toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13523 discussions

RE: Budtool v4.6.1 NDMP breaks with DOT 5.3.5P2
by Francett, Robert D (SAIC) 31 Mar '00

31 Mar '00

Our Veritas backups via NDMP also broke on reboot following upgrade to DOT5.3.5P2 from 5.3.4R2 (note Veritas not sanctioning 5.3.5anything yet to my knowledge). Got backups restarted, but not easy nor straight-forward. NetApp looking at it. We're downgrading to 5.3.4R3P2 per NetApp. Bob > ---------- > From: Jeff Krueger[SMTP:jkrueger@qualcomm.com] > Reply To: jkrueger(a)qualcomm.com > Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 2:09 PM > To: Tim McDonough > Cc: Toaster > Subject: Re: Budtool v4.6.1 NDMP breaks with DOT 5.3.5P2 > > Tim: > > We're in the exact same situation. The first problem is that our tape > library device name is now called "mc0" instead of "spt0". This is > configured in the jbmgr_config file. > > Let us know if you figure this one out. We'll do the same if we figure > something out! =) > > -- Jeff > > > From Tim McDonough on Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:00:54 PST: > > > >Howdy All: > > > > We were placed on the upgrade treadmill last week and > >upgraded > > our F740 cluster from v5.3.2D1 ( NDMP worked ) -- v5.3.4R3 > > -- v5.3.5P2 ( NDMP no worky ) > > > > Subsequently, our direct attached Budtool NDMP backups > >stopped > > working and timed out with each request. > > > > Anyone else seen this, solved this? > > > > Legato and NetApp are scratching their heads when they're not > > > > pointing their fingers at one another. > > > > Tim > > > > > > >

1 0

RE: Budtool v4.6.1 NDMP breaks with DOT 5.3.5P2
by Melvin, Grant 31 Mar '00

31 Mar '00

Hi Jeff, We've built in backwards compatibility, so that the jbmgr_config file can use "mco" or "spt0" even tough sysconfig -m only reports mc0. Hope this helps. Tim, I'd like to understand your issues with 5.3.5P2. Can you send me the case # logged with either NetApp or Legato support (or both)? Otherwise, please send me the symptoms. Cheers, Grant -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Krueger [mailto:jkrueger@qualcomm.com] Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 3:10 PM To: Tim McDonough Cc: Toaster Subject: Re: Budtool v4.6.1 NDMP breaks with DOT 5.3.5P2 Tim: We're in the exact same situation. The first problem is that our tape library device name is now called "mc0" instead of "spt0". This is configured in the jbmgr_config file. Let us know if you figure this one out. We'll do the same if we figure something out! =) -- Jeff >From Tim McDonough on Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:00:54 PST: > >Howdy All: > > We were placed on the upgrade treadmill last week and >upgraded > our F740 cluster from v5.3.2D1 ( NDMP worked ) -- v5.3.4R3 > -- v5.3.5P2 ( NDMP no worky ) > > Subsequently, our direct attached Budtool NDMP backups >stopped > working and timed out with each request. > > Anyone else seen this, solved this? > > Legato and NetApp are scratching their heads when they're not > > pointing their fingers at one another. > > Tim > > >

2 1

Budtool v4.6.1 NDMP breaks with DOT 5.3.5P2
by Tim McDonough 31 Mar '00

31 Mar '00

Howdy All: We were placed on the upgrade treadmill last week and upgraded our F740 cluster from v5.3.2D1 ( NDMP worked ) -- v5.3.4R3 -- v5.3.5P2 ( NDMP no worky ) Subsequently, our direct attached Budtool NDMP backups stopped working and timed out with each request. Anyone else seen this, solved this? Legato and NetApp are scratching their heads when they're not pointing their fingers at one another. Tim

