toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

Tape Drives
by Mark D Fowle 08 Mar '00

08 Mar '00

I have a Breece Hill Q-47 tape library, and I was wondering if anyone has a library similar to this attached to the netapps ? Mark Fowle Caterpillar

1 0

RE: Problem in ownerships
by Bond, Andrew 08 Mar '00

08 Mar '00

I'd take a quess that the file is on a qtree (or volume) with NTFS security. This is expected behaviour in that situation. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dl-toasters(a)netapp.com > [mailto:owner-dl-toasters@netapp.com]On Behalf Of > bhaskar.g(a)philips.com > Sent: 08 March 2000 04:01 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Problem in ownerships > > > > Hi all, > > Recently we have procured a Filer 720. We are facing a > strange problem. Though I am the owner of a file or directory > When i try to change the ownership of the file or directory > or if i try to copy the file to some other directory. It gives the > following errors > > > bhaskarg@sahadev$ chown babuk:users quota.txt > quota.txt: Not owner > bhaskarg@sahadev$ ll quota.txt > -rw-rw-r-- 1 bhaskarg users 1137 Feb 29 10:29 quota.txt > bhaskarg@sahadev$ > > sunitha@detroit$ ll > total 336 > -rwxrwxr-x 1 sunitha WEB 1936 Jan 28 10:17 > Glite_To_do27thJan.html > -rwxrwxr-x 1 sunitha WEB 5945 Feb 11 16:49 > Glite_to10Feb.html > -rwxrwxr-x 1 sunitha WEB 20992 Mar 1 11:51 > Glite_to24thFeb.xls > -rwxrwxr-x 1 sunitha WEB 30068 Feb 28 17:48 > estimation_back.html > drwxrwxr-x 2 sunitha WEB 4096 Mar 7 14:42 images > -rwxrwxr-x 1 sunitha WEB 690 Mar 2 16:52 index.html > -rwxrwxr-x 1 sunitha WEB 418 Feb 5 16:03 > innovteam.html > -rwxrwxr-x 1 sunitha WEB 2466 Mar 7 14:45 > right_innov.html > sunitha@detroit$ cp -p right_innov.html > /home/www/htdocs/groups/innov/. > cp: utime failed right_innov.html: Not owner > sunitha@detroit$ > > > regards > Bhaskar G > Systems Engineer, > Philips Semiconductors, > #3, Sterling Square,Madras Bank Road, > Off St Mark's Road,BANGALORE-560 001. > Voice : +91 80 222 9200 Ext 5060 > Fax: +91 80 2229700 > >

2 1

Newsgroup?
by rod＠cash.co.za 06 Mar '00

06 Mar '00

Hi there, I'v been told by Network Appliance that you have a newsgroup called 'toaster' ... if true how would I access it. I'm based in South Africa working for the NetApp partner. Many thanks Rod

1 0

RE: Spurious "Loop break detected" message?
by Bulfer, David 05 Mar '00

05 Mar '00

Don't ignore the messages. Make sure all of your FC cables are plugged in tight and the jack screws snug. Contacting NetApp CS could not hurt. David Bulfer -----Original Message----- From: Brian Tao [mailto:taob@risc.org] Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 7:58 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com; grant.berry(a)netapp.com Subject: Spurious "Loop break detected" message? I noticed this on one of our F740's in the weekly e-mail: Thu Mar 2 13:36:35 EST [adm1-na7: isp2100_main]: Loop break detected on ISP2100 in slot 3. Thu Mar 2 13:36:35 EST [adm1-na7: isp2100_main]: Loop back up on ISP2100 in slot 3. There were no noticeable problems around that time, nor were any other messages reported. adm1-na7 is clustered with adm1-na8, both are running "NetApp Release 5.3.4: Fri Oct 15 12:28:26 PDT 1999". The FC-AL adapter in slot 3 is connected to adm1-na7's partner's drives though, which is probably why nothing bad happened. I'm more curious than concerned at this point, since this is the first time I've seen this happen (loop down/up event logged in the same second). -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

