toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

RE: Legato backup revisited
by Benn, Paul 25 Jan '00

25 Jan '00

Just to add to Ernie's suggestion.... The backup service account could be placed in the domain's "Backup Operators" global group and then the "Backup Operators" global group could be placed in the filer's "Backup Operators" local group. paul@netapp -----Original Message----- From: Ernst.Bokkelkamp(a)mchh.siemens.de [mailto:Ernst.Bokkelkamp@mchh.siemens.de] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 12:06 PM To: paul.benn(a)netapp.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Legato backup revisited To do scheduled backups you have to change the service account for nsrexecd on the networker server or storage node to an account with administrative rights on the filer domain.The reason for this is that scheduled backups are started by the nsrexecd service with the permissions of the local system account which are not sufficient for access to the filer. Therefor you must ensure that the service runs with another account.

1 0

RE: Legato backup revisited
by Ernst.Bokkelkamp＠mchh.siemens.de 25 Jan '00

25 Jan '00

I can confirm the UNC part. However there are a few hurdles to take. To do scheduled backups you have to change the service account for nsrexecd on the networker server or storage node to an account with administrative rights on the filer domain.The reason for this is that scheduled backups are started by the nsrexecd service with the permissions of the local system account which are not sufficient for access to the filer. Therefor you must ensure that the service runs with another account. Alternatively a custom backup command can be used to mount the netapps volume on the backup the machine, but you will have add the "NET USE" command and enter the password in clear text in the command file. This is the (abridged) custom command I am currently using, which will disappear when we finish setting up the new domain controllers. @ECHO OFF REM Copy parameters to environment for save command SHIFT IF %0.==. GOTO EOJ SET args=%0 :LOOPARG REM SET argp=%0 SHIFT IF %0.==. GOTO LOOPEND SET args=%args% %0 GOTO LOOPARG :LOOPEND REM IF /I (%argp%) EQU (C:\) GOTO SKIPUSE IF /I (%argp%) EQU (D:\) GOTO SKIPUSE IF /I (%argp%) EQU (REGISTRY:\) GOTO SKIPUSE C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\NET USE %argp% /user:domain\account <password> NUL: :SKIPUSE REM D:\NSR\BIN\SAVE %args% C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\NET USE %argp% /D > NUL: :EOJ REM ENDLOCAL Bye Ernie PS. Paul please send me your phone number. Soon I will send you details on our backup trials and there are a few things I like to discuss with you then. (Gerard Bauer is informed about this). > -----Original Message----- > From: Benn, Paul [SMTP:paul.benn@netapp.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 6:24 PM > To: 'christopher.algar(a)s1.com'; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Legato backup revisited > > Hello Chris, > > > So, what is the latest? Would appreciate opinions on the following:- > > > > If I want to preserve NTFS permissions then should the Legato > > server be > > on NT? > > Yes. NT ACLs as well as the UNIX permissions are retained when using an NT > backup application (via CIFS), an NDMP solution or the local dump command. > When backing up over NFS, NT ACLs are lost. > > For more info on NT based backup, have a look at: > http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3052.html > > Since I wrote that paper, though, I believe that NetWorker now supports > the > direct use of UNC paths (as opposed to using a mapped drive letter). > > > If so, Is Legato reliable/stable on NT? > > If it works and is a lot cheaper then OK, with have the people to run > > either. > > The NetWorker server does not need to be the NT version. The NetWorker > client that you would use to front end the filer is the only piece that > needs to be NT. > > Regards, > > Paul Benn > Network Appliance

1 0

by the way......
by Linda Walton 25 Jan '00

25 Jan '00

I am writing this mail message in hopes that someone else will benefit from it. I just found out this afternoon that the HW/SW support contract for our filers had expired on 12/31/1999. Hmmm, I assumed that someone would have contacted us before it expired instead of finding out while trying to download OS on the now.netapp website. To the Network Appliance Corp. readers; is there some way to find out when the support expires without contacting my sales rep? By the way, I would not trade my filers for all the money in world but this kind of nonsense makes me crazier. Linda Walton; UNIX System Administrator; Reasoning Inc.