3 2

RE: benchmark
by Paquette, Trevor 31 Mar '00

31 Mar '00

Oh brother.. asked and answered.. "Each vendor will have to be asked what method they use in the real world." The answer is "ask them.." Subject Closed. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jay Orr [SMTP:orrjl@stl.nexen.com] > Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 7:30 AM > To: Paquette, Trevor > Cc: Karl Swartz; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: benchmark > > Yes, and THAT WAS MY ORIGINAL QUESTION THAT YOU RESPONDED TO - what do > Netapps and Sun do? > > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Paquette, Trevor wrote: > > Each vendor either sticks with powers of 2 (as they should) or they > round > > it. > > Each vendor will have to be asked what method they use in the real > world. > > > > > > > > Yes, we all know the theory, but I'm talking real world. As the > > > thread reads, some vendors use 1000 KB = 1MB, while some don't. I am > > > asking what is implemented. Do the majority of the unix vendors adhere > to > > > the proper base 2 theory of metrics or do they use base 10 combos > > > (i.e. the 1GB = 1000 MB)? > > > > > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Paquette, Trevor wrote: > > > > > > > Here we go.. > > > > > > > > A bit is the smallest unit of data in a computer; has a single > binary > > > value > > > > of either 0 or 1 > > > > A byte is a unit of information that is eight bits long. (half a > byte, > > > or 4 > > > > bits is called a nibble) > > > > > > > > Computer storage is measured in byte multiples; which are based on > > > powers of > > > > 2. > > > > Because humans deal mainly with the decimal system, the resulting > number > > > is > > > > usually 'rounded off' > > > > for humans to better comprehend. > > > > > > > > 1 Kbyte = 1024 bytes = 2^10 bytes = 1,024 > bytes > > > > 1 Megabyte = 1024 Kbytes = 2^20 bytes = 1,048,576 > bytes > > > > 1 Gigabyte = 1024 Mbytes = 2^30 bytes = 1,073,741,824 > bytes > > > > 1 Terabyte = 1024 Gbytes = 2^40 bytes = 1,099,511,627,776 > bytes > > > > 1 Petabyte = 1024 Tbytes = 2^50 bytes = 1,125,899,906,842,624 > bytes > > > > 1 Exabyte = 1024 Pbytes = 2^60 bytes = 1,152,921,504,606,846,976 > bytes > > > > = approx. 1 billion GB > > > > > > Humm... Fun.. Do you know off hand how Solaris and netapp defines > a MB > > > or > > > > > GB? In moving around files I started thinking about this, since > > > depending > > > > > on what tool you use you get file sizes in "bytes" "kbytes" "MB" > or > > > "GB" > > > > > (a la gnu df, solaris df, etc...) > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Karl Swartz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Uh, if I can ask a simple (stupid?) question - I was looking > at > > > the > > > > > source > > > > > > > code for postmark and noticed this : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #define KILOBYTE 1024 > > > > > > > #define MEGABYTE (1000*KILOBYTE) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't a megabite 1024*1024? > > > > > > > > > > > > It depends on who you ask. Long ago, disk vendors decided that > they > > > > > > could make their disks look bigger if they defined MB to be 2000 > > > > > > sectors (assuming 512 byte sectors, or 8000 sectors for 128 byte > > > > > > sectors), and GB became 1000 MB. Of course they also talked > about > > > > > > unformatted capacity to further inflate the size over reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > In a similar vein, telco people talk about 1K = 1000. The 64K > B- > > > > > > channel in an ISDN line is 64000 bits per second, not 65536. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure about networking, but I think FDDI and 100base-T > both > > > > > > have a data rate of 100 * 10^6 bits/second, not 100 * 2^20. > (Not to > > > be > > > > > > confused with the signalling rate, which as I recall is 125 * > 10^6 > > > for > > > > > > FDDI with some flavor of 4/5 encoding, and possibly something > > > similar > > > > > > for 100base-T.) > > > > > > > > > > > > What's right for Postmark? Good question. It looks like Jeff > > > picked > > > > > > the standard for disk sizes, but it's not clear that's the > standard > > > > > > most applicable to this case. Aren't standards wonderful? :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Karl Swartz Network Appliance Engineering > > > > > > Work: kls(a)netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ > > > > > > Home: kls(a)chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------- > > > > > Jay Orr > > > > > Systems Administrator > > > > > Fujitsu Nexion Inc. > > > > > St. Louis, MO > > > > > > > > > > ----------- > > > Jay Orr > > > Systems Administrator > > > Fujitsu Nexion Inc. > > > St. Louis, MO > > > > ----------- > Jay Orr > Systems Administrator > Fujitsu Nexion Inc. > St. Louis, MO

