toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

NOW web site improvements
by G D Geen 11 Apr '00

11 Apr '00

I just wanted to say that I like the recent improvements to the NOW web site. I much prefer the Serial Number search over browsing through a list. The list is inconsistent so I must view all filers for my company in order to find my filer. With the search feature up front, it is much easier to input a SN and "Go!". I wish to make one suggestion the the "Submit a Case". Would it be possible to add a copy list when submitting a case? I have several people assisting me in maintaining 21 of these monsters and sometimes more than one person will report the problem due to the time it takes to generate the case number and forward it out to the group. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- G D Geen mailto:geen@ti.com Texas Instruments Phone : (972)480.7896 System Administrator FAX : (972)480.7676 --------------------------------------------------------------- Life is what happens while you're busy making other plans. -J. Lennon

1 0

Impact of NFS mount mgmt on NetApps
by johnj.sasso＠ps.ge.com 11 Apr '00

11 Apr '00

Our site has about 800 UNIX systems, each NFS-mounting ~10 directories from our NetApp (an F760 running ONTAP 5.3.4) via the automounter. Does managing all these mounts critically impact the filer? The reason I ask is that if I have an automounter map with the following indirect mount entries: framemaker -rw,nosuid,intr,hard nassrv:/app_vol/framemaker netscape -rw,nosuid,intr,hard nassrv:/app_vol/netscape proe -rw,nosuid,intr,hard nassrv:/app_vol/proe metaflo -rw,nosuid,intr,hard nassrv:/app_vol/metaflo (etc...) Then would changing these to framemaker -rw,nosuid,intr,hard nassrv:/app_vol:framemaker netscape -rw,nosuid,intr,hard nassrv:/app_vol:netscape proe -rw,nosuid,intr,hard nassrv:/app_vol:proe metaflo -rw,nosuid,intr,hard nassrv:/app_vol:metaflo (etc...) (which is supposed to reduce the number of mounts from the NetApp) provide significant improvement in performance on the NetApp? Would this significantly lower the load on the NetApp? Our UNIX systems are such that they do not reboot often, although I am unable to quantify how many mount requests to the filer occur in, say, an hour. --john

1 0

RE: Lucent Switch for Etherchannel Trunking
by Ken Chua 11 Apr '00

11 Apr '00

Hello , I have a F740 filer , NFS . Appreciate if anyone can tell me if you have tried etherchannel trunking from filer to a Lucent switch . Thanks Best Regards , Ken .

1 0

RE: NetApp backup recommendations
by Cliff Dobbs 11 Apr '00

11 Apr '00

I've only just got on to toasters, so sorry if this is a bit late. I was present at a demo of NetBackup last week at which we got the guy doing the demo to restore an NDMP backup to a new directory. I don't remember where the option was, but he just specified a new path to restore to. We've also been doing this with BudTool for ages. Cliff On 10/04/2000 18:53:56 Kelly Wyatt wrote: >On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Marion Hakanson wrote: >> >> I've been told that NetBackup can only restore NDMP dumps in place, >> too -- not to an alternate directory, for example (I haven't >> verified that with the vendor). > > QuickRestore 2.6 can restore an NDMP backup to an alternate *root* >path, if I understand the documentation correctly. If you backup >/depot/src as a single set, and you want to restore just >/depot/src/utilities/billing, you can put that into >/otherdir/utilities/billing, but not /otherdir/billing (i.e., the >directory pathname beneath the root of the backup must be preserved). >A quick call to Workstation Solutions should clear that up, or I can >dig out the manual when I'm back at the office on Monday. >-- >Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) >"Though this be madness, yet there is method in't" Cliff Dobbs Systems Administrator ARM Ltd Tel: +44 1223 400430 Fax: +44 1223 400410 e-mail: Cliff.Dobbs(a)arm.com

1 0

Linux & NetApp
by Fabio Pietrosanti 11 Apr '00

11 Apr '00

Hi, i've a Server farms of VaLinux based on kernel 2.2.7-1.23 that use a F740 NetApp . Now, NetApp's engineer tell us that linux it's not the better choice for using NetApp . We mount share with this parameter : nfs rsize=8192,wsize=8192,timeo=14,intr,soft sometimes( every 2 or 3 week), on some server(different every time) the NetApp does not respond to server, and i see in the log : kernel: nfs: server netapp-2-1 not responding, timed out The load average remain very high until i don't reboot the machine. does someone had the same problem? p.s.: the logs on the NetApp are normal .

