toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

NDMP backups stopped after network upgrade
by Rainchik, Aleksandr (MED, Non GE) 18 Apr '00

18 Apr '00

Hello, We are using Budtool 4.6.1 to backup three NetApps F740 (Ontap 5.2.1P2D10). After our network has been down completely for about 15 minutes, we can't do backups any more... NDMP authorization failure for user root. Look at the end of this message for what we have in NetApp log files. So, a) ndmpd is running on NetApp. b) I can telnet, or rsh to NetApp as user root just fine. c) ndmp_hostinfo is also working perfect and I can telnet to port 10000 on NetApp. But, when I connect there, I get 5-6 garbage letters only. If I telnet to port 10000 to NetApp in another department, with newer Ontap, I get the same garbage _and_ the string "Connection successful". Does it make any sense to NDMP gurus? :) d) we've tried rebooting one NetApp and that didn't help. e) we've tried btpasswd to create a new password for user root. Didn't help f) NIS is fine. I can do ypwhich or ypcat on filer... Any ideas? Is there any way to run ndmpd in "verbose" or "debug" mode? Mon Apr 17 12:00:00 CDT [statd]: 12:00pm up 11 days, 18:13 143494298 NFS ops, 961447 CIFS ops, 22 HTTP ops Mon Apr 17 13:00:00 CDT [statd]: 1:00pm up 11 days, 19:13 143588178 NFS ops, 962932 CIFS ops, 22 HTTP ops Mon Apr 17 13:00:11 CDT [ndmp_session_0]: ../common/ndmpd/connect.c:196 ndmpdConnectClientAuth: MD5 authorization failure by user: root. Mon Apr 17 13:00:11 CDT [ndmp_session_0]: ../common/ndmpd/comm.c:838 message 0x746f2061 not supported. Mon Apr 17 13:00:11 CDT [ndmp_session_0]: ../common/ndmpd/comm.c:1037 ndmp_process_messages: unexpected reply message: 0x746f2061. Mon Apr 17 13:59:21 CDT [ndmp_session_0]: ../common/ndmpd/connect.c:196 ndmpdConnectClientAuth: MD5 authorization failure by user: root. Mon Apr 17 13:59:21 CDT [ndmp_session_0]: ../common/ndmpd/comm.c:838 message 0x746f2061 not supported. Mon Apr 17 13:59:21 CDT [ndmp_session_0]: ../common/ndmpd/comm.c:1037 ndmp_process_messages: unexpected reply message: 0x746f2061. Mon Apr 17 13:59:32 CDT [ndmp_session_0]: ../common/ndmpd/connect.c:196 ndmpdConnectClientAuth: MD5 authorization failure by user: root. Mon Apr 17 14:00:00 CDT [statd]: 2:00pm up 11 days, 20:13 144027002 NFS ops, 998979 CIFS ops, 22 HTTP ops Mon Apr 17 14:22:28 CDT [ndmp_session_0]: ../common/ndmpd/connect.c:196 ndmpdConnectClientAuth: MD5 authorization failure by user: root. Mon Apr 17 15:00:00 CDT [statd]: 3:00pm up 11 days, 21:13 144202255 NFS ops, 999196 CIFS ops, 22 HTTP ops

2 1

RE: How do I move /vol/vol0?
by Fox, Adam 17 Apr '00

17 Apr '00

> > I'm in a situatio where we have one F760 with 4 shelves of > 9Gb SCSI disk, and > three shelves of 36Gb FC attached disks. The FC disks were > added later, so the > original install of vol0 was done to the SCSI disks. > > We'd like to get rid of the SCSI disks (and use one shelf of > FC to hold it), > but I'm concerned since we have /vol/vol0 on it. Has anyone > moved /vol/vol0 off > SCSI to FC before, and if so, what problems did you run into? > Many customers have used vol copy to move the data over. Just make sure that the destination fiber-based volume is at least as large as the original SCSI volume. You vol copy the data over. Set the new volume to be the root volume. Then you can destroy the SCSI volume. I'd probably type download, just to be safe. Then I'd reboot...the filer won't actually destroy the old vol0 and start using the new volume until you actually reboot. Then if you want to keep the vol0 name, you can rename the new root volume. This has worked for many customers that I've talked to. Has anyone seen differently? -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com

3 3

firmware for fibre challe disks
by Mathew Anderson 17 Apr '00

17 Apr '00

Hello - From my previous post (thanks for the answers..It should help), it was sugested that I upgrade my 720 to a later version of ontap (currently 5.2.1) I was going to try the 5.3.4.R3, but the minumus firmware revision for the fibre channel disk is FB59 (for ST1917FC disks, I am at FB55). I am unable to find the location of the fibre channel firmware on the NOW site. Any pointers? Thanks -Mathew Mathew Anderson Systems Administration NM Technet Oso Grande Technologies, Inc. mathew(a)nm.net mathew(a)osogrande.net

