toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

04 Apr '00

Howdy, At my day job, I've got a F720 running 5.3.4R2. I'm trying to attach a new ADIC FastStor 7 tape library to it. The filer sees the changer and the drive: slot 0: SCSI Host Adapter 0b (Qlogic ISP 1040B) Fast/Wide, Differential Firmware Version 4.65 Clock Rate 60MHz. 1: ADIC FastStor DLT 0115 3: QUANTUM DLT8000 010F But it won't qualify the drive, even if I try using the /etc/cloned_tapes file. disk0> sysconfig -t Tape drive (0b.3) DLT8000 (Non-qualified tape drive) /etc/cloned_tapes: DLT8000 EMULATES DLT7000 (also tried QUANTUM DLT8000 EMULATES QUANTUM DLT7000). Any ideas? Hopefully my registration on now.netapp.com will come thru sometime soon... Thanks, Bryan -- Bryan Fullerton http://bryanfullerton.com/ Core Competency Samurai Consulting Can you feel the Ohmu call?

1 0

Summary: backup recommendations
by Jeff Bryer 04 Apr '00

04 Apr '00

I had asked about software/hardware recommendations to replace our existing Budtool/DLT4000 equipment. This is for backing up NetApp filers (NDMP support a requirement), SUN servers, and a Linux cluster primarily. Ability to scale to include Netware, and NT is also important, as well as the potential to scale to cover campus-wide backups of Win9x/NT/2000, Mac and other clients. Summary of responses: Software: 1) Quick Restore from Workstation Solutions was recommended as the choice most closely resembling Budtool (licensing model, look and feel) and was thought of as having the best NDMP support today. 2) Networker from Legato, good client support but the NDMP support came last (out of the three choices). It was thought that v6 will have much better NDMP support. Plus the NDMP client pack is expected to be a free upgrade to Budtool owners (or maybe restricted to those on maintenance). 3) Netbackup from Veritas. NDMP support rated number 2, good client support. Quite a few people who had used both Legato and Veritas said they had migrated to Veritas (NDMP support being one reason). Hardware: 1) DLT, by far most people recommended using DLT[78]000s. It's established, people trust the reliability. 2) AIT, on paper specs great. Of those who've used it, some have had good results with direct attach to NetApps, others only once the library was configured in DLT emulation mode. The DLT drives may have had more recommendations but that's very much skewed as most people who responded hadn't used AIT drives. I would like to hear from more people who've actually used AIT drivs. Our current thoughts: Software choice: Veritas. The NDMP support today in Legato is not sufficient for our needs. Quick Restore doesn't have support for enough different clients, a smaller user install base, disaster recovery seemed to be more a focus for the upcoming v3 release. Hardware choice: AIT. We've had to replace our DLT7000 drive three times in the last two years, so we don't feel overlly confident about them (our 4000 stackers have been fine). The specs and road map for AIT look good (on paper). This being said, I still would like to hear from AIT users to feel better about the reliability of the media/drives. Thanks to everyone who responded. -- Jeff Bryer bryer(a)sfu.ca Systems Administrator (604) 291-4935 Academic Computing, Simon Fraser University

1 0

Budtool, NetApp filer & Tape library
by Rainchik, Aleksandr (MED, Non GE) 04 Apr '00

04 Apr '00

Hello, We have NetApp F740. For backups we are using Budtool 4.6.1 with two media servers (Sun's) and tape library connected to them. Right now, when we are doing backups, all data bits are flying over the network from the NetApp to the media server and finally to the tape. I'm curious, if we can connect one SCSI channel from the tape library to the NetApp? And a) use it as NDMP media server b) eliminate data transfer over the network while doing NetApp backups. Any hidden traps? So, we are basically want to replace one media server with a NetApp. And my main concerns is how well NetApp is going to work this way. Can I use all those jbmgr commands to load and unload tapes there? Will index tables be updated correctly on main Budtool server? Thank you.

2 1

Re: Messages from cron_admin about daylight saving time
by Chris Thompson 04 Apr '00

04 Apr '00

Back on Tuesday 21 March I wrote: > > We run a default raid scrub regime (01:00 on Sundays). Last Sunday we > got a message > > Sun Mar 19 01:00:00 GMT [cron_admin]: > Rescheduling raid_scrub_admin to run at Sun Mar 19 01:00:00 GMT 2000 > because of Day Light Saving time change > > [Raid scrubbing itself ran at this time with no problem.] > > Moreover, every time timed tweaks the clock (we use ntp synchronisation) > it again mutters. e.g. > > Tue Mar 21 16:04:33 GMT [cron_admin]: > Rescheduling raid_scrub_admin to run at Tue Mar 21 16:04:33 GMT 2000 > because of Day Light Saving time change > > Now all this is no doubt because next Sunday is clock-changing day > in our timezone (GB), with 2000-03-26 01:00:00 GMT -> 02:00:00 BST. > [American friends will no doubt be seeing this effect next week!] Well, they obviously didn't, and I think I understand why. Contrary to my initial impression, it seems that the USA switches at 02:00:00->03:00:00 (local time), rather than 01:00:00->02:00:00. The messages apparently only happen if the (local) time that the raid scrub is scheduled for does not logically exist. This happened in the UK and in the Republic of Ireland (I got a confirmation from Garret Flynn) and presumably in Portugal (any NetApp users there?). Further east in Europe the clock change is later in local time (because it is at the same real time, 01:00:00 UTC). For those interested: the raid scrub *did* run at the expected time on clock-changing night, and the messages then disappeared. Garret tells me that this is a known bug, 13649. Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1(a)ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG, Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.

1 0

RE:
by Hawley, Rob 04 Apr '00

04 Apr '00

The filer only supports Microsoft NT domain controllers. There are a number of issues not just that samba does not support UNICODE in the same way NT does. -----Original Message----- From: Igor Schein [mailto:igor@txc.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 10:30 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: 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

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

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