2 1

Re: Huge one-time data transfer from UNIX to NetApp
by dnb＠ccs.neu.edu 10 Apr '00

10 Apr '00

Howdy- Rsync's the tool I would recommend: http://rsync.samba.org/ We love it to pieces. I believe it will handle most of the cases mentioned here (including sparse files). Note: there's been some breakage during the last upgrade round. You may find version 2.3.2 to be more stable than 2.4.3. Peace, dNb

1 0

RE: NetApp backup recommendations
by Kelly Wyatt 10 Apr '00

10 Apr '00

I know this thread has been quiet for a few weeks, but a couple of observations... 1) We back up /vol/voln/.snapshot/hourly.0. Obviously we can't restore there, so we have created /vol/voln/restore on each volume. We restore to any of these dirs on the filer. The restore goes in /vol/voln/restore/original path (without the snapshot... path). Not quite an alternate path restore, but close enough for us :-). 2) The only time we have seen a tape drive problem reboot a filer is if we are messing with a tape drive (like trying to jiggle loose a stuck tape). Other than that, we have never had a tape drive problem reboot our filer. Maybe NetBackup does not keep trying like Budtool. 3) In 3.2 you can backup to another filer (three way backup). It's pretty cool... some of our filers have only one tape drive, and others have two. We have set the filers with one trap drive to use only their own storage units, and the filers with only one tape drive are set to any available. So... if a filer with only one tape drive has a tape drive problem, it will go backup on another filer... at a 50-60% performance hit, but at least there is a backup. This took a little getting used to when we first upgraded to 3.2 when we had filers backing up all over the place. I am hoping to see a more granular selection (or ranking) of storage units from NetBackup in the future. There is one filer with a little bitty robotic tape library in another building who should not ever be used for another filer's backup. I can't prevent that from happening if I have it set any set to "any available". Kelly -- Kelly Wyatt, Kelly.Wyatt(a)SAS.com Systems Programmer Integrated Solutions Consulting SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Drive / Cary, NC 27513 http://www.sas.com -----Original Message----- From: Brian Tao [mailto:taob@risc.org] Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 2:01 AM To: Marion Hakanson Cc: Jeff Bryer; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: NetApp backup recommendations On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Marion Hakanson wrote: > > I've been told that NetBackup can only restore NDMP dumps in place, > too -- not to an alternate directory, for example (I haven't > verified that with the vendor). QuickRestore 2.6 can restore an NDMP backup to an alternate *root* path, if I understand the documentation correctly. If you backup /depot/src as a single set, and you want to restore just /depot/src/utilities/billing, you can put that into /otherdir/utilities/billing, but not /otherdir/billing (i.e., the directory pathname beneath the root of the backup must be preserved). A quick call to Workstation Solutions should clear that up, or I can dig out the manual when I'm back at the office on Monday. -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

1 0

RE: Patch Question
by Bagg, Rod 10 Apr '00

10 Apr '00

The patch release is a separate release with additional content. To download a patch release: 1. Goto and login to the NOW site 2. Select "Software Downloads" from the main NOW page 3. Select "Download Software" 4. Scroll to the bottom of the page (same page as the table that confused you). 5. Enter the desired version where it says: If a technical support engineer gave you a specific ONTAP version, enter it here: and hit enter 6. Scroll down and "Accept" the license agreement 7. Click on the appropriate files to download I will talk with the Manager of the NOW site regarding clarification on that page that confused you. Release content is cumulative, so 5.3.5P2 contains patches on top of 5.3.5 base content. 5.3.5R2 is a newer Engineering release than 5.3.5. We will be releasing (this week) 5.3.5R2P1 which rolls all fixes in 5.3.5P2 on top of the 5.3.5R2 base. Rod Bagg Manager, Sustaining Engineering Network Appliance 408-822-6042 (office) 408-205-9533 (cell) 408-994-2696 (pager) 408-822-4410 (fax) Get answers NOW! - NetApp On the Web http://now.netapp.com