5 7

RE: Legato backup revisited
by Benn, Paul 25 Jan '00

25 Jan '00

Hello Chris, > So, what is the latest? Would appreciate opinions on the following:- > > If I want to preserve NTFS permissions then should the Legato > server be > on NT? Yes. NT ACLs as well as the UNIX permissions are retained when using an NT backup application (via CIFS), an NDMP solution or the local dump command. When backing up over NFS, NT ACLs are lost. For more info on NT based backup, have a look at: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3052.html Since I wrote that paper, though, I believe that NetWorker now supports the direct use of UNC paths (as opposed to using a mapped drive letter). > If so, Is Legato reliable/stable on NT? > If it works and is a lot cheaper then OK, with have the people to run > either. The NetWorker server does not need to be the NT version. The NetWorker client that you would use to front end the filer is the only piece that needs to be NT. Regards, Paul Benn Network Appliance

1 0

NDMP / Direct Attach performance on Filers
by Tim McDonough 25 Jan '00

25 Jan '00

Hi Folks: Just curious what sort of performance numbers people seeing backing up their filers with NDMP and direct attached tape drives. Our setup has a pair of F740 with "FC" disks ( CFO too ) and direct attached DLT7000's. We're seeing ~6.2MB/sec using Budtool/NDMP. Alas, the reason I ask is a pair of our other filers, F520's with SCSI disks, are backing up over the network using Budtool ( and no NDMP ) and we're seeing ~5.7MB/sec All 4 filers have volumes that are ~100GB and we're running DOT 5.2.3D1 Thanks in advance. Tim

2 1

RE: Connecting to Netapps via additional domains
by Bond, Andrew 25 Jan '00

25 Jan '00

Hi Simon, You should open a call with NetApp support. However, before you do that, you might find it helpful to enable the "cifs.trace_login" option and watch the console when the new users try to access the filer - you should get some useful error messages. I suspect your problem is the Windows account names do not map to existing Unix UID/GID's. If you do need to speak to support, you would need to clarify exactly what you mean by "I cannot create CIFS shares for this domain". Regards, Andrew > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dl-toasters(a)netapp.com > [mailto:owner-dl-toasters@netapp.com]On Behalf Of Clawson, Simon > Sent: 25 January 2000 09:06 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Connecting to Netapps via additional domains > > > Hi Guys! > > I am trying to set out F520 up to see users on an additional > NT domain. We > have a domani with a PDC that "TAP" sees OK. USers from this > domain can > login and access data on the filer. Then we have a second > domain, with its > own PDC, which has a trusting and trusted relationship with > the first PDC. I > am now trying to add a third domain to this complicated loop. > This domain > has trustings and trusted relationships with both the exiting > PDC's but > still users on this domain cannot see TAP. > > I cannot create CIFS shares for this domain either, which > suggests that TAP > cannot see the third PDC. Any help would be greatly appreciated. > > Bye for now > > Simon > > > Simon Clawson > System Administrator (Renoir Group) > > Mentor Graphics > Rivergate > Newbury Business Park > Newbury > Berkshire > 44 (0)1635 811409 (tel) > 44 (0)1635 810102 (fax) > > 0410 508221 (mobile) > 01523 166385 (pager) > > > >

1 0

Connecting to Netapps via additional domains
by Clawson, Simon 25 Jan '00

25 Jan '00

Hi Guys! I am trying to set out F520 up to see users on an additional NT domain. We have a domani with a PDC that "TAP" sees OK. USers from this domain can login and access data on the filer. Then we have a second domain, with its own PDC, which has a trusting and trusted relationship with the first PDC. I am now trying to add a third domain to this complicated loop. This domain has trustings and trusted relationships with both the exiting PDC's but still users on this domain cannot see TAP. I cannot create CIFS shares for this domain either, which suggests that TAP cannot see the third PDC. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Bye for now Simon Simon Clawson System Administrator (Renoir Group) Mentor Graphics Rivergate Newbury Business Park Newbury Berkshire 44 (0)1635 811409 (tel) 44 (0)1635 810102 (fax) 0410 508221 (mobile) 01523 166385 (pager)

