toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

None
by Igor Schein 04 Apr '00

04 Apr '00

Hi, My goal is to to get CIFS on a 740 filer to join to PDC running on Samba. Last time I checked there was a unicode issue which was preventing people from using Samba as PDC for netapp filers. I was wondering if the status has changed and any1 on the list has been successfull in doing so. THanks Igor

1 0

RE: How are you mounting CIFS homedirs with Win9x?
by Uren, Jim 04 Apr '00

04 Apr '00

[snip] > > Thanks for the info. Are there any plans to support variable > expansion a la > SAMBA? For example, sample allows you to define a share using > "%u", which > gets expanded to the username on the SAMBA side. That llows you to put > "\\samba-server\\home" in the logon script, and have SAMBA do the > exapansion for you. > > Tim Yes, this capability is in-plan. The bug report (burt) number for this RFE is 13856.

1 0

Re: EMC Celerra vs NetApp Filer
by Todd C. Merrill 04 Apr '00

04 Apr '00

Kendall Libby wrote: > > right now. Going by units of "1 cpu, 1gb cache, 200gb disk", EMC > > comes in cheaper after a small number of units. For us. YMWV. Bruce Sterling Woodcock wrote: > But these wouldn't be units that would be equal comparison. > What matters is primarily ops/$ and GB/$ for roughly the same Kendall indeed pointed out one "unit" measure, combining performance and storage, that works well *for us*. ops/$ and GB/$ may not be a primary concern for everyone [0], nor may it be a majority concern [1]; I don't think it's fair to make such a blanket statement. There are subjective factors, of course. And, if you ask NetApp for their super-duper maintenance and support plans with bacon and extra cheese, in order to try to narrow the service level gap and compare apples-to-apples with what EMC offers by default, the price gap narrows quite a bit, too. Bruce wrote: > not doubting what you say; I'm just annoyed customers are > comparing the two and yet don't appear to have numbers on > this. [...] > Since we don't know how much all the EMC and related stuff cost, it's > hard to accurately compare the two solutions. I bet it is much higher, [...] > Personally I don't mind who prefers what just so long as all the facts > are on the table. Vendor quotes are often confidential, and info gained from NDA's certainly are, so release of numbers can be a big no-no. In a public forum, we can only quote list prices and independent performance numbers and currently shipping features. But here, as in our personal consumer lives, "nobody pays list price." ;) It's hard to make an orange look like an apple; and, it's equally hard to make a pear look like an apple, too. Vendors in a comparison have to be sqeeuzed into a framework that is not complementary to any of them. Apples-to-apples comparisons are very difficult when the paradigms and company philosophies are vastly different, too. If we were talking about CheapPCDiskDriveVendor #1 and #2, it might come down soley to parameter/$ and we probabaly wouldn't be having this interesting discussion. ;) [0] I ran across this quote this weekend which was rather interesting: "There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this man's lawful prey." --John Ruskin [2] [1] I'm with Brian (?) on the ops issue, though. More, more, more! [2] I'm not commenting on either vendor in question specifically. I just thought it was a nice thought to think about since so many people get wrapped up in one thing ($) when making purchases, for business or pleasure. Step back from the tree and look at the forest. Until next time... The Mathworks, Inc. 508-647-7000 x7792 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick, MA 01760-2098 508-647-7001 FAX tmerrill(a)mathworks.com http://www.mathworks.com ---

