toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

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

RE: NOW website
by Davis, Barry 30 Mar '00

30 Mar '00

We've been making lots of changes lately. I thought you might be interested to hear about them. We've added a natural language search engine, chat capability, case notification, release comparison tool, newsletters, etc....Check out the "Headlines" section at http://now.netapp.com/NOW/products/head/ for more info. P.S. Look for the "..." links at the end of each description for the full details. Yes, we will be changing that also. ;-) --------------------------------------- Barry Davis - Director of eService Network Appliance, Inc. Email: barry.davis(a)netapp.com Get answers NOW! - NetApp On the Web - http://now.netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Jay Orr [mailto:orrjl@stl.nexen.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 8:28 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: NOW website > > > Dunno if anyone had noticed, but as of the 11th they got rid of > JavaScript. > > I just logged in with LYNX and it let me. Still gives lots of cookies, > though. I'm going to check it out some more, but nice to see > they finally > took care of this. > > > ----------- > Jay Orr > Systems Administrator > Fujitsu Nexion Inc. > St. Louis, MO >

1 0

RE: NetApp and HP MC Service Guard
by Dave Mills 30 Mar '00

30 Mar '00

Alan, I have installed and config'd Service Guard a few times. The data disks are shared between systems with an exclusive "lock" which guarantees that only 1 node can access the shared disks at a time. The locking mechanism is LVM based. Specifically, only certified HP disks support the locking. Since the Netapps is an NFS Server, it is outside the scope of LVM and would not play well in a SG environment. NFS locks are 'advisory' - my process hopes your process adheres to pre-extablished rules. Netapps has cluster configs which allow for redundancy of the filer and its DASD. This alone would be redundancy of DASD, where SG attempts to eliminate ALL single points of failure. Another potential issue. NFS clients (HP-UX included) are not usually happy when the NFS server hangs, panics,... I worked on a SG environment where each node in the cluster was both a NFS client and NFS server to the other nodes. This sort of became a nightmare to implement. HP has an NFS Toolkit for Service Guard which supports ONLY an NFS server, not the client. On the other hand (the non-supported hand ;>) ), if you configured SG properly, the adoptive node (adopting the application during failover) would do an NFS mount to the filer and be able to access the data, if it were not corrupted. If you do decide to go ahead with this unsupported environment, I would be very interested in hearing the results. Dave Mills Cypress Systems -----Original Message----- From: Alan Beauchemin [mailto:Alan.Beauchemin.B@bayer.com] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 8:22 AM To: - *toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: NetApp and HP MC Service Guard I have a project involving four HP systems requiring continuous availability. I would like to use MC Service Guard but I am not sure if I can use this software with a NetApp. Is anyone using this failover software in a NetApp / HP environment? I would also be curious of other methods of high availability from the server side with a NetApp? Thanks Alan

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

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