1 0

Spurious "Loop break detected" message?
by Brian Tao 05 Mar '00

05 Mar '00

I noticed this on one of our F740's in the weekly e-mail: Thu Mar 2 13:36:35 EST [adm1-na7: isp2100_main]: Loop break detected on ISP2100 in slot 3. Thu Mar 2 13:36:35 EST [adm1-na7: isp2100_main]: Loop back up on ISP2100 in slot 3. There were no noticeable problems around that time, nor were any other messages reported. adm1-na7 is clustered with adm1-na8, both are running "NetApp Release 5.3.4: Fri Oct 15 12:28:26 PDT 1999". The FC-AL adapter in slot 3 is connected to adm1-na7's partner's drives though, which is probably why nothing bad happened. I'm more curious than concerned at this point, since this is the first time I've seen this happen (loop down/up event logged in the same second). -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

1 0

Rename a qtree?
by Richard L. Rhodes 04 Mar '00

04 Mar '00

Can you rename a qtree? I tried this: - from the mount point for /vol/vol0 I did a "mv qtreedir newqtreedir" - edited /vol/vol0/etc/quotas to change the quota entry to reflect the new name: newqtreedir - edited /vol/vol0/etc/exports to change the exported dir to newqtreedir - resized quota for vol0 - rexported everything - at the host unmounted/deleted the nfs mount - added a new mount using newqtreedir It looks like it works. On the hosts a df command shows the quota correctly. Question: Is this really messing things up or is this ok? Thanks Rick ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 f: 330-384-2514

5 5

RE: Benchmarking, modeling, and performance tuning (was Re: Disk drive technology)
by Wells, Steven 03 Mar '00

03 Mar '00

Todd, Network Appliance now offers Professional Services Engineers in many geographic regions. The program is just ramping up so it hasn't been widely publicized yet. Check with your sales representative or e-mail our installed base sales group at ibg(a)netapp.com to check availability and get pricing. Steve Wells Installed Base Sales Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Todd C. Merrill [mailto:tmerrill@mathworks.com] Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 5:00 AM To: Bennett Todd Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Benchmarking, modeling, and performance tuning (was Re: Disk drive technology) On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Bennett Todd wrote: > Benchmarking is a place where NetApp could _really_ help us out. > There may be some software limitation that makes this partly > impractical, but it seems to me with just a few max-config servers > and some load-generating software and systems, you could easily > provide a performance-vs-cost curve for a given customer, for > machines perfectly tuned to deliver the best price/performance Look at the published SPEC results at: http://www.spec.org/osg/sfs97/results/ then do some math with price quotes from NetApp or your VAR. As with most vendors, NetApp is no exception in charging a premium for the top-of- the-line model, the F760. As I've mentioned in another post, I went through this analysis, and since I needed gobs of ops, I bought two F740's instead of a single F760. For 100% more money, I got 100% more ops with a second F740, not 50% more ops with a single F760. > for their particular needs. The two keys bits would be flexible > servers, where for benchmarking you could selectively use only some I'm all for that. As a previous post again showed, I need more cache in my environment (amount of NVRAM seems sufficient). The F740 has 1/2 GB, no more, no less. A write-intensive development environment is apparently not the optimally-tuned "typical" configuration that NetApp uses to configure their one-size-fits-all filers. Perhaps in the future NetApp could be a bit more flexible in the configurations available, and maybe offer "professional services" to monitor and tune a filer for a specific application. Until next time... Todd C. Merrill 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 ---

