toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

ArcServe and Filers
by July at Zerowait 19 Jan '00

19 Jan '00

Hi. We have a customer who wants to use NetApp filers with ArcServe. Has anyone here done that or know someone who has? Presently, I believe they have a workaround that uses an intermediary server that takes the backup from the filer and then uses ArcServe to transfer to tape, but we'd prefer an answer with a little more finesse. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

RE: ArcServe and Filers
by Thomas, Brian 19 Jan '00

19 Jan '00

We have given up on ARCServe and are moving to Veritas NetBackup, it supports NDMP which allows attaching a tape library directly to our F740s. The speed increases were quite impressive. Brian -----Original Message----- From: Garrett Burke [mailto:Garrett.Burke@msc.ie] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 10:38 AM To: 'July at Zerowait' Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: ArcServe and Filers Hi July, We use ARCServe IT for NT with our Filer (F230). We create a snapshot, share the snapshot and backup directly over the network. Major problem 1: Really slow, especially when lots of small files like we have. Major problem 2: Can't do incrementals (presumably as the Full Backups can't clear the archive bit in the snapshot and sure a new snapshot is created for each backup) There's a doc on using ARCServe on the Netapp site - see http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3052.html I don't know how to use an Intermediatry host with ARCServe. NT 4.0 doesn't allow you to share a drive mapped from another host. Neither does the ARCServe NT Client list the mapped drive in it's list of drives to backup. Am I missing a configuration item? We run with oplocks disabled as we found that this improved the speed, but we are still only seeing 90MB/min with a PIII 450Mhz with a DLT7000 as the backup host. I'm seeing backup speeds of between 150MB/min & 200MB/min from NT servers using the ARCServe client SW. I intend having a hard look at this in early Mar., and if I can't solve it usign ARCServe then I intend looking at other backup solutions - QuickRestore (http://www.worksta.com/) looks interesting. Would be interested in any feedback from QuickRestore users. My gut feeling is that ARCServe is fine for a few NT Servers, but once you have > 50GB of data then it's time to play with the big boys (which means shelling out for the SW). Doing restores from ARCServe Tapes is a doddle. Hopefully won't have to give the ease of use up. I'd love to be able to put my hand on my heart when I go looking for the cash for a F740 (in a few months) that I'll be able to back it up, but that is not the case at the moment using ARCServe. Regards, GB > -----Original Message----- > From: July at Zerowait [SMTP:july@zerowait.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 3:13 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: ArcServe and Filers > > ******************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are solely for the use of the individual or organisation to whom they are addressed. If you have received this mail in error please notify the system administrator at +353 1 6399700 or by email to hostmaster(a)msc.ie This email message has been swept for computer viruses. Managed Solutions Corporation, Enterprise Customer Relationship Management, Workflow and Contract Administration. Tel: 353 1 639 9700 Fax: 353 1 639 9701 Don't forget to visit our website at http://www.managed-solutions.com ********************************************************************

1 0

problems in installing Legato..
by Akhilesh Kumar 19 Jan '00

19 Jan '00

Hi, I have a NetApp filer F720 running 5.3.4R2. I am trying to set it up as Legato backup client ( Networker vesrion 5.5.1 ) from a Solaris 5.6 machine. I go exactly as the Legato documentation says, but when I run na_install on the Solaris machine ( as root ) I get the following error msg : # ./na_install Finishing installation now. File Server: exdfdmz Password: Can't set registry value Installation failed. Sorry # I would appreciate any help. Thanks Akhilesh Kumar

1 0

Re: Problem with F630 and qualified drives
by Luke Mewburn 18 Jan '00

18 Jan '00

Michael Douglass writes: > Is there any way that this drive can be relabeled to say SEAGATE and not > COMPAQ? Is there any way for Netapp to 'approve' this drive (since it > really is the same drive, it's just been 'OEM Branded')? Is there some > type of backdoor/techprompt method of telling the filer that this drive > is, indeed, a trusty drive? Take a look at /etc/qual_devices on your filer; that's probably what you want (from the look of it). Your milage may vary, don't blame me if it trashes your filer, etc, etc.

