toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13523 discussions

RE: Mulitple network cards
by Fox, Adam 23 Mar '00

23 Mar '00

> I have several network cards on my filer, each with its own > subnet - If I am on > a subnet that the cards are not defined for, how > does the filer know which subnet/card to send the information out on ? > > Mark Fowle > Caterpillar/BCP > This decision is made by the routing table. The routing table is built primarily in 3 ways. Static routes (like the default route and interface routes), ICMP redirects, and if used routing protocols like RIP. The filer will look at the routing table to decide the first hop for the reply. To views your route table, try netstat -rn. Hope this helps. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com

3 3

RE: Solaris 7 & NFS2/NFS3/TCP/UDP....
by Rainchik, Aleksandr (MED, Non GE) 22 Mar '00

22 Mar '00

http://www-viz.tamu.edu/~sgi-faq/faq/html/admin/69.html "[NFS3].... is not supported by the automounter." You can mount it as NFS3 manually, or from /etc/fstab, or using AutoFS, but not via automount (which we use). I've tried to use -vers=3 in automount map, no luck :( I was very surprised... -----Original Message----- From: Keith Brown [mailto:keith@netapp.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 5:35 PM To: Rainchik, Aleksandr (MED, Non GE) Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Solaris 7 & NFS2/NFS3/TCP/UDP.... The usual drill for NFS mounting when no options are specified, as defined by Sun/Solaris (if you accept Sun/Solaris as a definer here?), is to mount using the highest revision of the NFS protocol available on both the client and the server, and the first connection oriented protocol available (usually TCP), falling back to the first connectionless protocol (usually UDP). So if the IRIX folk were paying any attention to the Solaris folk when they put their implementation together, as long as you have: filer> options nfs.v3.enable on filer> options nfs.tcp.enable off set on the filer, you would be in with a fighting chance of getting your 32K/NFSv3/UDP aspirations satisfied, even without specifying any mount options (32K xfer sizes are the default for NFSv3). Keith

1 0

Solaris 7 & NFS2/NFS3/TCP/UDP....
by Rainchik, Aleksandr (MED, Non GE) 22 Mar '00

22 Mar '00

Hi, We have brand new E450 running Solaris 7 and NetApp Release 5.3.4R3 and we are planning to use NetApp as a ClearCase VOB storage. Both are on 100mb/full switched fast Ethernet. I was trying to play with Postmark to identify what is best for performance, like NFS2 or NFS3? TCP or UDP? What values for rsize or wsize? r/wsize TPS read write -------------------------------------- NFS3 UDP 8K 38 223.42 720.64 NFS2 UDP 8K 3 13.81 44.53 NFS3 TCP 32K 2 12.67 40.86 NFS2 TCP 8K 2 13.14 42.39 a) For some reason, the best results I've got was with -o vers=3,proto=udp. NFS2, or NFS over TCP looks like a joke... It's like 20 times slower. b) There is no way to use w/rsize=32768 with NetApp with NFS3 over UDP. Why? I can do it when mounting from Solaris. Any comments? Thank you.

2 1

RE: Mulitple network cards
by Mohler, Jeff 22 Mar '00

22 Mar '00

It will send to your defined default route. -----Original Message----- From: Mark D Fowle [mailto:Fowle_Mark_D@CAT.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 11:53 AM To: toasters Subject: Mulitple network cards I have several network cards on my filer, each with its own subnet - If I am on a subnet that the cards are not defined for, how does the filer know which subnet/card to send the information out on ? Mark Fowle Caterpillar/BCP

1 0

RE: NAS Storage
by Kirschner, Lewis 22 Mar '00

22 Mar '00

My apologies to everyone on this forum. The statement below was an overreaction to a legitimate issue that was raised with regard to performance on our filers. My general comment is that if the performance of the filer seems inadequate for your application, we'd be interested in getting the specifics so we can either address the issue, or explain how to tune things so you can get the performance you need. There's a tremendous amount of variation depending on the workload, network configuration, etc. etc., which makes it difficult to make blanket statements about the relative performance. In general, we have the expectation that the filer should perform similarly to local disk. Sometimes faster, and there may be situations where it's slower. Sorry for the overreaction and "blanket statement" on my part -----Original Message----- From: Kirschner, Lewis Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 3:23 PM To: 'Yael Hellmann'; Alvarado, Michael; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: nas storage ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE DESPITE WHAT THE GENTLEMAN SAYS BELOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE'VE GOT SEVERAL THOUSAND CUSTOMER WHO WILL TELL YOU OTHERWISE!!! -----Original Message----- From: Yael Hellmann [mailto:yael_hellmann@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 2:59 PM To: michael.alvarado(a)netapp.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: nas storage You are still limitted by the network and netapp will not be able to compete with products which provide direct disk attachment. Products in mind are SANergy and CXFS. Below is a message from a user who supports my assumtion that you cannot get local performance over a network link. "From: Michael S. Keller [mailto:mkeller@mail.wcg.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 10:56 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: nas storage I do not get performance on par with my perception of local disk storage. Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by "on par with local disk storage"? When I run Usenet news spools from Solaris 2.6 on a NetApp filer, I must throttle NFS to get it to work reliably. " --- "Alvarado, Michael" <michael.alvarado(a)netapp.com> wrote: > Network Appliance's current customer experience is > that they do get performance > on par with local disk storage already. > > Our current plans do not include any interoperation > with the SANenergy products. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yael Hellmann [mailto:yael_hellmann@yahoo.com] > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 6:02 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: nas storage > > > I am currently investigating the market for nas > storage. What is netapp plans in providing a > solution > which will deliver local disk performance for nas > storage? Does netapp have plans for products with > SANergy functionality or performance? > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com

1 0

RE: mini-core
by Bagg, Rod 22 Mar '00

22 Mar '00

The minicore file is not currently controlled separately from the Autosupport. I have opened a RFE (23389) for consideration of a new feature to provide the ability to control the sending of the minicore email separately from the Autosupport email. A separate option to turn on/off minicore email and a separate list of recipients. Rod Bagg Manager, Sustaining Engineering Network Appliance 408-822-6042 (office) 408-205-9533 (cell) 408-994-2696 (pager) 408-822-4410 (fax) Get answers NOW! - NetApp On the Web http://now.netapp.com

1 0

Recall: nas storage
by Kirschner, Lewis 22 Mar '00

22 Mar '00

Kirschner, Lewis would like to recall the message, "nas storage".

1 0

Re: Mulitple network cards
by Nick Hilliard 22 Mar '00

22 Mar '00

> I have several network cards on my filer, each with its own subnet - If I > am on a subnet that the cards are not defined for, how does the filer know > which subnet/card to send the information out on ? By referring to its routing table. Have you checked up on the "route" command? Nick

1 0

Mulitple network cards
by Mark D Fowle 22 Mar '00

22 Mar '00

I have several network cards on my filer, each with its own subnet - If I am on a subnet that the cards are not defined for, how does the filer know which subnet/card to send the information out on ? Mark Fowle Caterpillar/BCP

1 0

mini-core
by Graham C. Knight 22 Mar '00

22 Mar '00

Does anyone know if there is a way to have the mini-core files that are introduced in 5.3 mailed to a list *other* than my autosupport list - or to disable them being mailed at all? Thx, Graham

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