toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

RE: problems mixing 18/9 GB disks?
by Barrett,Eric 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

http://now.netapp.com/NOW/cgi-bin/bol?Display=13880&Type=Detail Though it's not clear from the description on that page, the problem occurs only when mixing different-sized disks in a single VOLUME. Having different-sized disks on the same filer, even on the same SCSI or fibrechannel adapters, is not a problem, as long as the different disks are kept in different volumes. Also, there's no performance impact when right-sizing an oversized spare, i.e. using a spare 18GB disk as a replacement for a failed 9GB disk. > -----Original Message----- > From: dnb(a)ccs.neu.edu [mailto:dnb@ccs.neu.edu] > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 10:00 AM > To: David Schairer > Cc: mats.oberg(a)tietoenator.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: problems mixing 18/9 GB disks? > > Howdy- > Could I ask for a little more clarififcation about this (either from > you or the folks at NetApp)? The way I read this message was he was > going to add 9G disks to a volume composed of 9GB disks and and 18GB > disks to a volume composed of 18GB disks. Are you saying that: > > a) having both 9GB and 18GB disks on the same *filer* is bad? > b) mixing 9GB and 18GB drives in the same *volume* is bad (I would > guess this would be true if one didn't watch out for the parity > & spare drive gotchas)? > c) having a volume served from two different *shelves* is bad > (can't believe this is the case)? > > Thanks! > > Respectfully, > David N. Blank-Edelman > Director of Technology > College of Computer Science > Northeastern University > >

1 0

Re: problems mixing 18/9 GB disks?
by dnb＠ccs.neu.edu 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

David Schairer <njal(a)concentric.net> writes: > 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. Howdy- Could I ask for a little more clarififcation about this (either from you or the folks at NetApp)? The way I read this message was he was going to add 9G disks to a volume composed of 9GB disks and and 18GB disks to a volume composed of 18GB disks. Are you saying that: a) having both 9GB and 18GB disks on the same *filer* is bad? b) mixing 9GB and 18GB drives in the same *volume* is bad (I would guess this would be true if one didn't watch out for the parity & spare drive gotchas)? c) having a volume served from two different *shelves* is bad (can't believe this is the case)? Thanks! Respectfully, David N. Blank-Edelman Director of Technology College of Computer Science Northeastern University

2 1

problems mixing 18/9 GB disks?
by Öberg Mats 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

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

3 2

Budtool and NetWorker
by Jay Orr 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

Has anyone that uses Budtool to backup gotten any details about the option to upgrade to NetWorker? I got info from PDC about things, but other then the usual marketing hype as to how wonderful everything is the only substantial detail about upgrading and costs are : "Companies that buy BudTool can upgrade to the NDMP Connection and a similarly configured NetWorker Server within one year after general availability, at no additional cost." Ok, what about existing customers? I looked on their web site, about the same marketing fluff with no substance. Before many companies consider migrating, the very first question will always be "HOW MUCH??". My question too - we all try to avoid the fight of the budgets. ;p ----------- Jay Orr Systems Administrator Fujitsu Nexion Inc. St. Louis, MO

7 14

Problem with F630 and qualified drives
by Michael Douglass 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

First, we are running: NetApp Release 5.2.3: Sat Jul 17 04:35:28 PDT 1999 We have a minor problem that we are hitting with an F630 of ours. The drives that we have historically used is as follows: 1: SEAGATE ST15150W 9107 Size=4.0GB (8388315 blocks) The spares that we have in-house are purchased from Compaq, the exact same drive, except that the label has COMPAQ in place of SEAGATE. When we try to use the drive, it gives us the following error: The following drive has not been qualified by Network Appliance. For a list of qualified drives, please contact Network Appliance. 8b.1: COMPAQ ST15150W 6213 At this point it halted itself. 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? Failing that, what drives can we put in this box? -- Michael Douglass Texas Networking, Inc. Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable for a feature. -- from some indian guy

1 0

RE: Budtool and NetWorker
by Clawson, Simon 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