4 3

RE: benchmark
by Paquette, Trevor 31 Mar '00

31 Mar '00

Common decency is taking this to private email.. which I am now going to do. Sorry to bother the rest of this list with crap.. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jay Orr [SMTP:orrjl@stl.nexen.com] > Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 8:48 AM > To: Paquette, Trevor > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: benchmark > > > By restating someone's question as an answer, it is not "asked and > answered". I had put to this forum the question of what does Netapps and > Sun do, since there are many Netapp people on this and many people who use > Sun here. > > Your answers have been less then helpful - If you don't know then why did > you reply to the original posting? It was a SIMPLE QUESTION, I didn't ask > for the theory of powers of two, I didn't ask "who should I ask", I didn't > say "how does Trevor feel about this?" I simply posted to this informative > list a simple question of WHAT DOES NETAPP and SUN do in formulating what > they consider MB and GB. > > Please, if you have nothing useful to add to a discussion, don't > interject. That's just common decency... > > > On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Paquette, Trevor wrote: > > > Oh brother.. > > > > asked and answered.. > > > > "Each vendor will have to be asked what method they use in the real > world." > > > > The answer is "ask them.." > > > > Subject Closed. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jay Orr [SMTP:orrjl@stl.nexen.com] > > > Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 7:30 AM > > > To: Paquette, Trevor > > > Cc: Karl Swartz; toasters(a)mathworks.com > > > Subject: RE: benchmark > > > > > > Yes, and THAT WAS MY ORIGINAL QUESTION THAT YOU RESPONDED TO - what > do > > > Netapps and Sun do? > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Paquette, Trevor wrote: > > > > Each vendor either sticks with powers of 2 (as they should) or they > > > round > > > > it. > > > > Each vendor will have to be asked what method they use in the real > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we all know the theory, but I'm talking real world. As the > > > > > thread reads, some vendors use 1000 KB = 1MB, while some don't. I > am > > > > > asking what is implemented. Do the majority of the unix vendors > adhere > > > to > > > > > the proper base 2 theory of metrics or do they use base 10 combos > > > > > (i.e. the 1GB = 1000 MB)? > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Paquette, Trevor wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Here we go.. > > > > > > > > > > > > A bit is the smallest unit of data in a computer; has a single > > > binary > > > > > value > > > > > > of either 0 or 1 > > > > > > A byte is a unit of information that is eight bits long. (half a > > > byte, > > > > > or 4 > > > > > > bits is called a nibble) > > > > > > > > > > > > Computer storage is measured in byte multiples; which are based > on > > > > > powers of > > > > > > 2. > > > > > > Because humans deal mainly with the decimal system, the > resulting > > > number > > > > > is > > > > > > usually 'rounded off' > > > > > > for humans to better comprehend. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 Kbyte = 1024 bytes = 2^10 bytes = > 1,024 > > > bytes > > > > > > 1 Megabyte = 1024 Kbytes = 2^20 bytes = > 1,048,576 > > > bytes > > > > > > 1 Gigabyte = 1024 Mbytes = 2^30 bytes = > 1,073,741,824 > > > bytes > > > > > > 1 Terabyte = 1024 Gbytes = 2^40 bytes = > 1,099,511,627,776 > > > bytes > > > > > > 1 Petabyte = 1024 Tbytes = 2^50 bytes = > 1,125,899,906,842,624 > > > bytes > > > > > > 1 Exabyte = 1024 Pbytes = 2^60 bytes = > 1,152,921,504,606,846,976 > > > bytes > > > > > > = approx. 1 billion GB > > > > > > > > > > Humm... Fun.. Do you know off hand how Solaris and netapp > defines > > > a MB > > > > > or > > > > > > > GB? In moving around files I started thinking about this, > since > > > > > depending > > > > > > > on what tool you use you get file sizes in "bytes" "kbytes" > "MB" > > > or > > > > > "GB" > > > > > > > (a la gnu df, solaris df, etc...) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Karl Swartz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Uh, if I can ask a simple (stupid?) question - I was > looking > > > at > > > > > the > > > > > > > source > > > > > > > > > code for postmark and noticed this : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #define KILOBYTE 1024 > > > > > > > > > #define MEGABYTE (1000*KILOBYTE) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't a megabite 1024*1024? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It depends on who you ask. Long ago, disk vendors decided > that > > > they > > > > > > > > could make their disks look bigger if they defined MB to be > 2000 > > > > > > > > sectors (assuming 512 byte sectors, or 8000 sectors for 128 > byte > > > > > > > > sectors), and GB became 1000 MB. Of course they also talked > > > about > > > > > > > > unformatted capacity to further inflate the size over > reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a similar vein, telco people talk about 1K = 1000. The > 64K > > > B- > > > > > > > > channel in an ISDN line is 64000 bits per second, not 65536. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure about networking, but I think FDDI and > 100base-T > > > both > > > > > > > > have a data rate of 100 * 10^6 bits/second, not 100 * 2^20. > > > (Not to > > > > > be > > > > > > > > confused with the signalling rate, which as I recall is 125 > * > > > 10^6 > > > > > for > > > > > > > > FDDI with some flavor of 4/5 encoding, and possibly > something > > > > > similar > > > > > > > > for 100base-T.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's right for Postmark? Good question. It looks like > Jeff > > > > > picked > > > > > > > > the standard for disk sizes, but it's not clear that's the > > > standard > > > > > > > > most applicable to this case. Aren't standards wonderful? > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Karl Swartz Network Appliance Engineering > > > > > > > > Work: kls(a)netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ > > > > > > > > Home: kls(a)chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------- > > > > > > > Jay Orr > > > > > > > Systems Administrator > > > > > > > Fujitsu Nexion Inc. > > > > > > > St. Louis, MO > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------- > > > > > Jay Orr > > > > > Systems Administrator > > > > > Fujitsu Nexion Inc. > > > > > St. Louis, MO > > > > > > > > > > ----------- > > > Jay Orr > > > Systems Administrator > > > Fujitsu Nexion Inc. > > > St. Louis, MO > > > > ----------- > Jay Orr > Systems Administrator > Fujitsu Nexion Inc. > St. Louis, MO

