 Filer ? Hi forks, I wondor whether it is feasible to use 18G disks and 36G disks on a F720 filer. Does anybody have experience on it ? Thanks Best Regards Amy

1 0

18G disk and 36G disk coexist on Netapp 720 Filer ?
by Amy Cheng 05 Jun '00

05 Jun '00

Hi forks, I wondor whether it is feasible to use 18G disks and 36G disks on a F720 filer. Does anybody have experience on it ? Thanks Best Regards Amy

1 0

HELP
by Ebru Bayýndýr 02 Jun '00

02 Jun '00

Hello there, I am the system administrator for the Earth Sciences Research Institute of TUBITAK. I am in need of urgent help to bring up our main computing server. We have a Sun enterprise 450 NIS server sytem that operates under Solaris 2.6. We have a vital problem about our Raid Disk system, which contains valuable earthquake data from the recent earthquakes in Turkey. Here is the story; I had successfully install 6 disks (9gb) into a single 54 GB file system using Solstice Disk Suite 4.1 tool. We have used this file system for about a year now. We had each disk unit taken out from its slot during a maintanence of the system. Now, we have mixed up the order of disks i.e. which disk belongs to which slot is unknown!!... Naturally, the system will not reboot successfully. I am wondering if there is anyone out there has come across such a problem and been able to fix it... I would greatly appreciate your comments and help on this matter... -- ------------------------ Ebru TAN E-Mail : bebru(a)mam.gov.tr TUBITAK MAM Is tel :(262) 646 63 55/391 Yer Bilimleri Arastirma Enstitüsü Is tel :(262) 641 23 00/4300 PK 21 41470 Gebze/KOCAELI

1 0

RE: NAS solutions from Sun?
by erhard.raible＠netapp.com 02 Jun '00

02 Jun '00

it seems, this is "old staff in a new packing" > a tuned solaris server plus low cost scsi disks an other name for the "netraNFS" servers from 1996 season -----Original Message----- From: Ishankov, Alex [mailto:Alex.Ishankov@BMO.com] Sent: Donnerstag, 1. Juni 2000 19:13 To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: NAS solutions from Sun? Hi - Does anybody know anything about recently announced NAS solution from Sun Sun StorEdge N8200 filer (http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2000-05/sunflash.20000530.1.html) and if it is just an adopted version of Network Appliance filer? Thanks

1 0

NAS solutions from Sun?
by Ishankov, Alex 01 Jun '00

01 Jun '00

Hi - Does anybody know anything about recently announced NAS solution from Sun Sun StorEdge N8200 filer (http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2000-05/sunflash.20000530.1.html) and if it is just an adopted version of Network Appliance filer? Thanks