1 0

RE: Adding a spare to a Volume
by Bond, Andrew 23 Jan '00

23 Jan '00

If the addition happens instantly it means the disks were pre-zeroed. If the disks are not pre-zeroed but support fast-zero, then the time taken will be much less than if they don't. As far as I am aware, none of the 4GB drives support fast-zero. The difference is significant - either in the region of 30 minutes (fast-zero) or anything up to several hours (depends on the filer they are attached to). When you initialise a filesystem, a 2-disk FS is created and all other disks are zeroed and configured as spares. Regards, Andrew > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dl-toasters(a)netapp.com > [mailto:owner-dl-toasters@netapp.com]On Behalf Of mark > Sent: 23 January 2000 04:14 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Adding a spare to a Volume > > > On Fri 21 Jan, 2000, "Bruce Sterling Woodcock" > <sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Stephen C. Woods <scw(a)seas.ucla.edu> > > To: toasters <toasters(a)mathworks.com> > > Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 12:10 PM > > Subject: Adding a spare to a Volume > > > > > The seems to be a big difference in how a 5.1.2R3 > system with 4GB disks > > > and a 5.3.4R2 system with 36BG disks adds a spare disk > to a volume. > > > > > > With 5.1.2R3 you get a message to the effect of: > > > Zeroing disk, this will take forever, check progress > with sysconfig -r > > > > > > With 5.3.4R2 it happens right away, no delay. > <snip> > > <what Bruce said> > > 4) It's also conceivable that the 36GB disks have a fast-zero > capability > that the 4GB disks did not. I seem to recall, when zeroing a filer for > a complete rebuild, seeing a message to the effect that if was lucky > the disks would do the trick for me, and if I wasn't that it > would take > forever. They were 4GB disks and took forever. > > >-- End of excerpt from "Bruce Sterling Woodcock" > > -- > -Mark ... an Englishman in London ... >

1 0

Re: Adding a spare to a Volume
by mds＠gbnet.net 23 Jan '00

23 Jan '00

On Fri 21 Jan, 2000, "Bruce Sterling Woodcock" <sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Stephen C. Woods <scw(a)seas.ucla.edu> > To: toasters <toasters(a)mathworks.com> > Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 12:10 PM > Subject: Adding a spare to a Volume > > > The seems to be a big difference in how a 5.1.2R3 system with 4GB disks > > and a 5.3.4R2 system with 36BG disks adds a spare disk to a volume. > > > > With 5.1.2R3 you get a message to the effect of: > > Zeroing disk, this will take forever, check progress with sysconfig -r > > > > With 5.3.4R2 it happens right away, no delay. <snip> <what Bruce said> 4) It's also conceivable that the 36GB disks have a fast-zero capability that the 4GB disks did not. I seem to recall, when zeroing a filer for a complete rebuild, seeing a message to the effect that if was lucky the disks would do the trick for me, and if I wasn't that it would take forever. They were 4GB disks and took forever. >-- End of excerpt from "Bruce Sterling Woodcock" -- -Mark ... an Englishman in London ...

1 0

Re: by the way......
by dnb＠ccs.neu.edu 23 Jan '00

23 Jan '00

Linda Walton <lwalton(a)reasoning.com> writes: > I just found out this afternoon that the HW/SW support contract > for our filers had expired on 12/31/1999. Hmmm, I assumed that > someone would have contacted us before it expired instead of > finding out while trying to download OS on the now.netapp website. We had something similar happen (except ours had been out for 2 mos. before *I* noticed it). I was pretty peeved. Luckily our brandy-new sales rep hopped right on the ball when I called him (maybe it was the rep switch which caused the problem, dunno). Luckily we had no problems which forced a support call, or I would have been livid. > To the Network Appliance Corp. readers; is there some way to > find out when the support expires without contacting my sales rep? Yes, the now.netapp.com has a support contract area. I was idly browsing it when I came upon our lapse. I agree, it would be a good thing if the mothership mailed people before their contracts ran out. This leads me think I might want to write a generalized agent which checked the web sites of my vendors looking for this sort of thing (we had this lapse in Cisco-land once as well). Shouldn't be too hard. If I did, would someone be interested in this? > By the way, I would not trade my filers for all the money in > world but this kind of nonsense makes me crazier. Ditto (well, ok, I probably have my price). Peace, dNb

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