toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

RE: max file system size
by mds＠gbnet.net 28 Jan '00

28 Jan '00

On Fri 28 Jan, 2000, tkaczma(a)gryf.net wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, Jason Middlebrooks wrote: > > NetApp person. Besides, I though they were 36GB drives. As per > performance, of course, there is bus arbitration overhead to start. Also Bus arbitration may be reduced by reducing the number of active devices on a loop? At least that would be my intuition. Has anyone quantified any effects this might carry through to the head's performance? Analytic, simulated or empiracle evidence would all be acceptable! > you're talking about putting in huge drives, which maximum input/output is > still about the same as the smaller drives. Drive performance hasn't > improved all that much while capacity has increased significantly. That's always been one of my concerns - in fact I think this has cropped up on the list before at least once. Each successive volume increment in SCSI disks seemed to about double capacity while only raising IO's/s by say 20% over each generation. As capacities grow this gradient mismatch between the two characteristics means data gets relatively less accessible per spindle. This is why *more* spindles are often recommended for high-performance/bandwidth requirements. So far so orthodox. It'd be nice to see what bus arbitration, RAID calculation overheads and fs-layout&maintenance take away by counterpoint due to such increased spindle-counts. If anything. My intuition is that spindles are a key factor in these algorithms, whereas larger linear arrays of sectors at each spindle are less significant. Any volunteers to argue either way? Recently I've been pleasantly surprised by the performance of Seagate/Sun 9GB disks - able to transfer 2-3x what old 4.5GB disks could, but then I suppose this is a generation or two further on and 4.5GB disks aren't really being produced. Fibre-channel product almost certainly gets highest-performance controllers, interfaces and firmware so maybe Tom and I do them a disservice by suspecting them of the same capacity-curve mismatch described above. Evidence about all this would be welcome. I'd bet we've almost all of us, at some point, bought at least one filer intended for heavy use (usenet, Oracle, etc.) and had to intuit how our disk-size, spindle-count and loop/chain-count decisions would impact our actual performance. Often this might even override questions of money (perish the thought!). If someone in NetApp engineering or testing hasn't had their own curiosity piqued by this vexed question yet and drawn up matrices describing the tradeoffs, or even shown convincingly that there are no real tradeoffs to be made, then perhaps someone might sound them out about it soon? Ever living in hope.. >-- End of excerpt from tkaczma(a)gryf.net -- -Mark ... an Englishman in London ...

1 0

win2k , WINS and serving CIFS
by Farid Hamjavar 28 Jan '00

28 Jan '00

Hello, This is not entirely related to netapp but it somewhat is. Being a primarily unix environment, we have these two windows-nt boxes that really don't do much but act as WINS server so our clients can access the netapp filers. And that's how we serve CIFS. Not being a windows person, I like to ask what do we need to do with win2k coming to picture. Will a win2k client be able to access files via CIFS the way we do it now? Is that true that WINS service is history and no longer available? If so, how would we keep on giving CIFS service to our windows clients? Thanks, Farid

1 0

RE: Minimum Disks
by Mohler, Jeff 28 Jan '00

28 Jan '00

Four, you have to have drive IDs 3,4,11,12 in-place for FCAL shelf services to function properly. Add IDs 2 and 10 if you have a cluster. -----Original Message----- From: July at Zerowait [mailto:july@zerowait.com] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 11:52 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Minimum Disks On a F740 with two shelves, what is the minimum number of disks a person can use? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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

Minimum Disks
by July at Zerowait 28 Jan '00

28 Jan '00

On a F740 with two shelves, what is the minimum number of disks a person can use? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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: max file system size
by Reidenbach, Edward 28 Jan '00

28 Jan '00

Jason' response is correct. -----Original Message----- From: Timothy A. McCarthy [mailto:tmac@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 7:37 AM To: Jason Middlebrooks Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: max file system size The F760 could have at most: 168 9GB disks for total Raw/unformatted capacity of 1.4TB (Minimum 3 loops of 56 disks) or 84 18GB disks for a total Raw/unformatted capacity of 1.4TB (Minimum 2 loops, can have no more than 56 drives on one loop) or 42 36GB disks for a total Raw/unformatted capacity of 1.4TB (Minimum 1 loop. More loops can be added if desired).