1 0

RE: NT + Unix access rights
by mark.muhlestein＠netapp.com 01 Jun '00

01 Jun '00

As explained in the security guide, access to files with NT security is based on the NT account, while access to files with UNIX security is based on the UNIX account. You can review http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ind… tml to understand multi-protocol security. This is described in the "Concepts" section. Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 4:07 AM > To: Muhlestein, Mark > Cc: mlelstv(a)xlink.net; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: NT + Unix access rights > > > On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 04:54:56PM -0700, > mark.muhlestein(a)netapp.com wrote: > > > I see your problem: WEBMAILER\Administrator is not a member of > > BUILTIN\Administrators on the filer. You should add > "WEBMAILER\Domain Admins" as > > a member of BUILTIN\Administrators on the filer using User > Manager for Domains. > > By default, only the "Domain Admins" group from the domain > the filer is > > installed into is placed as a member of the filer's > BUILTIN\Administrators > > group. > > > Would this give the WEBMAILER\Domain Admins full authority over > the files that use the UNIX security model or just over those > files that use the NT security model ? > > > > > > > > After fixing this, you're going to want to do a "wcc -x" to > force a remapping. > > > > Mark > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 4:20 PM > > > To: Muhlestein, Mark > > > Cc: mlelstv(a)xlink.net > > > Subject: Re: NT + Unix access rights > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 04:02:42PM -0700, > > > mark.muhlestein(a)netapp.com wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > This is a mixed qtree, right? Can you send the output of > > > "wcc -dvv" after > > > > attempting to do the "chown"? The mapped user doing the > > > "chown" has to be a > > > > member of builtin\administrators. > > > > > > here is the relevant part: > > > > > > root (UID 0) from 123.45.67.89 => WEBMAILER\Administrator > > > *************** > > > UNIX uid = 0 > > > > > > NT membership > > > WEBMAILER\Administrator > > > WEBMAILER\Domain Users > > > WEBMAILER\Domain Admins > > > User is also a member of Everyone, Network Users, > > > Authenticated Users > > > *************** > > > > > > Michael van Elst > > > > > > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 2:56 PM > > > > > To: Muhlestein, Mark > > > > > Cc: mlelstv(a)xlink.net; toasters(a)mathworks.com > > > > > Subject: Re: NT + Unix access rights > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 01:34:03PM -0700, > > > > > mark.muhlestein(a)netapp.com wrote: > > > > > > > Apparently the file uses the NT security model in the > > > mixed qtree > > > > > > > and the file owner has locked himself and others out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If this is the case, you should be able to take > > > ownership from NT. > > > > > > > > > > This was unsuccessful so far. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a > > > > > > bug with take ownership (#21325), which is fixed in 5.3.5R2. > > > > > > > > > > I have to check with other people if upgrading the > > > current production > > > > > system to, what I was told is an early-access release, is > > > an option. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You should also be > > > > > > able to do a "chmod" or "chown" from NFS root and get > > > > > control of the file. > > > > > > > > > > This is not possible. Both fail with the error "Not owner". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > that fails, you should do the rc_toggle_basic command > > > > > "lock_dump -f" and see if > > > > > > your file is locked. > > > > > > > > > > The files are not locked according to lock_dump -f. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 > > > > > 721 9652 330 > > > > > Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 > > > > > 721 9652 349 > > > > > Emmy-Noether-Strasse 9 /\ link > > http://nic.xlink.net/ > > > > D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: > > > > hostmaster(a)xlink.net > > > > [ KPNQwest Germany GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe > > > > ] > > > > [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Koen > > > > Bertoen ] > > > > > > -- > > i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 > 721 9652 330 > > Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 > 721 9652 349 > > Emmy-Noether-Strasse 9 /\ link > http://nic.xlink.net/ > > D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: > hostmaster(a)xlink.net > > [ KPNQwest Germany GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe > ] > > [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Koen > Bertoen ] > -- > i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 > 721 9652 330 > Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 > 721 9652 349 > Emmy-Noether-Strasse 9 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ > D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: > hostmaster(a)xlink.net > [ KPNQwest Germany GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe > ] > [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Koen > Bertoen ] >

