toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13523 discussions

RE: NIS and netgroup file
by Nagaraj, Devi 29 Mar '00

29 Mar '00

We are looking into ways of improving the NIS implementation to be more efficient. We are not planning on implementing the slave functionality on the filer though. We are currently focussing on better response to netgroup queries. -Devi Netapp Engineering. -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Sterling Woodcock [mailto:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 1:34 AM To: Bond, Andrew; Timothy Demarest Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: NIS and netgroup file > The filer does not copy the NIS maps into /etc. NIS group information is > cached, but otherwise the filer acts as a NIS client only, and will query the > NIS server it has bound to ("nis info" will tell you which this is). Is full server (non-master) functionality going to be included in the future? It would be very useful and would allow the filer to be more robust. Bruce

7 8

Fwd: Re: NIS and netgroup file
by Jeff Innis 29 Mar '00

29 Mar '00

Sure why not add NIS server, why stop there though lets add DNS too. Hey these things are so reliable, let's put a full blown kernel in there, and start running user apps as well. Anyone ever hear of a little box called Auspex??? I actually thought the concept of "dedicated" NFS appliance was a good one. Jeff > > > We are looking into ways of improving the NIS implementation to be more > > efficient. We are not planning on implementing the slave functionality >on > > the filer though. > >That's too bad, because it essentially makes a network less robust. >See, if you rely on NIS files so you don't have to copy files to the >filer locally, then lets say you have a power outage. The filer comes >up and then can't do anything because it's waiting to talk to the NIS >server (it's probably the DNS server too). The NIS server can't do >anything because it's waiting to mount the filer. Stalemate. There are >ways around this, like having your NIS/DNS server hold the data on a >local disk, but then you have a kink in your whole centralized network >storage scheme. Altenatively, you can copy everything to the filer, but >then you've defeated the whole purpose of NIS. > >Making filers slave servers is an ideal solution. You don't have to >allow other clients to bind to them, but this way they can get data >updated from a master and still have a local copy in the event of >network problems. > >Bruce > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

Permissions
by Jeff Stampes 29 Mar '00

29 Mar '00

Situation: touch a file from a UNIX box chmod 444 file from UNIX box rm -f file from NT box over CIFS share Result: Permission Denied..Booooooo touch a file from a NT box chmod 444 file from UNIX box rm -f file from NT box over CIFS share Result: file is quietly removed...Yeeeeeah! The former behavior is undesirable, as we have multiple platforms in our compile releasing the same platform independent files at different times. Any suggestions? -Jeff

1 0

HP-UX R11 L2000 / F740 NFS Performance
by Dave Mills 29 Mar '00

29 Mar '00

Has anyone tried maximizing file loading performance in the above environment. I will be installing the F740 with 18 - 36GB drives soon and want to solve the problem before it exists. We will be loading aobut 200GB on each of 2 consecutive weekends. Subsequent daily processing will be very heavy batch sequential. Any comments appreciated. Dave Mills Cypress Systems, LTD

1 0

Re: Server capacity and performance
by Brian Hostetter 29 Mar '00

29 Mar '00

2-3K usually. The total number of OPS has not increased very much, it seems like writes are taking forever. I was thinking it may have soemthing to do with WAFL looking for the next open block and when the filer is pretty full it is hard to find. --Bian >>> Mike Horwath <drechsau(a)tiny.net> 03/29 9:32 AM >>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 08:46:14AM -0600, Brian Hostetter wrote: > Could my performance problems be related to space, or are they > probably just sheer volume of ops problems. What are the numbers for the # of ops per second? -- Mike Horwath Admin & Manager @ VISI.com WORK: drechsau(a)visi.com IRC: Drechsau http://www.visi.com/ HOME: drechsau(a)geeks.org The only Minnesota ISP with public statistics: http://noc.visi.com/ Garbage In -- Gospel Out. - berkeley fortune(6)

