toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

RE: Recovering files using NetApp
by Darleen.Cormier＠netapp.com 11 May '00

11 May '00

Hi Akhilesh, You need to be running the ClientPak for NetApp on your filer, and if you are then, then you would use a special na_recover command from the command line ( The GUIs do not presently work, with this version from Legato) The na_recover command ensures that the files retain their original permissions or ACLs when they are recovered. If you need to know more about the ClientPak for NetApp, please check out Legato's web site. -----Original Message----- From: Akhilesh Kumar [mailto:akumar@egreetings.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 3:16 PM To: NetApp mailing list Subject: Recovering files using NetApp Hi Gurus, I am using Legato Networker to back up a F720 filer. On a Unix machine that is setup as a Legato client, I can run nwrecover on the client and recover selected files. Any ideas how to do a recover for the filer ? I can use nwadmin on the backup server, but that recovers the whole save set. I want only particular files. Thanks Akhilesh Kumar

2 1

Recovering files using NetApp
by Akhilesh Kumar 10 May '00

10 May '00

Hi Gurus, I am using Legato Networker to back up a F720 filer. On a Unix machine that is setup as a Legato client, I can run nwrecover on the client and recover selected files. Any ideas how to do a recover for the filer ? I can use nwadmin on the backup server, but that recovers the whole save set. I want only particular files. Thanks Akhilesh Kumar

1 0

RE: bootpc/DHCP on NetCache (was RE: Portscan causes DOT 5.3.2R1 to fall over?)
by Jonas Jonsson 10 May '00

10 May '00

Configure the IP address of the box manually acc to the maunal. /// Br, Jonas > -----Original Message----- > From: Colin Johnston [mailto:colinj@uk.psi.com] > Sent: 10 May 2000 16:42 > To: James R Grinter > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: bootpc/DHCP on NetCache (was RE: Portscan causes DOT > 5.3.2R1 to fall over?) > > > > > > seems to answer your own question - it looks like the > netcache box can > > be set up to acquire configuration via DHCP (which is, as I'm sure > > you know, basically bootp+extensions anyway and all works > on that same > > bootpc port.) > > How does one disable this DHCP functionality ?? since I know what ip's > should be allocated to the machines in question. > > Colin Johnston > SA > PSINET UK >

1 0

RE: Portscan causes DOT 5.3.2R1 to fall over?
by Sateesh Mucharla 10 May '00

10 May '00

What are effects of Virus (computer virus) on a "ntfs qtree" and on a "mixed qtree". Thanks to all who responded to my question on "Raid Groups". I am going with 12+1, 12+1,6+1 with 2 hot spares. (Totally 35 drives). Thanks Sateesh Mucharla National Semiconductors - CA.

1 0

bootpc/DHCP on NetCache (was RE: Portscan causes DOT 5.3.2R1 to fall over?)
by jrg＠acm.org 10 May '00

10 May '00

On Wed 10 May, 2000, Colin Johnston <colinj(a)uk.psi.com> wrote: >Any idea why bootpc runs in NetAppCache machines ?? >68/udp open bootpc > >Also message on console when nmap run about DHCP >Wed May 10 11:37:12 BST [de0]: Discarding packets for DHCP client port >originating from server 10.0.0.5 port 400 seems to answer your own question - it looks like the netcache box can be set up to acquire configuration via DHCP (which is, as I'm sure you know, basically bootp+extensions anyway and all works on that same bootpc port.) James.