2 1

RE: Problem with WINS registration on 5.3.4R3
by Hawley, Rob 04 Apr '00

04 Apr '00

The rule on WINS is that the WINS server must be able to ping every address on the filer. We added the -wins option on ifconfig since WINS will not work properly if the filer has a private net. The option says to exclude this interface from WINS registration. If you rc_toggle_basic you can use the nbtstat command to show the current registration status. If the entries say broadcast instead of WINS, then we were not able to complete registration with the WINS server. As Andrew said, NetApp customer support would be happy to help you solve this problem. -----Original Message----- From: Bond, Andrew [mailto:abond@netapp.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 2:12 AM To: johan.gillquist(a)cn.saab.se Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Problem with WINS registration on 5.3.4R3 Maybe the WINS server is not accessible to the filer (in which case there should be errors in the messages file). Some versions of ONTAP allow you to run "cifs testdc" and this will report whether the name was registered by WINS or by broadcast because the WINS server was not available (I think this shows as "WINS" or "WINS broadcast" respectively). It is also possible to disable wins registration for specific IP address using the -wins flag to ifconfig. Have you opened a call with NetApp support? There are other tools to debug this.... Regards, Andrew > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dl-toasters(a)netapp.com > [mailto:owner-dl-toasters@netapp.com]On Behalf Of Johan Gillquist > Sent: 04 April 2000 07:16 > To: netapp mailing list > Subject: Problem with WINS registration on 5.3.4R3 > > > Hi all, > > I have have a problem with my F720 running 5.3.4R3, CIFS and NFS. The > toaster does not seem to register itself in WINS. When I run a "cifs > sessions" command it states "WINS servers: xxx.xxx.x....." > and it's the > correct address. When a check the WINS server there is no entry's for > the filer. If I enter a static entry in the WINs database it > works fine > > Suggestions ? > > /Johan >

1 0

RE: Problem with WINS registration on 5.3.4R3
by Bond, Andrew 04 Apr '00

04 Apr '00

Maybe the WINS server is not accessible to the filer (in which case there should be errors in the messages file). Some versions of ONTAP allow you to run "cifs testdc" and this will report whether the name was registered by WINS or by broadcast because the WINS server was not available (I think this shows as "WINS" or "WINS broadcast" respectively). It is also possible to disable wins registration for specific IP address using the -wins flag to ifconfig. Have you opened a call with NetApp support? There are other tools to debug this.... Regards, Andrew > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dl-toasters(a)netapp.com > [mailto:owner-dl-toasters@netapp.com]On Behalf Of Johan Gillquist > Sent: 04 April 2000 07:16 > To: netapp mailing list > Subject: Problem with WINS registration on 5.3.4R3 > > > Hi all, > > I have have a problem with my F720 running 5.3.4R3, CIFS and NFS. The > toaster does not seem to register itself in WINS. When I run a "cifs > sessions" command it states "WINS servers: xxx.xxx.x....." > and it's the > correct address. When a check the WINS server there is no entry's for > the filer. If I enter a static entry in the WINs database it > works fine > > Suggestions ? > > /Johan >

1 0

Problem with WINS registration on 5.3.4R3
by Johan Gillquist 04 Apr '00

04 Apr '00

Hi all, I have have a problem with my F720 running 5.3.4R3, CIFS and NFS. The toaster does not seem to register itself in WINS. When I run a "cifs sessions" command it states "WINS servers: xxx.xxx.x....." and it's the correct address. When a check the WINS server there is no entry's for the filer. If I enter a static entry in the WINs database it works fine Suggestions ? /Johan

1 0

RE: Legato NetApp Client Pak = weak
by Graydon Dodson 03 Apr '00

03 Apr '00

> Is anyone else using the Legato Client Pak for NetApp? The fact that it > doesn't support the GUI doesn't bother me, but I *do* have a problem that I > have to manually restart the daemon on the filer after every reboot. There > doesn't seem to be a way to start if from the rc file, as you have to type > the filer's password. We have had MAJOR problems using Legato's client pack for NetApp. Both with filler panics and with bad backups. My recommendation would be to avoid it. > Does anyone have insight into whether or not Legato will be expanding this > product? Legato's answer to us was to give us a free license to BudTool. But it's future is far from certain. Thanks. Graydon Dodson grdodson(a)lexmark.com Lexmark International Inc.