2 1

How are you mounting CIFS homedirs with Win9x?
by Timothy Demarest 31 Mar '00

31 Mar '00

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

1 0

RE: benchmark
by Paquette, Trevor 31 Mar '00

31 Mar '00

Each vendor either sticks with powers of 2 (as they should) or they round it. Each vendor will have to be asked what method they use in the real world. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jay Orr [SMTP:orrjl@stl.nexen.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 1:53 PM > To: Paquette, Trevor > Cc: Karl Swartz; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: benchmark > > > Yes, we all know the theory, but I'm talking real world. As the > thread reads, some vendors use 1000 KB = 1MB, while some don't. I am > asking what is implemented. Do the majority of the unix vendors adhere to > the proper base 2 theory of metrics or do they use base 10 combos > (i.e. the 1GB = 1000 MB)? > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Paquette, Trevor wrote: > > > Here we go.. > > > > A bit is the smallest unit of data in a computer; has a single binary > value > > of either 0 or 1 > > A byte is a unit of information that is eight bits long. (half a byte, > or 4 > > bits is called a nibble) > > > > Computer storage is measured in byte multiples; which are based on > powers of > > 2. > > Because humans deal mainly with the decimal system, the resulting number > is > > usually 'rounded off' > > for humans to better comprehend. > > > > 1 Kbyte = 1024 bytes = 2^10 bytes = 1,024 bytes > > 1 Megabyte = 1024 Kbytes = 2^20 bytes = 1,048,576 bytes > > 1 Gigabyte = 1024 Mbytes = 2^30 bytes = 1,073,741,824 bytes > > 1 Terabyte = 1024 Gbytes = 2^40 bytes = 1,099,511,627,776 bytes > > 1 Petabyte = 1024 Tbytes = 2^50 bytes = 1,125,899,906,842,624 bytes > > 1 Exabyte = 1024 Pbytes = 2^60 bytes = 1,152,921,504,606,846,976 bytes > = > > approx. 1 billion GB > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jay Orr [SMTP:orrjl@stl.nexen.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 10:52 AM > > > To: Karl Swartz > > > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > > Subject: Re: benchmark > > > > > > > > > Humm... Fun.. Do you know off hand how Solaris and netapp defines a MB > or > > > GB? In moving around files I started thinking about this, since > depending > > > on what tool you use you get file sizes in "bytes" "kbytes" "MB" or > "GB" > > > (a la gnu df, solaris df, etc...) > > > > > > On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Karl Swartz wrote: > > > > > > > > Uh, if I can ask a simple (stupid?) question - I was looking at > the > > > source > > > > > code for postmark and noticed this : > > > > > > > > > > #define KILOBYTE 1024 > > > > > #define MEGABYTE (1000*KILOBYTE) > > > > > > > > > > Isn't a megabite 1024*1024? > > > > > > > > It depends on who you ask. Long ago, disk vendors decided that they > > > > could make their disks look bigger if they defined MB to be 2000 > > > > sectors (assuming 512 byte sectors, or 8000 sectors for 128 byte > > > > sectors), and GB became 1000 MB. Of course they also talked about > > > > unformatted capacity to further inflate the size over reality. > > > > > > > > In a similar vein, telco people talk about 1K = 1000. The 64K B- > > > > channel in an ISDN line is 64000 bits per second, not 65536. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure about networking, but I think FDDI and 100base-T both > > > > have a data rate of 100 * 10^6 bits/second, not 100 * 2^20. (Not to > be > > > > confused with the signalling rate, which as I recall is 125 * 10^6 > for > > > > FDDI with some flavor of 4/5 encoding, and possibly something > similar > > > > for 100base-T.) > > > > > > > > What's right for Postmark? Good question. It looks like Jeff > picked > > > > the standard for disk sizes, but it's not clear that's the standard > > > > most applicable to this case. Aren't standards wonderful? :-) > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Karl Swartz Network Appliance Engineering > > > > Work: kls(a)netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ > > > > Home: kls(a)chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ > > > > > > > > > > ----------- > > > Jay Orr > > > Systems Administrator > > > Fujitsu Nexion Inc. > > > St. Louis, MO > > > > ----------- > Jay Orr > Systems Administrator > Fujitsu Nexion Inc. > St. Louis, MO