1 0

Re: Disk drive technology
by mds＠gbnet.net 03 Mar '00

03 Mar '00

On Wed 23 Feb, 2000, "Bruce Sterling Woodcock" <sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: > The article doesn't say, but bigger, faster disk drives often draw more > power. Thus, NetApp needs to have shelves that can support them > first, before they can test them for reliability. There are a lot of issues > involving mechanical vibration and so on that have to be assessed before > such a drive could be qualified. It may be that this particular drive is > not appropriate for certain shelves. Well, yeah, so much so obvious. So how soon was that? 8) > More spindles is better performance, if you are read-heavy. If your filer > seems slow and it's reading constantly but the CPU is still under 100%, > more spindles could help. So much for conventional wisdom. However, my question was trying to elicit something a little more, well, complete as a model of performance. I mean FCAL is a loop technology, and filers can come with 1, 2 or 3 loops. How much does performance differ when using 1 chain as opposed to 3 balanced chains, using which drives, using what RAID set sizes and volume mappings? How does performance get affected by the size of the disks you use? See, if none of these things makes any difference to performance I'd love to know why. If they *do* then I'd love to know how to build faster filers. I'd be happy with an analytical model, or a set of tables taken from either real lab testing with real filers, or simulator results. As it stands though, all we have are rules of thumb that sound plausible. The same goes for backup performance. There's been so much discussion on the list about both topics, but I can't honestly hand-on-heart tell someone how best to set-up their filers. I'd write something if I knew the answers myself. The best I can find is things like: http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/contents/FAQ/FAQ_560.shtml I've been meaning to brush up on queueing theory so maybe I *will* try to work something up myself on this. I'd just hate to reinvent the wheel if someone's done it already. I also don't know anything about the buffers in the filer, on FCAL interfaces, the network interfaces, the precise use of the WAFL, etc.. So my model might be under-informed. Here's a thought to mull over: if you have 20 18 gig drives on 2 loops and 16MB nvram, will you see better or worse performance than with 40 9GB drives on 1 loop with 16MB nvram presuming your clients are all writing as fast as they are allowed? Please disregard any "such configs aren't shipped" objections as this is an in-principle hypothetical. Please do consider the effect of RAID sets, and incremental disk-additions over the lifetime of the filer in question. I picked writing as the task because I wanted to point out also that there's an impact on the DOT algorithms, based on the spindles, the RAID set sizes, and maybe the chains too. I don't know the answer, but I'd like to. Without such models we all have to purchase filers somewhat in the dark, and either pray that we got it right, or expend more time than we could in evaluating our purchases for suitability. One question - is anyone else interested in this or am I just shooting my mouth off needlessly? >-- End of excerpt from "Bruce Sterling Woodcock" -- -Mark ... an Englishman in London ...

6 6

legato java client
by bentele＠mtu-friedrichshafen.com 03 Mar '00

03 Mar '00

Hi all, we have a F740 with 534R3 and I just installed legato's netapp client ( patch 5.5 ) . ( Filer has not been rebootet after the legato-installation.) na_nsrexecd -s *nt-legato-server* start shows the daemon is running, rsh-option is on; but I get the following messages, when starting the clients group on the nsr-server: NetWorker: ASM donesave failed. NetWorker: save: Error java.io.IOException: save failed java.io.IOException: save failed at COM.legato.networker.cmd.Save.savepaths(Save.java:336) at COM.legato.networker.cmd.Save.save(Save.java:108) Does anyone has any suggestions ? Thank you Mit freundlichen Grüßen Markus Bentele MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH * 07541-90-2654 * 07541-90-5510 * bentele(a)mtu-friedrichshafen.com

1 0

RE: Site Server and netapp
by Benn, Paul 03 Mar '00

03 Mar '00

The release to use is: 5.3.4R3P2 -----Original Message----- From: Keith Brown [mailto:keith@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 7:37 AM To: jq; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Site Server and netapp Hi Jay... You need to be using a Data ONTAP rev 5.3.4R2D2 or better (yes, I know.... we're still working on the C3PO release! :-)). You quoted a site server update propogation issue in your mail, but the root cause of that problem actually has to do with the way IIS uses the change notification APIs in Win32 (towit, very heavily!) and a small difference that existed between the way Windows NT handled change notify events and the way that Data ONTAP handled them. The issue was a little involved, and only ever occured when an app started using change notify like it was going out of fashion, but the engineering team here chased it down and it's all solved. I did just try and check to make sure the needed fix got rolled into Data ONTAP 5.3.5 also, which you should be able to obtain from NOW, but the system we have for letting me do that doesn't appear to be available to me right now. I'll try again a little later and e-mail you privately. Keith

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