We were contracted by a reseller's rep before the end of last year. She told us we would be entitled to a free upgrade from budtool to legato networker. We already have BT in place and running, so I am assuming we just swao one license for another. A netapps rep told me he believed Legatto only aquired budtool for the NDMP functions it offers, therefore, I cant see it appearing in the product to heavily. Simon -----Original Message----- From: dnb(a)ccs.neu.edu [mailto:dnb@ccs.neu.edu] Sent: 12 January 2000 00:08 To: Jay Orr Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Budtool and NetWorker Jay Orr <orrjl(a)stl.nexen.com> writes: > Has anyone that uses Budtool to backup gotten any details about the option > to upgrade to NetWorker? I spoke to our local Legato rep about this right before Y2k and he was a wealth of "don't know yet" answers. He was sure they would have an "upgrade" program for exisiting customers, but not for a while. Apparently they are going to avoid an EOL for Budtool until the end of '00 and still sell it as a separate product until then. In the meantime, they are supposedly integrating Budtool into their standard Legato framework. He made it sound like Budtool would be a module as part of their usual stuff. It sounds like the folks in the field haven't heard yet because they haven't figured it out at the Legato homebase either. He suggested I contact his inside sales person, but I have not done that. Summary: nice soothing noises, but no real information Respectfully, David N. Blank-Edelman Director of Technology College of Computer Science Northeastern University

1 0

Re: OT: address abuse
by jrg＠acm.org 17 Jan '00

17 Jan '00

On Fri 14 Jan, 2000, Brian Tao <taob(a)risc.org> wrote: >Did the document refer to a product with a name similar to Intel's (I can't really be sure, neither Word'97 or StarOffice will display it correctly...) Sales people, if you actually bother to read anything here, do remember that: 1) We're (mostly) technical people here, and are going to have done our due diligence in picking current and planning future systems 2) We might already have some of your product in our current infrastructure 3) We've probably already looked at your product's marketting materials (You can bet we've all looked at the companies present in NTAP's general sector: http://biz.yahoo.com/research/indgrp/comp_storage_dv.html, any company that pops up in NTAP related news stories, and those listed in their own SEC filings.) 4) We might even have had sales calls and done product evaluations 5) If not, you might one day find yourself sitting across the table from us trying to do a sales call. So do think twice before presuming that we wish to receive a blatant and unrequested sales pitch! James.

1 0

OT: address abuse
by mds＠gbnet.net 14 Jan '00

14 Jan '00

Just a quicky. I was spammed today, personally, by someone representaing a certain TLA (3 letter...) storage company, in the guise of a TLA (2 letter) storage company. It was unsolicited and involved a large enclosed document. I'm just wondering if they got my details from my involvement on the toasters list, and whether anyone else received such an item as well. If so, please holler. -- -Mark ... an Englishman in London ...

5 4

RE: OT: address abuse
by mds＠gbnet.net 14 Jan '00

14 Jan '00

On Thu 13 Jan, 2000, "Robert Black" <bobbl(a)netapp.com> wrote: > > Good question Mark, > > Is it possible for someone/anyone to query the mathworks majordomo > server to get a listing of 'toasters'. I'm not totally familiar > with security relative to majordomo setups! Certainly it's possible in general, though I believe that the toasters list is locked down. At least I think I tried it once in a fit of ennui and curiosity and was politely informed to get lost. 8) I think the addresses may have ben harvested by lurking, or trawling the archive site - so people who've never spoken up probably won't have been sent this. I would also like to think that even this stupidity has its limits and that the party in question didn't email NetApp employees. Though I'm not placing bets, and would be amused if any NetApp worthies were hit too. > bobbl > > PS. I didn't receive said document There is hope! >-- End of excerpt from "Robert Black" -- -Mark ... an Englishman in London ...

3 2

RE: OT: address abuse
by Robert Black 14 Jan '00

14 Jan '00

Good question Mark, Is it possible for someone/anyone to query the mathworks majordomo server to get a listing of 'toasters'. I'm not totally familiar with security relative to majordomo setups! bobbl PS. I didn't receive said document

2 1

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