2 1

RE: Need new backup solution
by Schepers, Jan 17 Apr '00

17 Apr '00

Hi all, > We have been facing some explosive growth during the past 6 > months and have grown past our current backup solution. We > are currently backing up via a linux box that has our 740 nfs > mounted. Backups are taking sometimes 24-30 hours for > incrementals and all weekend for fulls. > > What I am looking for is info on how others are backing up > 200G volumes on 740's or 760's. I just purchased a pair of > 760's and am going to need a nice stable reliable backup > system for them. Looking at the responses sofar, most of you agree on: o directly attached tape devices and o the use of NDMP software For the latter there are 2 to 3 solutions. What I'd like to know is how to determine the sizing of the master backup server for each of the solutions. o How much diskspace do I need for the index database? o What CPU/memory is required for handling a say 1 GB index Dbase? o Network requirements? o other? Can anyone comment ? Yann

7 9

Re: Disk-to-disk backups? (was Re: Need new backup solution)
by tkaczma＠gryf.net 17 Apr '00

17 Apr '00

On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Fred Ab wrote: > If your place burns down you are not just down but out of > business. Tapes are tangible and can be stored offsite. Disks are this way as well. Tom > > ===}From: Bennett Todd <bet(a)rahul.net> > ===}To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > ===}Subject: Disk-to-disk backups? (was Re: Need new backup solution) > ===}Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:13:15 -0700 > ===}Mime-Version: 1.0 > ===} > ===}I'm curious about something here. > ===} > ===}First, some background. I recently set up a backup system I really, > ===}really like. It's on a Linux fileserver, no netapps in this > ===}picture. It's backing up c. 60GB of disk, a single root drive and a > ===}50GB RAID-5 with a hot spare, to another RAID-5 set, about 130GB, > ===}with no hot spare. I have a cronjob set to email me if a drive drops > ===}out of the set. I backup with a script that replicates all the > ===}data to be saved onto the backup raid set, using rsync, with the > ===}--backup-dir option to save anything that's been changed or deleted; > ===}then it takes all those changed-or-deleted files and bzip2s them > ===}into timestamped archives. When the backup partition gets over > ===}90% full it commences deleting those bzip2-ed archives, starting > ===}with the oldest, until it's back down under 80% full. This gives me > ===}months of coverage and I never have to change a tape, and the cost > ===}of the drives is less than the cost of a suitable capacity tape > ===}drive to back up 60GB of data. > ===} > ===}So anyway, enough with background, the question is, how come I don't > ===}hear anyone advocating using Netapp's snapshots as a backup > ===}strategy? Netapps don't lose data; it's not like WAFL or Netapp's > ===}RAID or any other bits are so bug-ridden that they don't do their > ===}job. > ===} > ===}And you can buy a _Load_ of drives for what a heavy-duty > ===}industrial-strength DLT jukebox costs. Especially when you factor > ===}in the setup time, and the re-setup time every time it breaks. The > ===}Exabyte 8200 was the only tape drive I ever set up that didn't die > ===}before I switched jobs; seems like MTBF for a drive writing a tape > ===}a day is well under a year, at least in my experience in the last 6 > ===}years or so. Bleech. > ===} > ===}-Bennett >

1 0

RE: Ontap 5.4
by Reidenbach, Edward 17 Apr '00

17 Apr '00

Jay, Please contact your local Sales Rep for any questions on future products. Thanks On a general note, we will test and qualify new software releases running on discontinued hardware for a period of 2 years after hardware End of Availability date. We have recently decided on the following clarification for software support if the hardware has met the 2 year period: Software support for hardware surpassing the 2 year period will not be phased out in Data ONTAP Maintenance releases. (i.e. x.x.x). We will phase out support in Major Data ONTAP releases (x.x). Thus, the F220, F330, and F540 products (which have a 4/30/00 End of Software Support) will be supported in the Data ONTAP 5.3.x Maintenance Releases. This effectively extends software support until we stop creating maintenance releases for 5.3.x. Ed Reidenbach Mgr, Data ONTAP and High Availability -----Original Message----- From: Jay Orr [mailto:orrjl@stl.nexen.com] Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 1:42 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Ontap 5.4 Any word if ontap 5.4 will be out this month? The reason I ask is Netapp told us they are discontinuing software support at the end of this month because the F330's were declared EOL a year ago. However, last I had talked to anyone about this it was believed that 5.4 would be out before they discontinued software support. What is the plans for ontap versions and F330 and support? Anyone know? ----------- Jay Orr Systems Administrator Fujitsu Nexion Inc. St. Louis, MO

2 1

RE: NetApp F7XX + Snapmirror
by Melvin, Grant 17 Apr '00

17 Apr '00

FYI, > > Now when I look to use SNAPMIRROR to mirror from "A" filer > to "B" filer, I can do it by volumes only. Am I correct in > ASSuM(E)ing that if I mirror "vol0" I'll clobber the > configuration of "B" filer? > We have an "Operational Guide" for SnapMirror on NOW at: http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/TR3073.shtml Hope this helps. Cheers, Grant