4 3

[Summary]: Problem with F540 + 5.3.4R2 (NT authentication)
by Paquette, Trevor 18 Jan '00

18 Jan '00

This was the answer to this problem. Thanx to all who responded. -- Two rights do not make a wrong. They make an airplane. Trevor Paquette | AT&T Canada |Work:(403)705-6390 TrevorPaquette(a)metronet.ca |600, 205 5th Ave SW | Fax:(403)705-9601 http://www.metronet.ca |Calgary, AB, Canada |ICBM:51'03"N/114'05"W Senior Unix Network Architect| T2P 2V7 |Mind:In the Rockies > -----Original Message----- > From: Puneet Anand [SMTP:puneet@netapp.com] > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 1:53 PM > To: Paquette, Trevor > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Problem with F540 + 5.3.4R2 (NT authentication) > > What does your /etc/paswd file look like ? > You would need to set the wafl.default_unix_user to 'pcuser' (w/o > quotes) > > options wafl.default_unix_user pcuser > > and add an entry for pcuser in your password file. > like , > > pcuser::65534:65534::/: > > Hope this helps > > -Puneet > ________ > > > > "Paquette, Trevor" wrote: > > > > We have an F540 that we have 're-commissioned' to internal service. > > It is running OnTap 5.3.4R2 and because of the support costs, senior > > management > > has decided not to renew support for it.. (sigh.. not my decision..) > > > > Anyway.. we want to use it as a disk for internal users within our NT > > domain.. > > > > I've configured the system as the knowledge base suggested.. but the > damn > > thing will NOT > > authenticate users unless they have a local account in the /etc/passwd > file. > > This contrary to what the knowledge base says.. > > > > http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/contents/TIP/TIP_643.shtml > > http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/contents/FAQ/FAQ_462.shtml > > > > Output from various commands.. > > > > The following command shows the system is properly registered in the NT > > Domain. > > > > calna001> cifs sessions > > Server Registers as 'CALNA001' in group 'A01AB' > > Filer is using en_US for DOS users > > WINS Server: 10.1.1.15 > > Selected domain controller \\A01DC006 for authentication > > Comment: Calgary NetApp File Server > > ======================================== > > PC (user) #shares #files > > > > The qtrees for the system (one big volume: vol0) are set properly as > ntfs > > calna001> qtree > > Volume Tree Style Oplocks > > -------- -------- ----- -------- > > vol0 ntfs enabled > > vol0 Common ntfs enabled > > > > And the shares on the system are setup properly.. > > > > calna001> cifs shares > > Name Mount Point Description > > ---- ----------- ----------- > > root$ / > > A01AB\a01tpaf / Full Control > > Common /Common > > A01AB\a01tpaf / Full Control > > > > When I try to mount the share.. I get the following with > cifs.trace_login > > turned on: > > Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: Login attempt by A01AB\a01tpaf > from > > A05WST99 > > Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: User authenticated by DC > > Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: PC user name maps to UNIX user > a01tpaf > > Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: Unix user name not valid > > > > Proper login attempt, and it is authenticated by the DC.. but then the > thing > > looks for the user in the local /etc/passwd file.. I do NOT want this to > > happen; and I should be able to do this by the knowledge base articles > > listed above.. > > > > Virtual beer for anyone who can solve this.. > > > > -- > > Two rights do not make a wrong. They make an airplane. > > > > Trevor Paquette | AT&T Canada |Work:(403)705-6390 > > TrevorPaquette(a)metronet.ca |600, 205 5th Ave SW | Fax:(403)705-9601 > > http://www.metronet.ca |Calgary, AB, Canada |ICBM:51'03"N/114'05"W > > Senior Unix Network Architect| T2P 2V7 |Mind:In the Rockies > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Michael S. Keller [SMTP:mkeller@mail.wcg.net] > > > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 8:43 AM > > > To: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com > > > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > > Subject: Re: Upgrade to 534R2 - disk firmware > > > > > > Look in the /etc/disk_fw directory of the root volume or the 534R2 > > > tarball. > > > > > > "Richard L. Rhodes" wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm currently on 5.2.2 and want to upgrade to latest recommended > > > > release: 5.3.4R2. In looking at NOW and for 534R2 I find the > > > > following (I have 2 F740 NetApps): > > > > > > > > 1) I downloaded 534R2 itself . . . .no problem. > > > > > > > > 2) I need to upgrade firmware from 2.1_a2 to 2.2_a2. I grabbed the > > > > microcode from NOW, downloaded it . . . no problem. > > > > > > > > 3) I need to upgrade my ST118202FC disk drive firmware from FD99 to > > > > FDF6. I searched NOW but could find no disk drive firmware. > > > > > > > > So . . .QUESTION: Where does one get the disk drive firmware? > > > > > > > > THis is the first time I've ever upgraded my NetApps, so I'm > assuming > > > > I've missed something simple! > > > > > > > > THanks > > > > > > > > Rick > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com > > > > Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 > > > > f: 330-384-2514