2 1

RE: Portscan causes DOT 5.3.2R1 to fall over?
by Muhlestein, Mark 10 May '00

10 May '00

This is could be bug #12417. It's fixed in 5.3.5P2, 5.3.5R2P1, and 5.3.5R2P2. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Tao [mailto:taob@risc.org] > Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 10:58 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Portscan causes DOT 5.3.2R1 to fall over? > > > Has anyone tried portscanning a filer (or had their filer > portscanned?) Any ill effects? We ran a network-wide nmap on our own > internal network yesterday evening, and while at first it didn't seem > like it harmed anything (we weren't expecting any problems), it now > appears that some badness may have resulted on one of our F210's > running DOT 5.3.2R1. > > We started noticing the problem when NFS clients were no longer > able to establish file locks. At first, we thought this was simply > Solaris' NFS client acting up again. But then we noticed it happening > on a few other Solaris servers and also on someone's FreeBSD > workstation. > > Further digging showed that every Solaris NFS client of the F210 > logged the exact same message to syslog at roughly the same time (give > or take a couple of minutes): > > May 8 18:13:25 office.corp /usr/lib/nfs/lockd[19392]: > t_accept(file descriptor 5/transport tcp) TLI error 7 > > The lock_dump command on the filer showed a few locks in GRANTED > state, but one was for a pid that no longer existed on the given > client. At that point, any attempt to lock a file residing on that > Netapp would time out and fail. An "rpcinfo -p" showed all the usual > RPC services running (nlockmgr, status, mountd, nfs, rpcbind) except > for rquotad. I don't know if that is significant (we do have user and > tree quotas on the filer). > > The time of the syslog entries coincided with the time of the > portscan run the previous night. To test a couple of other theories, > I tried a series of TCP, UDP and RPC portscans using nmap 2.30b20 > ("nmap -sRUT"). The filer crashed almost immediately, but came back > up within a couple of minutes. Now file locking was behaving > correctly again, and a number of applications that were hanging before > now worked fine. > > I'm not sure if Netapp support will have much to go on here... no > crash dump was saved to disk and /etc/messages is clean, with the only > odd entry being: > > Tue May 9 15:39:20 EDT [de0]: Discarding packets for DHCP > client port originating from server 10.35.1.73 port 9af6. > > 10.35.1.73 is the host doing the nmap. This entry was logged just > before the filer crashed. I didn't have a console attached to the > filer at the time to watch the boot messages. The filer serves NFS as > well as CIFS. > > Anyone run across this problem before? > -- > Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) > "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't" >

2 1

Quota & Performance
by Fabio Pietrosanti 10 May '00

10 May '00

Hi, i'm planning to setting up quota on the Filer, but i want to know if it decrease the performance of the filer. Thanks Fabio Pietrosanti

1 0

Portscan causes DOT 5.3.2R1 to fall over?
by Brian Tao 10 May '00

10 May '00

Has anyone tried portscanning a filer (or had their filer portscanned?) Any ill effects? We ran a network-wide nmap on our own internal network yesterday evening, and while at first it didn't seem like it harmed anything (we weren't expecting any problems), it now appears that some badness may have resulted on one of our F210's running DOT 5.3.2R1. We started noticing the problem when NFS clients were no longer able to establish file locks. At first, we thought this was simply Solaris' NFS client acting up again. But then we noticed it happening on a few other Solaris servers and also on someone's FreeBSD workstation. Further digging showed that every Solaris NFS client of the F210 logged the exact same message to syslog at roughly the same time (give or take a couple of minutes): May 8 18:13:25 office.corp /usr/lib/nfs/lockd[19392]: t_accept(file descriptor 5/transport tcp) TLI error 7 The lock_dump command on the filer showed a few locks in GRANTED state, but one was for a pid that no longer existed on the given client. At that point, any attempt to lock a file residing on that Netapp would time out and fail. An "rpcinfo -p" showed all the usual RPC services running (nlockmgr, status, mountd, nfs, rpcbind) except for rquotad. I don't know if that is significant (we do have user and tree quotas on the filer). The time of the syslog entries coincided with the time of the portscan run the previous night. To test a couple of other theories, I tried a series of TCP, UDP and RPC portscans using nmap 2.30b20 ("nmap -sRUT"). The filer crashed almost immediately, but came back up within a couple of minutes. Now file locking was behaving correctly again, and a number of applications that were hanging before now worked fine. I'm not sure if Netapp support will have much to go on here... no crash dump was saved to disk and /etc/messages is clean, with the only odd entry being: Tue May 9 15:39:20 EDT [de0]: Discarding packets for DHCP client port originating from server 10.35.1.73 port 9af6. 10.35.1.73 is the host doing the nmap. This entry was logged just before the filer crashed. I didn't have a console attached to the filer at the time to watch the boot messages. The filer serves NFS as well as CIFS. Anyone run across this problem before? -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