1 0

Cifs.max_mpx
by ZANGA, Michael, GCM 17 Apr '00

17 Apr '00

Does anyone have any idea what the option cifs.max_mpx does. On a whitepaper from NetApp the option is referenced to be changed to 1124. I presently have it set at 32 and it was hidden. I am reluctant to make the change without knowing what it does. ********************************************************************** This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above. As this e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information, if you are not the named addressee, you are not authorised to retain, read, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. ************************************************************************

3 2

RE: Cifs.max_mpx
by Hawley, Rob 17 Apr '00

17 Apr '00

Cifs.max_mpx tells the client how many operations can be pending on the filer at the same time. The value should never be set below the NT default of 50 (some early versions of 5.3 set it to 32 which was incorrect). If cifs stat shows Max Multiplex greater than about 32 you need to raise this number. The two engineering approved increases are 253 and 1124. Do not set this to any other values without an explicit conversation with NetApp customer service. One way you can tell how much is enough is to run perfmon on the client consuming the most resources and look at the Redirector\current commands stat. Max_mpx should be set to a healthy margin above that number. It should be noted that just automatically setting this high is not a good idea. High values consume a lot of resources in the clients. That is one of the reasons this is a hidden option. Setting this to an unapproved value will cause errors on some clients http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q232/8/90.ASP. Remember that options.cifs.max_mpx controls a number passed in the initial connection of a client to the filer. Changing this value will not affect active sessions. For this reason we recommend only changing this option when cifs is terminated. Once cifs restarts you can insure that all connections will have the new value There is a similar parameter on an NT server. See http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q191/3/70.asp -----Original Message----- From: ZANGA, Michael, GCM [mailto:Michael.Zanga@gcm.com] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 8:16 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Cifs.max_mpx Does anyone have any idea what the option cifs.max_mpx does. On a whitepaper from NetApp the option is referenced to be changed to 1124. I presently have it set at 32 and it was hidden. I am reluctant to make the change without knowing what it does. ********************************************************************** This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above. As this e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information, if you are not the named addressee, you are not authorised to retain, read, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. ************************************************************************

1 0

RE: Filer volume configuration question
by Norman, Paul 17 Apr '00

17 Apr '00

Steve said "one volume per head", which means the Clustered pair must always have a minimum of two volumes. With a single volume per filer (root volume), each filer is active and serves data from its designated volume. If there is a takeover, then the remaining filer serves data from both volumes. You can have a "hot spare filer", by creating a small root volume on one filer and not have that filer serve any data, but as you say, two volumes each of which has data to be served will give you the best bang for the buck. Paul Norman, Product Manager Direct: (408) 822-6288 Network Appliance E-Mail: pnorman(a)netapp.com 495 East Java Drive Corp: (408) 822-6000 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Web: WWW.NetApp.Com > -----Original Message----- > From: July at Zerowait [mailto:july@zerowait.com] > Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 8:05 AM > To: Watanabe, Steve > Cc: 'ari(a)genuity.net'; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Filer volume configuration question > > > Now I am confused. If there is only one volume, then what you have is > essentially a "hot spare filer" for failover. Surely setting > up two volumes > lets you use both filers actively and gets you more bang for > the buck? While > a single volume cluster might work, is it really the > recommended config? > > July > > "Watanabe, Steve" wrote: > > > Hi Ari, > > A cluster requires a minimum of one volume per head. So > having a 6 disk > > vol0 > > and a spare per node is fine. Make sure that you follow > the directions in > > the > > cluster configuration guide carefully to avoid any > situation where both > > nodes > > are cabled incorrectly allowing access to the same volume > at the same > > time. In fact, I thought NetApp always did the initial cluster > > configuration. > > Is that option available to you? > > -Steve > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ari [mailto:ari@genuity.net] > > Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 5:31 AM > > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: Filer volume configuration question > > > > Hi, > > > > I am setting up a pair of clustered 740's for the first > time and have a > > question. > > > > Each filer currently has one disk shelf. 6 of the disks > are in the root > > volume, /vol/vol0, and the 7th is a hot spare. Is this > configuration OK > > for a clustered pair? I was told by someone that for a > cluster, I would > > need 2 distinct volumes on each head, although I am not > entirely sure why. > > If that is the case, how do I remove drives from the root > volume so that I > > can add them into a newly created volume? > > > > Any help is greatly appreciated. > > > > > > Ari > > > > > > > > > > Ari Globerman > > > > eBusiness Web Hosting Services > > e-mail: ari(a)genuity.com <mailto:ari@genuity.com> > > phone: 617-873-5843 > > fax: 617-873-4033 > > > > <http://www.genuity.com/> > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > > Name: GTEI.h1.gif > > GTEI.h1.gif Type: GIF Image (image/gif) > > Encoding: base64 > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > July A. J. Linett, VP Tech Mktg > 302.266.9408 july(a)zerowait.com > > Zerowait: Best Of Breed Internet Core Technologies > Web Acceleration ** Data Storage ** Load Balancing > www.zerowait.com*www.loadbalancing.net*www.nas-san.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > >

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