1 0

Patch question
by Jay Orr 10 Apr '00

10 Apr '00

Uh, simple question - I see there is 5.3.5r2 available on the now site, and next to it is a box "patch 5.3.5p2" with the word "Patch" as a link to an explination. Now, does this mean that if I download the current 5.3.5.r2 image it has p2 applied, or do I have to find p2 somewhere else ('cause I don't see it)? Not the most intuitive (or maybe it's just me)... The way the patch info in the "our releases" seems, being in a different box, it's like it's a different item to download (as opposed to an extension of the description). However, nowhere else in the page is the patch mentioned and the link on "patch" only takes you to the "Software Release Descriptions" page. ----------- Jay Orr Systems Administrator Fujitsu Nexion Inc. St. Louis, MO

1 0

RE: EMC Celerra vs NetApp Filer
by Sam Schorr 10 Apr '00

10 Apr '00

Homestead.com has 8 F760 filers. We have just installed a Celerra with 7 datamovers attached to a Symmetrix 3930 (3 raw terabytes, 1 TB effective). While both are NAS solutions, the approaches are very different. How they are evaluated must be done from the perspective of the specific environment they are used in. In ours, both perform the same duty - we have roughly 70 HTTP servers (MS IIS 4.0) on Compaq Proliant servers (NT 4.0 SP6a), a few Linux and FreeBSD servers and some non-HTTP servers using either CIFS or NFS. The mix is about 65-70% CIFS and the rest NFS. Each "client" server uses UNC pathing to find the specific volume\directory\file, or to create the same. Performance - too early to compare, but initial results show parity of response. I have no hard data other than the individual read/write tests we have done that show little significant variance. Administration - big difference. The netapp is very easy to setup and install and monitor. the combined Celerra/Symmetrix environment is not. Let's just say that I am not the most technical guy in the world and I setup 2 F760's, cross-connected for Snapmirror, with all the RAID definitions, etc., by myself in one afternoon. I would not even know where to begin doing this in the EMC environment. On the other had, for the price difference, I expect EMC to get that done and get it done correctly. Support - here again the 2 approaches differ greatly. The EMC platform comes with premium service - you get no choice, you only get top-of-line, phone-home, on site in 2 hours. netapp, even though we have premium support, does not have the same level of system-to-support automatic ties (autosupport really is not the same). being located very close to netapp has mitigated any issue this might cause and we have nothing but great support from them. Why did Homestead.com choose to buy EMC at this point? The main reason is that Network Appliance's next generation is not yet ready, so the ability to scale based on current products was not optimal for us. Also, we wanted a RAID 1+ solution - WAFL is RAID 4 (and very good, just not as tolerant of disk failures). Lastly, I could use parts of the Symmetrix for direct attach (SAN) while having the other for NAS. Sam Schorr Homestead.com ph: (650) 549-3152 fax: (650) 364-7329 sschorr(a)homestead-inc.com Homestead: It's a new world. Make your place. -----Original Message----- From: Gilles TOURPE [mailto:gilles@bnpcn.com] Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 5:28 AM To: toasters@mathworks. com Subject: EMC Celerra vs NetApp Filer Hello, Did anybody get in the same site, an EMC Celerra system and a NETAPP F7xx ( at least 740 ) Filer ? I would be interrested in Performances, administration, supports issues ... I'm very curious about the Celerra solution. On the paper it looks smart and really really NAS-oriented ( quite funny for SAN-guys :-) ). Some tests we did we pretty concluant also ( and complex also ... ). Any thinking, remarks ???? Thanx Gilles ------------------------------------------------------------ Gilles TOURPE - System and Network Administrator APS BNP ARBITRAGE - Salle des marches ACTIONS - PARIS - France Phone : (33)-1-40-14-24-03 e-mail : gilles(a)bnpcn.com

12 27

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