1 0

RE: max file system size
by Bond, Andrew 28 Jan '00

28 Jan '00

Actually no you can't - 56 * 36 = 2TB, which is not currently supported. You can have 42 * 36GB drives on an F760 (42 * 34.5GB formatted = 1.4TB). I don't believe there is any performance compromise here; there may possibly be a benefit in splitting the disks over two loops for particular access patterns (for example large sequential access), but I don't believe we have done any profiling of this yet. Regards, Andrew > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Middlebrooks [mailto:Jason_Middlebrooks@datalink.com] > Sent: 28 January 2000 15:44 > To: Bond, Andrew > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: max file system size > > > So on a F760 I can have 56 32GB drives on one fibre loop? Is any > performance lost here? > > Thanks > Jason > > > > > > "Bond, Andrew" <abond(a)netapp.com> on 01/28/2000 09:48:33 AM > > To: Jason Middlebrooks/Datalink > cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: max file system size > > > > > This question should really be addressed to your local NetApp > sales person > or > SE, however: > > > Is the maximum storage per fibre loop still 464.4GB? > > No. > > The maximum storage per F760 is presently approx. 1.4TB raw > disk space. > This > can be on one loop or more than one loop, in whatever config > you require, > subject to a maximum of 56 devices per loop. > > Regards, > Andrew > > > >

1 0

max file system size
by Jason Middlebrooks 28 Jan '00

28 Jan '00

Is the maximum storage per fibre loop still 464.4GB? So I can not have 8 shelves full of 18 GB drives but I can have the following: 56 9 GB drives 28 18 GB drives 14 36 GB drives If so this sucks. The drives are improving but the total storage space is not increasing. When is this going to change? Jason

1 0

RE: max file system size
by Bond, Andrew 28 Jan '00

28 Jan '00

This question should really be addressed to your local NetApp sales person or SE, however: > Is the maximum storage per fibre loop still 464.4GB? No. The maximum storage per F760 is presently approx. 1.4TB raw disk space. This can be on one loop or more than one loop, in whatever config you require, subject to a maximum of 56 devices per loop. Regards, Andrew

1 0

SQL users
by Michael Linett 28 Jan '00

28 Jan '00

Hi : We have a customer who is seriously considering purchasing a NetApp 740 from us and he wants to know if he can contact some folks who are using a Filer with SQL7.0 and what problems have been encountered. I was hoping that a few of the toasters group might be able to provide us with your references and experiences, as most of our customers are not using SQL7.0. Thanks for your help, Michael Linett - President Mike(a)zerowait.com * http://www.zerowait.com PH 302.266.9408 FX 302.738.4302 http://www.loadbalancing.net - The Source for information on Load Balancing Technology http://www.nas-san.com - Information on Network Attached Storage and Storage Area Networks

1 0

Re: filer in Unix / NT environment
by Colm Buckley 28 Jan '00

28 Jan '00

Mike Hollyman writes: > We are a primarily Unix environment and are placing a netapp > in for a shared filesystem. > > We are told that the Samba PDC will not work to authenticate > the filer in CIFS. We've also tried Sun's NetLink software > that emulates a PDC with no luck. > > Is there any way to get encrypted passwords to the filer > without using a "real" NT server PDC? We had a similar situation when we got our F720 - the original plan was to use it with SunLink Server, but it appeared that this system's emulation of a PDC was not perfect - IIRC, there was an issue with endian-ness of some transactions (1). Samba doesn't work yet either, but I suspect that it will at some stage in thr future. However, we had no option but to introduce a real NT Server as a PDC (although the accounts are set up on it under remote-control from the Unix box which contains the master user account database). Colm -- Colm Buckley B.A. B.F. # colm(a)tuatha.org colm.buckley(a)cs.tcd.ie Department of Computer Science # +353 87 2469146 # whois cb3765 Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland. # http://www.tuatha.org/~colm/ Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it. (1) Bloody Microsoft.

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