toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

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

NIS problem
by Haim Dimermanas 09 May '00

09 May '00

Hello, I have been spending days with tech support on this one, and nobody seems to have a clue. This is the first time I post on this list so please excuse me for any mistake contained within this message. I searched the archives of the list but did not find anything related to this problem. I have an F740 running 5.3.4R3. The box is not yet in production because of an annoying problem regarding NIS (also known as Yellow Page). My NIS server is a Linux box running Debian 2.1 with the kernel 2.2.14 and Portmap version 5. I must say that the dns resolution on the filer works, that I am able to mount shares from any clients in my class C (including the NIS server) and of course I can ping the filer from the NIS server and I can ping the NIS server from the filer. This makes me believe that the network part of it is fine. The problem is the following : the Filer does not have access to the maps when a single server is specified in the option nis.servers. It works with a lot of garbage in the logs when I specify server,* in this same option. Just in case it helps when reading the logs, my NIS server is named "aux" (ip : 192.168.1.152). The F740 is named "filer" (ip : 192.168.1.240). I took out the dates and time to make it easier to read. -------------------- First Scenario : options nis.servers my_nis_server Message on the filer : [nis_poll]: NIS server(s) not available Message on the NIS server : (repeated every minute or so) aux portmap[14166]: connect from 192.168.1.240 to callit(ypserv): request not forwarded 'ypcat group' on the filer : No such map group.byname. Reason: Local resource allocation failure Conclusion : it does not work :( ------------------ Second Scenario : options nis.servers my_nis_server,* Message on the filer : [nis_poll]: Bound to preferred NIS server 192.168.1.152 [nis_grp_updater]: Local NIS group update successful. (and the following every two minutes or so) [nis_main]: Preferred NIS Server 192.168.1.152 not responding [nis_main]: NIS server(s) not available [nis_poll]: Bound to preferred NIS server 192.168.1.152 Message on the NIS server : (every minute or so) aux portmap[14223]: connect from 192.168.1.240 to callit(ypserv): request not forwarded 'ypcat group' on the filer : Print the proper groups from the NIS map. Works to with ypcat passwd and ypcat hosts. Conclusion : it works, sort of. ------------------- So what exactly is happening? I have an explanation, but I am IN NO WAY SURE THAT IT IS THE CORRECT ONE. It just seemed to me that it would be the more possible one. I must say that I am in no way an NIS expert but I know Linux pretty well. All this to say that yes, the hosts.allow - hosts.deny and other yp.securenets are set correctly. I think the problem comes from the portmap security scheme. I looked into portmap source code and found this in pmap_check.c : /* * pmap_check - additional portmap security. [Stuff deleted] * Refuse to forward requests to NIS (YP) daemons; The only exception is the * YPPROC_DOMAIN_NONACK broadcast rpc call that is used to establish initial * contact with the NIS server. [More stuff deleted] */ line 89 : #define log_no_forward(addr, proc, prog) \ logit(deny_severity, addr, proc, prog, ": request not forwarded") line 200 (the actual check_callit function) : check_callit(addr, proc, prog, aproc) struct sockaddr_in *addr; u_long proc; u_long prog; u_long aproc; { #ifdef HOSTS_ACCESS if (!(from_local(addr) || good_client(addr))) { log_bad_host(addr, proc, prog); return (FALSE); } #endif if (prog == PMAPPROG || prog == NFSPROG || prog == YPXPROG || (prog == MOUNTPROG && aproc == MOUNTPROC_MNT) || (prog == YPPROG && aproc != YPPROC_DOMAIN_NONACK)) { log_no_forward(addr, proc, prog); return (FALSE); } if (verboselog) log_client(addr, proc, prog); return (TRUE); } I think it nails exactly where the problem is coming from. The Filer is sending a forward request and gets denied. Why does the filer do that after the broadcast, I don't know. I am not sure if the problem comes from the filer or from my portmap implementation on my NIS server (or even my server itsef). I do really hope someone out there has a clue. Thank you for reading this and I hope to get an answer soon. Haim. -- @o=qw(Nu Wjoepxt2l Mjdsptpgu);@p=("jt gvdlfe vq","jt tiju","tvdlt"); for($i=0;$i<@p;$i++){$o[$i]=~y/b-y/a-z/;$p[$i]=~y/b-y/a-z/;} while(){print $o[((rand)*3)]." ".$p[((rand)*3)]."\n";}

3 6

NetApp 202: Advanced System Admin
by Douglas Ritschel 09 May '00

09 May '00

Has anyone taken the "NetApp 202: Advanced System Administration and Troubleshooting for Network Appliance Filers class. And if so, was it useful? -- Douglas Ritschel Fujitsu Network Communications Two Blue Hill Plaza, Sixth Floor P.O. Box 1609 Pearl River, NY 10965 Ph: 914.731.2101 Douglas.Ritschel(a)fnc.fujitsu.com

4 3

RE: NetApp 202: Advanced System Admin
by Mohler, Jeff 09 May '00

09 May '00

I might add to this, that the 202 class has been rewritten top-to-bottom and is now a much more complete 2-day class than it was in the old format. It gets much deeper into the how and _why_ things happen in ONTAP, and the applies that to how to troubleshoot failures or performance issues as they come up in the field. It covers a lot of background for what will be considered 'certification' material in the future. -----Original Message----- From: Douglas Ritschel [mailto:Douglas.Ritschel@fnc.fujitsu.com] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 2:22 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: NetApp 202: Advanced System Admin Has anyone taken the "NetApp 202: Advanced System Administration and Troubleshooting for Network Appliance Filers class. And if so, was it useful? -- Douglas Ritschel Fujitsu Network Communications Two Blue Hill Plaza, Sixth Floor P.O. Box 1609 Pearl River, NY 10965 Ph: 914.731.2101 Douglas.Ritschel(a)fnc.fujitsu.com

1 0

revert_to
by jmiddlebrooks＠datalink.com 08 May '00

08 May '00

If you are at 5.3.4r2 and you want to back down to 5.3.4 do you first have to run revert_to 5.2 and then upgrade to 5.3.4? When you run revert_to is says you can only revert to 5.0, 5.1, or 5.2 Thanks for any help. Jason Middlebrooks Systems Engineer Datalink Corp. 888-933-9327 x2970

3 2

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