toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

Re: level 2 oplocks and MS outlook
by Matt Day 22 Feb '00

22 Feb '00

Graham Knight wrote: > I think i am running into bug 20270: > > "Outlook users get access is denied (or similar) errors" > > The bug report states the cifs.lvl2_oplocks_cap should > be turned off in order to fix the problem. I have > about to 8000 CIFS users and only a handful have had > this kind of problem. What are the ramifications to > my other 7990 users if I turn off level 2 oplocks > to fix the 10 users that are having the problem? > > Should i just ship the 10 problem users to an NT server? Hi Graham, The ramifications of disabling level-2 oplocks depend on what your clients are doing. In a nutshell: if your clients share files frequently with each other then you should expect to see an increase in file reads when you disable level-2 oplocks because level-2 oplocks tell clients that it's OK to cache reads locally. Level-2 oplocks only come into play when there are multiple file openers, so disabling level-2 won't do much if you don't share files much. For example, if you had multiple NT clients doing compiles on a shared source tree, level-2 oplocks would allow the clients to cache the source files, speeding up subsequent compiles. Outlook is affected by level-2 oplocks because it sometimes opens the same file more than once. Level-2 oplocks aren't supported by Win9x, so those clients won't be affected at all. Here's Microsoft's KnowledgeBase article on NT oplocks: http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q129/2/02.asp Bug 20270 is fixed in 5.3.4R3P1 (available now) and 5.3.5 (coming soon). Matt

1 0

9GB disks
by Jason Lavoie 22 Feb '00

22 Feb '00

About a year ago, we bought a filer (720) with a single FCAL shelf, populated with five 9gig drives. This was about all the storage we needed at the time (for mail spool storage), but knew we could just add a couple of extra drives if we needed more storage. Now, we are looking at adding another large customer (another ISP) to our mail system, and needed a bit more storage. Adding another 9gigs or so would be fine. So, I figured we'd just fill the shelf with drives, and be happy. Netapp tells me that I can't buy 9GB drives anymore. They've proposed upgrading to a new shelf full of 18GB drives, and trading in the existing shelf. Needless to say, the price is exorbitant compared to just adding a couple 9GB drives as we had expected. I'm looking for alternatives. Is anyone selling old 9GB drives for Netapp? If so, please contact me directly so we can work something out. Does anyone have any information on how/where to source non-Netapp drives that will work in our system? Can I use 18GB drives in this shelf (and only use the first 9GB of each)? I've gotten conflicting answers about this from Netapp. Any other ideas? TIA -j -- "What is the sound of Perl? Is it not the sound of a | Jason Lavoie wall that people have stopped banging their heads against?" | jason(a)mint.net --Larry Wall in <1992Aug26.184221.29627(a)netlabs.com> |

3 2

Clustering and the 1.4 TB limit
by Derek Kelly 22 Feb '00

22 Feb '00

I'm sure this question has been posted in the past, but since I've only recently joined this list, I'm going to ask for my own greedy benefit... It is my understanding that to perform cluster failover between two NetApp boxes, the sum total of served data between the two boxes must not exceed a 1.4 TB. Since the two F760's we wish to cluster both have 1 TB each on them now, I can only conclude that we will not be able to take advantage of clustering. I have heard that NetApp plans to change this in the not-so-distant-future. If anyone has any "insider" <grin> info on this situation (i.e., an ETA date) it would be very much appreciated since we have a fairly immediate need to get these boxes clustered. Please feel free to correct any of the assumptions I'm operating under if i'm wrong. Best Regards, Derek Kelly Computer Systems & Support Group Genome Therapeutics Corporation www.genomecorp.com

1 0

RE: question about databases on NetApps
by Mohler, Jeff 22 Feb '00

22 Feb '00

Dont forget that you get to see your family again..no more annoying tuning of filesystems for performance. -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Sterling Woodcock [mailto:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 12:01 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com; Mike Kazar Subject: Re: question about databases on NetApps ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Kazar <kazar(a)icubed.com> To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 11:22 AM Subject: question about databases on NetApps > Or are you just running one database host, and using the NetApp to manage > the database host's disk space. This is what most people do (I think). > If so, what are the advantages you get > from using the NetApp for disk space management instead of just using a > local disk? Well, the disk space is centrally managed, so you get your backup all in one place. You also get RAID for reliability, and snapshots, and often you get even better performance than you do with local disks (despite theory which might suggest otherwise). And your database host is easy to redesignate as needed; you don't have a directly attached disk array that you need to migrate with it. And of course, unique to the Netapp, adding additional disk space as needed is a quick and painless. Bruce