1 0

RE: NT + Unix access rights
by mark.muhlestein＠netapp.com 01 Jun '00

01 Jun '00

I see your problem: WEBMAILER\Administrator is not a member of BUILTIN\Administrators on the filer. You should add "WEBMAILER\Domain Admins" as a member of BUILTIN\Administrators on the filer using User Manager for Domains. By default, only the "Domain Admins" group from the domain the filer is installed into is placed as a member of the filer's BUILTIN\Administrators group. After fixing this, you're going to want to do a "wcc -x" to force a remapping. Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 4:20 PM > To: Muhlestein, Mark > Cc: mlelstv(a)xlink.net > Subject: Re: NT + Unix access rights > > > On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 04:02:42PM -0700, > mark.muhlestein(a)netapp.com wrote: > > Hi, > > > This is a mixed qtree, right? Can you send the output of > "wcc -dvv" after > > attempting to do the "chown"? The mapped user doing the > "chown" has to be a > > member of builtin\administrators. > > here is the relevant part: > > root (UID 0) from 123.45.67.89 => WEBMAILER\Administrator > *************** > UNIX uid = 0 > > NT membership > WEBMAILER\Administrator > WEBMAILER\Domain Users > WEBMAILER\Domain Admins > User is also a member of Everyone, Network Users, > Authenticated Users > *************** > > Michael van Elst > > > > > Mark > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 2:56 PM > > > To: Muhlestein, Mark > > > Cc: mlelstv(a)xlink.net; toasters(a)mathworks.com > > > Subject: Re: NT + Unix access rights > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 01:34:03PM -0700, > > > mark.muhlestein(a)netapp.com wrote: > > > > > Apparently the file uses the NT security model in the > mixed qtree > > > > > and the file owner has locked himself and others out. > > > > > > > > > > If this is the case, you should be able to take > ownership from NT. > > > > > > This was unsuccessful so far. > > > > > > > > > > There was a > > > > bug with take ownership (#21325), which is fixed in 5.3.5R2. > > > > > > I have to check with other people if upgrading the > current production > > > system to, what I was told is an early-access release, is > an option. > > > > > > > > > > You should also be > > > > able to do a "chmod" or "chown" from NFS root and get > > > control of the file. > > > > > > This is not possible. Both fail with the error "Not owner". > > > > > > > > > > If > > > > that fails, you should do the rc_toggle_basic command > > > "lock_dump -f" and see if > > > > your file is locked. > > > > > > The files are not locked according to lock_dump -f. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 > > > 721 9652 330 > > > Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 > > > 721 9652 349 > > > Emmy-Noether-Strasse 9 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ > > D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: > > hostmaster(a)xlink.net > > [ KPNQwest Germany GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe > > ] > > [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Koen > > Bertoen ] > > -- i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 721 9652 330 Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 721 9652 349 Emmy-Noether-Strasse 9 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: hostmaster(a)xlink.net [ KPNQwest Germany GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe ] [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Koen Bertoen ]

2 1

Ait2 Robots supported?
by Brian Hostetter 01 Jun '00

01 Jun '00

Has anyone hooked up an AIT2 drive to their filers? I had two 760's shipped out today and am going to need a nice large tape system to back them up. I plan on using the time manager ndmp solution for backups and would like to use a Qualstar 4400 series tape library. Anyone have any luck with them or can anyone suggest a 4-8 tape DLT system? --Brian

4 3

Looking for ST15150W
by Stephen C. Woods 31 May '00

31 May '00

Does anyone here have some 4 GB Wide (ST15150W) drives that are: (1) netapp qualified and (2) you are interested in selling? We have a partially populated shelf that we'd like to fill or at least add to. <scw> ----- Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASnet; 2567 Boelter hall; LA CA 90095; (310)-825-8614 Finger for public key scw(a)cirrus.seas.ucla.edu,Internet mail:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU

1 0

Raid scrubbing overloading a 540
by Stephen C. Woods 31 May '00

31 May '00

We have discovered an interesting feature on our toasters, and after some consideration have come to the conclusion that it is a misfeature. As many of you are aware the raid.reconstruct_speed number determines how much CPU to use in raid reconstruction. This directly controls how long it takes to reconstruct a missing disk. If you are concerned about double disk failure, you set this number higher. Unfortunately this number also controls how much CPU is to be used in raid scrubbing, to make things worse if you have multiple raid volumes they seem to be scrubbed in parallel not sequentially. These are the numbers that we obtained, 540 2 raid groups 0 (20X4GB Wide) 1 (12 X 4GB Narrow) no scrubbing CPU = 6% raid.reconstruct_speed =1 CPU = 11-12% raid.reconstruct_speed =2 CPU = 29-33% raid.reconstruct_speed =3 CPU = 59-65% With raid.reconstruct_speed = 8 the filler didn't seem to be responding to nfs requests, which is how discovered this. Now clearly this affects lower end machines (540) more than faster machines. But since scrubbing seems to be very CPU bound it would seem to us that almost any machine could be brought to its knees by this condition. Our question is this: Would it be reasonable to ask Netapp for one or both of the following: (1) Separate raid reconstruct speed from raid scrub speed. (2) Add an option to force raid scrubbing to be sequential. perhaps raid.scrub_parallel == off Clearly for those concerned about dual disk failures a high raid.reconstruct_speed is important. Equally clearly moderatly high raid.reconstruct_speed can bring a 540 to its knees with 2 Raid groups. Spliting the speeds or, running raid scrubbing sequentially might avoid this. ----- Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASnet; 2567 Boelter hall; LA CA 90095; (310)-825-8614 Finger for public key scw(a)cirrus.seas.ucla.edu,Internet mail:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU

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