2 1

bug status for bugs not available on NOW
by Jay Soffian 18 Jan '00

18 Jan '00

Several months ago, we had one of our filers crash. It panic'ed with the message "Panic Message: ../driver/disk/disk.c:5345: Assertion failure". The case was closed with: Bug Number/Title: 17623/too big disk_bno of a buf in a received msg in disk_rdwr_start crashed the filer Problem Category: WAFL Recommended Solution/Workaround: We just filed this bug after looking at this core, should be having a fix soon. Just this weekend, we had the same filer crash with the message: ("../driver/disk/disk.c:5608: Assertion failure."). I'm about to upload the core file for analysis. On a related note, I also had a case closed out on a crash we had related to clustering and was told a bug was filed (#19618). I'm curious what the status is of these bugs (17632, 19618); they are not currently viewable on NOW. Can NetApp provide an update? j. -- Jay Soffian <jay(a)cimedia.com> UNIX Systems Engineer 404.572.1941 Cox Interactive Media

1 0

please subscribe me.
by Bud Greasley 18 Jan '00

18 Jan '00

1 0

RE: Problem with F540 + 5.3.4R2 (NT authentication)
by ZANGA, Michael, GCM 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

did you create a computer account in the doman before you pointed the filer to it. You need to create that first. -----Original Message----- From: Paquette, Trevor [mailto:TrevorPaquette@metronet.ca] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 3:39 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Problem with F540 + 5.3.4R2 (NT authentication) We have an F540 that we have 're-commissioned' to internal service. It is running OnTap 5.3.4R2 and because of the support costs, senior management has decided not to renew support for it.. (sigh.. not my decision..) Anyway.. we want to use it as a disk for internal users within our NT domain.. I've configured the system as the knowledge base suggested.. but the damn thing will NOT authenticate users unless they have a local account in the /etc/passwd file. This contrary to what the knowledge base says.. http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/contents/TIP/TIP_643.shtml http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/contents/FAQ/FAQ_462.shtml Output from various commands.. The following command shows the system is properly registered in the NT Domain. calna001> cifs sessions Server Registers as 'CALNA001' in group 'A01AB' Filer is using en_US for DOS users WINS Server: 10.1.1.15 Selected domain controller \\A01DC006 for authentication Comment: Calgary NetApp File Server ======================================== PC (user) #shares #files The qtrees for the system (one big volume: vol0) are set properly as ntfs calna001> qtree Volume Tree Style Oplocks -------- -------- ----- -------- vol0 ntfs enabled vol0 Common ntfs enabled And the shares on the system are setup properly.. calna001> cifs shares Name Mount Point Description ---- ----------- ----------- root$ / A01AB\a01tpaf / Full Control Common /Common A01AB\a01tpaf / Full Control When I try to mount the share.. I get the following with cifs.trace_login turned on: Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: Login attempt by A01AB\a01tpaf from A05WST99 Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: User authenticated by DC Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: PC user name maps to UNIX user a01tpaf Mon Jan 17 13:27:01 MST [CIFSAuthen]: Unix user name not valid Proper login attempt, and it is authenticated by the DC.. but then the thing looks for the user in the local /etc/passwd file.. I do NOT want this to happen; and I should be able to do this by the knowledge base articles listed above.. Virtual beer for anyone who can solve this.. -- Two rights do not make a wrong. They make an airplane. Trevor Paquette | AT&T Canada |Work:(403)705-6390 TrevorPaquette(a)metronet.ca |600, 205 5th Ave SW | Fax:(403)705-9601 http://www.metronet.ca |Calgary, AB, Canada |ICBM:51'03"N/114'05"W Senior Unix Network Architect| T2P 2V7 |Mind:In the Rockies > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael S. Keller [SMTP:mkeller@mail.wcg.net] > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 8:43 AM > To: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Upgrade to 534R2 - disk firmware > > Look in the /etc/disk_fw directory of the root volume or the 534R2 > tarball. > > "Richard L. Rhodes" wrote: > > > > I'm currently on 5.2.2 and want to upgrade to latest recommended > > release: 5.3.4R2. In looking at NOW and for 534R2 I find the > > following (I have 2 F740 NetApps): > > > > 1) I downloaded 534R2 itself . . . .no problem. > > > > 2) I need to upgrade firmware from 2.1_a2 to 2.2_a2. I grabbed the > > microcode from NOW, downloaded it . . . no problem. > > > > 3) I need to upgrade my ST118202FC disk drive firmware from FD99 to > > FDF6. I searched NOW but could find no disk drive firmware. > > > > So . . .QUESTION: Where does one get the disk drive firmware? > > > > THis is the first time I've ever upgraded my NetApps, so I'm assuming > > I've missed something simple! > > > > THanks > > > > Rick > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com > > Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 > > f: 330-384-2514 ********************************************************************** This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above. As this e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information, if you are not the named addressee, you are not authorised to retain, read, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. ************************************************************************