1 0

level 2 oplocks and MS outlook
by Graham C. Knight 22 Feb '00

22 Feb '00

I think i am running into bug 20270: "Outlook users get access is denied (or similar) errors" The bug report states the cifs.lvl2_oplocks_cap should be turned off in order to fix the problem. I have about to 8000 CIFS users and only a handful have had this kind of problem. What are the ramifications to my other 7990 users if I turn off level 2 oplocks to fix the 10 users that are having the problem? Should i just ship the 10 problem users to an NT server? Looking for answers from those in the know. :-) Thanks, Graham

1 0

toaster config for Cricket
by Ronan Mullally 22 Feb '00

22 Feb '00

I'm in the process of setting up cricket (http://www.munitions.com/~jra/cricket) to monitor some of our network equipment. I'd like to include our toaster in this. Before I sit down and try writing up the configs myself, has anybody done this? If so, care to share the config tree? -Ronan

1 0

Moving from one NT domain to another
by Dani Tal 22 Feb '00

22 Feb '00

Did any of you toaster users have any experience with this ? I tried it yesterday and got cold fit in the middle. As a result I answered “no” to the delete computer account question , The filer proceeded and restarted CIFS with the old setup. The filer is in “coming up” status (On the GUI ) ever since. The filer looks normal, we have active CIFS shares etc. I did not like the idea of bring the filer CIFS down again before it completed the “coming up” status. Any Suggestions ? Is it really still “coming up” or just a GUI bug ? We are on release 5.2.1. P.S. after using the GUI to bring CIFS down we where unable to change the NT domain on the GUI. Best Regards , Dani Tal MIS Carmiel Information Systems and Technologies, SEABRIDGE Carmiel Site Newton House Industrial Area 5 , P.O.Box 323 Karmiel 21613 Israel Tel. +972-4-9953200 X 0403 FAX. +972-4-9888097 mail: mailto:dani.tal@seabridge.co.il <mailto:avi.ashkenazi@seabridge.co.il> Web: http://www.seabridge.co.il <http://www.seabridge.co.il>

2 1

Part numbers/source needed for F630 RAM
by marcotte＠panix.com 21 Feb '00

21 Feb '00

I need to buy third party RAM and NVRAM for our F630. Does anyone have part numbers (or sources)? Thanks! -- - Brian

1 0

Bug # 18641
by Jason Middlebrooks 21 Feb '00

21 Feb '00

What is Bug # 18641? I was told that was an internal bug and no ifo could be found on the now site. Thanks Jason

1 0

RE: FTP uploads from the UK (fwd)
by Nguyen, Alan 21 Feb '00

21 Feb '00

After about a month and a half of testing with customers like yourself, Network Appliance has a new FTP site. The new FTP site will be available for all of our customer's use beginning tomorrow (2/2/2000) at 6PM PST. The transition from the current FTP site to the new will be transparent and the FTP site will not have any downtime. Please read below for more details regarding architecture. Again, thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, please reply to me at anguyen(a)netapp.com <mailto:anguyen@netapp.com> Alan. Mgr., IT Server Ops Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Nguyen, Alan Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 10:49 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: FW: FTP uploads from the UK (fwd) To All, First, I must apologize for NetApp's poor FTP site performance. The responsibility for this in my group. The situation is our internet connection is highly-utilized and thus your access to our FTP site is affected by this. Actions have been taken to increase internet bandwidth in the next few weeks. However, despite this, it will be superseded by our new FTP implementation. We have designed a new FTP site to improve security, system management, increase internet bandwidth/presence (i.e. ISP hosted site), and system redundancy. Because our current infrastructure is very out-dated, we have taken the "big-bang" approach rather than making incremental improvements. In a little more detail, our new FTP site is at a web-hosted site with 100MB bandwidth capacity vs current T1, and is configured with two fail-over dual-processor Unix systems with cluster fail-over (F760) Filer pair for storage. In short, the new site is very robust and will scale to meet to our customers' needs. What has been done thus far? Contract has been signed with new web-hosting site. Networking infrastructure is in place. Programming is complete for account and directory management. The new systems are racked at the new web-hosted site. As I type this, we are plugging in the cables for the new systems. What's the schedule? In the next two days, we will perform internal/external FTP tests. On Monday (Dec 6th), we will start live tests with customers assuming everything goes well this week. After which, the new site will go live. I will announce to this list when we are live. If you have any questions, please direct them to me anguyen(a)netapp.com <mailto:anguyen@netapp.com> or reply to this list as I will be joining this list soon. Again, thank you for your patience. Alan Nguyen Network Appliance Mgr., IT Server Operations

3 2

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