3 2

Re: nas storage
by bar-lev benjamin 31 Mar '00

31 Mar '00

We did not really get an answer to the question raised. I am curious too as I am currently evaluating SANergy and I am very impressed with what I see. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com

1 0

Creating a RAID
by July at Zerowait 31 Mar '00

31 Mar '00

Hello: The filer in question is an inherited box, an F760 with two shelves of 9GB SCSI drives, one shelf of 9GB FC-AL drives all in one RAID and one VOL. The single VOL also contains the root, I think. I've heard that you are supposed to separate SCSI and FC-AL drives into separate RAID groups, but this is how the box came and we can't change it. Anyway, my task is to add two shelves of 36GB drives to this unit. I know I need to create a separate RAID group for the 36GB drives. In the man pages I see instructions for adding disks to an existing volume and how to create a volume. I don't see anything that tells me how to create a new RAID group. I must be missing something obvious. Can someone help? Thank you. July ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------

6 7

RE: benchmark
by Paquette, Trevor 30 Mar '00

30 Mar '00

Here we go.. A bit is the smallest unit of data in a computer; has a single binary value of either 0 or 1 A byte is a unit of information that is eight bits long. (half a byte, or 4 bits is called a nibble) Computer storage is measured in byte multiples; which are based on powers of 2. Because humans deal mainly with the decimal system, the resulting number is usually 'rounded off' for humans to better comprehend. 1 Kbyte = 1024 bytes = 2^10 bytes = 1,024 bytes 1 Megabyte = 1024 Kbytes = 2^20 bytes = 1,048,576 bytes 1 Gigabyte = 1024 Mbytes = 2^30 bytes = 1,073,741,824 bytes 1 Terabyte = 1024 Gbytes = 2^40 bytes = 1,099,511,627,776 bytes 1 Petabyte = 1024 Tbytes = 2^50 bytes = 1,125,899,906,842,624 bytes 1 Exabyte = 1024 Pbytes = 2^60 bytes = 1,152,921,504,606,846,976 bytes = approx. 1 billion GB > -----Original Message----- > From: Jay Orr [SMTP:orrjl@stl.nexen.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 10:52 AM > To: Karl Swartz > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: benchmark > > > Humm... Fun.. Do you know off hand how Solaris and netapp defines a MB or > GB? In moving around files I started thinking about this, since depending > on what tool you use you get file sizes in "bytes" "kbytes" "MB" or "GB" > (a la gnu df, solaris df, etc...) > > On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Karl Swartz wrote: > > > > Uh, if I can ask a simple (stupid?) question - I was looking at the > source > > > code for postmark and noticed this : > > > > > > #define KILOBYTE 1024 > > > #define MEGABYTE (1000*KILOBYTE) > > > > > > Isn't a megabite 1024*1024? > > > > It depends on who you ask. Long ago, disk vendors decided that they > > could make their disks look bigger if they defined MB to be 2000 > > sectors (assuming 512 byte sectors, or 8000 sectors for 128 byte > > sectors), and GB became 1000 MB. Of course they also talked about > > unformatted capacity to further inflate the size over reality. > > > > In a similar vein, telco people talk about 1K = 1000. The 64K B- > > channel in an ISDN line is 64000 bits per second, not 65536. > > > > I'm not sure about networking, but I think FDDI and 100base-T both > > have a data rate of 100 * 10^6 bits/second, not 100 * 2^20. (Not to be > > confused with the signalling rate, which as I recall is 125 * 10^6 for > > FDDI with some flavor of 4/5 encoding, and possibly something similar > > for 100base-T.) > > > > What's right for Postmark? Good question. It looks like Jeff picked > > the standard for disk sizes, but it's not clear that's the standard > > most applicable to this case. Aren't standards wonderful? :-) > > > > -- > > Karl Swartz Network Appliance Engineering > > Work: kls(a)netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ > > Home: kls(a)chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ > > > > ----------- > Jay Orr > Systems Administrator > Fujitsu Nexion Inc. > St. Louis, MO

2 1

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