1 0

RE: problems mixing 18/9 GB disks?
by ZANGA, Michael, GCM 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

I have been wondering about this myself. It just wasn't intuitive to put two different size drives. I do have a FC9 and FC7 disk shelve with 18gb drives. Has anyone been using the new fc9 and see any problems? -----Original Message----- From: David Schairer [mailto:njal@concentric.net] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 11:05 AM To: mats.oberg(a)tietoenator.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: problems mixing 18/9 GB disks? Yes. ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY DO NOT DO THIS. It will kill your performance, not now, but once you get things filled up. This has not historically been part of NetApps docs but I believe it's becoming so (Hi, Sam!). Make a separate volume of 18s, migrate data, do what you have to, but don't mix your shelves. It's like crossing the streams. --David Schairer VP/Chief Systems Architect Concentric Network Corp. > > Hi, has anyone out there run into any problems while mixing 18G and 9G > -disk-shelves? > Just wondering since I'm going to ad 2 shelves to one of our 740's tomorrow. > > Our current configuration is as follows: > > First volume has Four 9GB-shelves in 2 raid groups. (I'm adding one 9GB > shelf to this volume) > Second volume has 1 shelf with 18GB disks (1 more 18G-shelf ) > > Anything special to have in mind?? > > > > Best regards > > Mats Oberg > TietoEnator > > > ********************************************************************** This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above. As this e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information, if you are not the named addressee, you are not authorised to retain, read, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. ************************************************************************

1 0

RE: Problem with F630 and qualified drives
by Aiello, Tony 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

Ed, Only devices tested and qualified by NetApp are allowed in the filers. There's no allowance made for "like" drives. Conditions may arrise by using these other disks. There may be mode page settings that are hidden within the vendor specific model, format changes, etc. that could cause problems in device management or reliability. As for editing /etc/qual_devices... Changes will invalidate the file. We supply this file directly from NetApp as a reference, and to allow for second source disks without having to release new software. It is not supplied as a vehicle to alter the matrix of supported devices. Tony -------------------------- mailto:taiello@netapp.com Ph:(408)822-6515 > -----Original Message----- > From: Edward Henigin [mailto:ed@texas.net] > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 5:41 AM > To: Toasters > Cc: Michael Douglass > Subject: Re: Problem with F630 and qualified drives > > > Luke, > > Thanks for the tip. This is what we've figured out so far: > > The Seagate ST15150W and the Compaq ST15150W are the same > drive. However, the "download code revision" (as indicated on > stickers on the drives, and reported by the F630) are different. > The revision # on the Seagate is 9107, and the rev # on the Compaq > is 6213. > > If it weren't for the differing version numbers, I'd be > willing to add the Compaq line to /etc/qual_devices. Since the > Compaq looks *older* than the Seagate, I'm concerned that the > Seagate may be slightly different from the Compaq. I just don't > want data loss. > > Is anyone out there using ST15150W's with a code revision > number of less than 6213? You can see it in the sysconfig -v > output, the first number following the model number (following is > revision #9107): > > 1: SEAGATE ST15150W 9107 Size=4.0GB > (8388315 blocks) > > Ed > > -- > On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 12:26:57AM +1100, Luke Mewburn said: > > > > Take a look at /etc/qual_devices on your filer; that's probably what > > you want (from the look of it). > > > > Your milage may vary, don't blame me if it trashes your > filer, etc, etc. >

5 4

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