1 0

RMA Drives
by John Tatar 09 May '00

09 May '00

As a note of caution to some of you folks out there that have older filers, we have a 540 with two volumes. 3 Shelves of 4 Gig Drive and 1 Shelf with 9 Gig Drives (all SCSI). We had one of the 9 Gig drives go out on us two weeks ago. We are still awaiting the RMA drive. Luckly I had a 9Gig'er in my spares kit or I would be all over netapp on this. But if I hadn't, 2 weeks would be like an eternity without a 9 Gig spare sitting on the shelf. Since we have a service contract, why isn't netapp maintaining an adequate inventory of spares? JT -- =================================================================== John J. Tatar Systems & Network Engineering Section Advanced Computer Applications Group Decision & Information Sciences Division Argonne National Laboratory mailto:tatar@dis.anl.gov or john(a)tatar.com Office: 630-252-3242 Fax: 630-252-5128 ===================================================================

2 1

RE: NetApp 202: Advanced System Admin
by Anissa.Mohler＠netapp.com 09 May '00

09 May '00

The complete course description is online for those that haven't seen it yet: http://www.NetApp.com/education/ (for all courses) http://www.NetApp.com/education/netapp202_new.html (for the new 202 course) This is what the course description may not tell you: The revamped NetApp 202 has some information that answers several questions that I see on this list frequently... for instance: How many RAID groups or volumes should I set up? What is wrong with my backup performance? What type of filer setup is required for Oracle 8 (and some other databases, mail systems, etc)? The class is NOT a "this is how you set up your X database on a filer" but it does give you some general ideas of things you will want to do to optimize and protect your databases. It also gives you pointers to other resources for database specific questions. You get tips for performance tuning depending on environment and tools and utilities to determine where a performance problem may come from. There is a scenario based lab where you get to determine the optimum configuration for a specific environment. The class goes into advanced concepts of the WAFL file system and NetApp architecture ... for instance, did you ever wonder why we have 20 snapshots? or how they work? Like to get a glimpse into our inode structure? You get that too. The better you understand the file system you are working with the more you are able to understand how it performs in specific situations. It also provides some great troubleshooting tools and techniques. You get thrown into hands on labs where the filer is broken and you have to fix it. (Without the added pressure of managers breathing down your neck). You get to practice recovery techniques that you will hopefully never need in real life, but if a major problem happens you will be prepared to handle it. There are many case studies where you get to review details of problems encountered by customers in the field (from easy to very hard), what NetApp and the customers did to resolve the problem and what thought process was required to do so. In addition there are labs built in to the case studies where you get to practice some of the more rarified commands in a safe environment. The class will not give you direct answers for every aspect of your environment. But it will give you the tools and concepts to find your own answers. I hope you all get a chance to attend. While some of the material is drawn from the old 202 course. Most of it is brand new, and, IMHO, worth attending. PS. If you have any suggestions for new training you'd like to see or things you would like changed in any of NetApp's course material you can e-mail NetApp Educational Services at: dl-training-feedback(a)netapp.com :-----Original Message----- :From: Derek Kelly [mailto:derek.kelly@genomecorp.com] :Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 6:40 AM :To: Douglas Ritschel :Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com :Subject: Re: NetApp 202: Advanced System Admin : : :I took the 101 and 202 as a package deal as well. While I haven't taken :the 202 class since it was revamped, I found them both to be highly :useful (I suspect that it's even better now!). Just the books alone are :worth the price of the class since they document many of the features :and "hidden" commands most admins would never know about. That's also :where I found out about this talk list and made some friends in the :business who are local to me as well. : :In short, If you're working with Filers on a regular basis, I highly :recommend this class. : :BTW, these classes are the same exact ones NetApp employees (from tech :support to engineers) must attend. There were at least 4 employees in :the same class I took. : :If you have the opportunity, try to take it right in :Sunnyvale. The area :is beautiful and the training facilities are terrific. If you do decide :to go, send me an email if you're looking for travel recommendation :particulars. : :Derek Kelly :Gennomecorp : :On 5/8/00 at 5:21 PM, Douglas.Ritschel(a)fnc.fujitsu.com (Douglas :Ritschel) wrote: : :> Has anyone taken the "NetApp 202: Advanced System Administration and :> Troubleshooting for Network Appliance Filers class. And if so, was it :> useful?

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