1 0

Legato NetApp Client Pak = weak
by Timothy Demarest 03 Apr '00

03 Apr '00

Is anyone else using the Legato Client Pak for NetApp? The fact that it doesn't support the GUI doesn't bother me, but I *do* have a problem that I have to manually restart the daemon on the filer after every reboot. There doesn't seem to be a way to start if from the rc file, as you have to type the filer's password. Does anyone have insight into whether or not Legato will be expanding this product? Ti

1 0

RE: How are you mounting CIFS homedirs with Win9x?
by Mohler,Anissa 03 Apr '00

03 Apr '00

You have hit the issue exactly... basically can't do that in 95 - not on Filers or NT Servers. Here are the two options I explored in my implementation of a filer in a CIFS only environment at my old job. I ended up using option #2 with batch files to ease the pain. I just couldn't get kixtart to run consistently. You can do some searches on MS's web site exact command to add in your batch file to automatically assign the user home directory in the NT Profile. Unfortunately I don't have the batch file myself anymore. Two options: #1 You can use a program like WINSET.EXE and a logon script processor like KiXtart to set the environment variable then map a drive for the 95 user in the same manner he would map the drive for the NT users. (Microsoft's web site has some good KB articles on this). #2 You can manually (or through batch file) set the Home Directory property (in NT User Manager for Domains under User Properties/Profile) to the desired home directory for each user. E.g. You would have to set the Home Directory property for your 95 users to Connect Z: (or whatever letter) to \\filer\username. Then you can use the native NT login script to map the 95 users to NET USE Z: /HOME This topic is pretty well covered on Microsoft's web site. Another option you can try is just place a shortcut to the filer on the users desktop. Then they could doubleclick on the filer and they will see their user home directory at the top level. Not as slick as some of the other options, but it should work as well. Hope this helps. :-----Original Message----- :From: Timothy Demarest [mailto:demarest@arraycomm.com] :Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 10:05 AM :To: toasters(a)mathworks.com :Subject: How are you mounting CIFS homedirs with Win9x? : : : :I was wondering how everyone is mounting CIFS file systems :from Windows 9x :clients? Having worked through the NIS netgroup issue (Bug :#19922, patched :in 5.3.4R3P2 -- thanks everyone), I'm moving on to getting the :new filer :working with PCs. : :I have a CIFS homedir for each user. The filer shares this directory so :that it appears as the user name. In a Windows NT login :script, I can use :the "%username%" directive to mount the user's home dir as H:. :However, you :can't use "%username%" with Windows 9x clients. : :One option is to set the home directory in the user's :environment profile :(in User Manager), but this requires changing each user's profile. The :logon script is simple and elegant. : :I'd really like to mount the CIFS homedir directly, rather :than having the :user open the drive, then open the folder with their :associated username in :order to access files in their home directory. : :Any hints? : :Tim : :

2 1

Use of Netapp as DMZ "glue" device - possible?
by Jim Klun 7183 03 Apr '00

03 Apr '00

I am contemplating this architecture: INTERNET | CISCO PIX FW ------- DMZ FTP SERVER | | ------------------------------ | | | | NT CLIENT NETAPP The DMZ FTP Server would have an a UDP NFS mount THROUGH THE FIREWALL into the internal network. Inbound guest FTP would be directed there via the Netapp NFS mount. The NT box would have a covering SMB mount over the same filesystem. After a guest client delivers data to the FTP server it would be moved from the in to the out directory where it would be picked up by the internal NT box. Intent: Maintain an Internet-visible FTP server in the DMZ and yet provide easy access for inside servers. Question: 1. Does this make sense? Does anyopne use filers this way or in related ways? 2. Are there known exploits against filers doing UDP NFS as I describe above. Could the Netapp be attacked if the FTP box were hacked? 3. Related question: Can admin access to the filer be to ONLY the console port or ONLY a single interface? Thanks - Jim Klun * James A. Klun Sterling Commerce 4600 Lakehurst Ct. Dublin, Oh 43016 * * jklun(a)stercomm.com 614-793-7183 voice 614-793-7092 fax * * ---- "very like a whale" ---- * * ---- Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2 ---- *

6 7

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