2 1

rc registry registry rc
by Jenkinson, John P (SAIC) 29 Mar '00

29 Mar '00

we get these messages on reboot of one netapp ** Option wafl.default_unix_user is being set to "pcuser" in /etc/rc, ** and this conflicts with a value - "root" - loaded from the registry. ** Commands in /etc/rc always override the registry at boot time, ** so the value of wafl.default_unix_user is now "pcuser". Fri Mar 24 16:15:10 AKS [rc]: Option wafl.default_unix_user with value "pcuser" in /etc/rc is overri from the registry. ** Option wafl.default_unix_user is being set to "root" in /etc/rc, ** and this conflicts with a value - "pcuser" - loaded from the registry. ** Commands in /etc/rc always override the registry at boot time, ** so the value of wafl.default_unix_user is now "root". the option line is not in the /etc/rc file anyone know what causes such schizo behaviour? wher is a netapp's registry? ======================== John Jenkinson BP Exploration (Alaska)

1 0

Re: Creating a RAID
by July at Zerowait 29 Mar '00

29 Mar '00

We're using 5.3.4R3. I'll be interested in hearing about your cautionary note regarding the usage of full disks or not. I'm pretty sure it's okay, though, because striping requires a parity drive and each RAID has its own parity drive. I don't see how WAFL can stripe across several RAIDs and properly maintain parity. July John Denholm wrote: > > > >From July at Zerowait on Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:52:57 EST: > > > > > > > >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. > > July, (cool name :) > > A cautionary word... > > Someone from Netapp could perhaps address this one. > I'm not sure you'll get the full 36G out of your drives! > > I know it always used to be the case that if you had different raid sets with > different size drives in the raid sets, as long as the set was all the same > size, it didn't matter, all disks were fully used. This was because WAFL used > to round-robin between raid sets for writes. > > I heard a whisper that this wasn't the case any more, that now it fully striped > across ALL raid sets. Can someone from Netapp jump in with an AWOOGAH or an > all clear? > > So, what version of ONTAP are you running there July? > > J > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > # John Denholm johnd(a)theplanet.net # > # Webcache & Filer Administrator, Planet Online +44 113 207 6357 # > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Error 404: There is no spoon -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: Re: NIS and netgroup file
by johnj.sasso＠ps.ge.com 29 Mar '00

29 Mar '00

I fully agree. Having experience with administering Auspex servers as well as NetApps, as well as administering a large, complex NIS environment, it would be a pity to start adding more overhead to the NetApp outside of what it was originally intended for (i.e. fileservice). The Auspex was was a pain to manage because its lack of simplicity, and I didn't see the dedication to fileservice that NetApp provides. As of 5.3.4 (?), NetApp provides the nis.servers option, where you can list all the possible NIS servers to bind to. This has worked quite well in our environment, esp. in the face of a failure of an NIS server the filer was bound to. Adding more overhead to the filer, such as NIS slave service, will only complexify the NetApp more, and as Jeff alluded to, bring it more into the Auspex realm (IMHO, this would only hurt NetApp). One of the features that makes the NetApp great to work with is its simplicity w.r.t. administration; if this isn't for you, then go with an Auspex or Sun (and buy enough Tylenol to boot). --john -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Innis [mailto:figaro911@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 6:13 PM To: sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com Cc: abond(a)netapp.com; demarest(a)arraycomm.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Fwd: Re: NIS and netgroup file Sure why not add NIS server, why stop there though lets add DNS too. Hey these things are so reliable, let's put a full blown kernel in there, and start running user apps as well. Anyone ever hear of a little box called Auspex??? I actually thought the concept of "dedicated" NFS appliance was a good one. Jeff > > > We are looking into ways of improving the NIS implementation to be more > > efficient. We are not planning on implementing the slave functionality >on > > the filer though. > >That's too bad, because it essentially makes a network less robust. >See, if you rely on NIS files so you don't have to copy files to the >filer locally, then lets say you have a power outage. The filer comes >up and then can't do anything because it's waiting to talk to the NIS >server (it's probably the DNS server too). The NIS server can't do >anything because it's waiting to mount the filer. Stalemate. There are >ways around this, like having your NIS/DNS server hold the data on a >local disk, but then you have a kink in your whole centralized network >storage scheme. Altenatively, you can copy everything to the filer, but >then you've defeated the whole purpose of NIS. > >Making filers slave servers is an ideal solution. You don't have to >allow other clients to bind to them, but this way they can get data >updated from a master and still have a local copy in the event of >network problems. > >Bruce > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

RE: NIS and netgroup file
by Nagaraj, Devi 29 Mar '00

29 Mar '00

Jeff/Bruce, Your input is very valuable. We will take into account your suggestion while we improve the NIS services on the filer for the next release. Jeff - instead of binding using broadcast, you can secify the NIS servers you want to bind to in the order of preference. This will make sure that the same NIS server is not bombarded by all the filers. -Devi -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Krueger [mailto:jkrueger@qualcomm.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 4:00 PM To: Bruce Sterling Woodcock Cc: Nagaraj, Devi; Bond, Andrew; Timothy Demarest; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: NIS and netgroup file We are in full accord with Bruce's comments below. Although recent enhancements to the NIS client have made it speedier and more robust, loss of communications with a NIS slave has consistently been one of our largest causes for NetApp services outages. Additionally, binding several NetApps to the same slave places tremendous strain on that slave due to continual hammering by the filers. A lightweight slave implementation inside DOT would be a welcome feature. As Bruce mentioned, it need not provide maps to other machines, but only for its own purposes. This would reduce network traffic and strain on existing boxes, free up an external dependency, and likely improve the speed of authentication which may make the filer run faster overall. As a side-note, our old Auspex ran a NIS slave for the same basic reason although it was horrible for machines to bind to. In broadcast mode, we found that our NetApps *loved* binding to it among the multitude of other slaves on that particular subnet. =) -- Jeff -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Krueger E-Mail: jeff(a)qualcomm.com NetApp File Server Lead Phone: 858-651-6709 IT Engineering and Support Fax: 858-651-6627 QUALCOMM, Incorporated Web: www.qualcomm.com >From "Bruce Sterling Woodcock" on Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:10:10 PST: > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Nagaraj, Devi <devi.nagaraj(a)netapp.com> >To: 'Bruce Sterling Woodcock' <sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com>; Bond, Andrew ><abond(a)netapp.com>; Timothy Demarest <demarest(a)arraycomm.com> >Cc: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> >Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 9:15 AM >Subject: RE: NIS and netgroup file > > >> We are looking into ways of improving the NIS implementation to be more >> efficient. We are not planning on implementing the slave functionality on >> the filer though. > >That's too bad, because it essentially makes a network less robust. >See, if you rely on NIS files so you don't have to copy files to the >filer locally, then lets say you have a power outage. The filer comes >up and then can't do anything because it's waiting to talk to the NIS >server (it's probably the DNS server too). The NIS server can't do >anything because it's waiting to mount the filer. Stalemate. There are >ways around this, like having your NIS/DNS server hold the data on a >local disk, but then you have a kink in your whole centralized network >storage scheme. Altenatively, you can copy everything to the filer, but >then you've defeated the whole purpose of NIS. > >Making filers slave servers is an ideal solution. You don't have to >allow other clients to bind to them, but this way they can get data >updated from a master and still have a local copy in the event of >network problems. > >Bruce > >

1 0

RE: 3rd Party NFS Clients
by Jen Hamilton 29 Mar '00

29 Mar '00

For those of you using NFS Maestro to log onto NetApps from NT workstations, what authenticates the user? I get "Authorization Error" when logging in, unless I'm user "nobody" with no password. Thanks, Jen Hamilton

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