toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13523 discussions

y2k
by fubar＠mathworks.com 04 Jan '00

04 Jan '00

Some of you may be wondering why you're just now getting messages from Jan 1st and on. No, it's not sendmail's lovely queue processing. In fact, it was hypermail not being happy with they year 2000. Damn thing spun in a loop forever... Anyway, I've upgraded. As a result, I've had to completely rebuild the toasters archive. A quick glance and it looks happy. The search, on the other hand, I'm not so sure about... I'll have to play around a bit with that. If anyone notices any problems, please let me know. The archive is located at http://teaparty.mathworks.com:1999/toasters.html Kendall..

4 3

RE: CIFS delays.
by Sanborn, Ed 04 Jan '00

04 Jan '00

Actually I fixed the problem by sync'ing my duplex settings. They were mis-matched with the network port that the filer was connected to. -Ed Ed Sanborn (978) 691-6496 Manager of Computing Infrastructure Newbridge Networks Inc. 5 Corporate Drive Andover, MA. 01810 Fax (978) 687-4442 http://www.northchurch.net <http://www.northchurch.net/> -----Original Message----- From: Sanborn, Ed [mailto:esanborn@northchurch.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 3:03 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: CIFS delays. Hi folks, I have an F720 running 5.2.2. I am experiencing significant delays with the CIFS protocol. NFS is fine. Any troubleshooting suggestions? -Ed Ed Sanborn (978) 691-6496 Manager of Computing Infrastructure Newbridge Networks Inc. 5 Corporate Drive Andover, MA. 01810 Fax (978) 687-4442 http://www.northchurch.net <http://www.northchurch.net/>

1 0

Re: Netapp w. multiple NIC in WINS ?
by Brian Rice 04 Jan '00

04 Jan '00

> I have installed a quad ethernet NIC i my 720 and I wonder how it will > present it self in the NT Domain. Does any one know how to be sure > trafic goes to the correct interface ? How does WINS react on a > NT/Netapp host with multiple NIC's ? My NT servers are on the same > subnet as the "e1a" interface and NFS clients on the "e0". I used to have multi-homed F630's running CIFS. The multi-homing was mostly a historical accident; the network environment was such that traffic's choice of interface didn't have performance implications. Anyway, the big problem was that NT 4 revisions prior to Service Pack 4 have a NetBIOS bug that's exposed when you try to play with a multi-homed server. Every so often, NT clients would get a "The network path cannot be found" error when they tried to access a share from a NetApp. When you did a net view from a DOS prompt, you'd get System error 53 has occurred. At the time, there was an NT patch; the fix nowadays would be to upgrade to a non-ancient service pack. Brian

1 0

Re: 9gig drives
by Patrick Day 04 Jan '00

04 Jan '00

I have an unpopulated 9Gb shelf with 1 power supply that was attached to a 740 that i we no longer need. if you are interested, let me know and i'll check on a price. --patrick day patrick.day.b(a)bayer.com mathworks owner-toasters <owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com> on 01/04/2000 10:51:53 AM To: "DDA.RFC-822=toasters(a)mathworks.com/P=Internet/A= /C=us"@X400 cc: Subject: 9gig drives Does anyone have a source for Netapp 9 gig drives and disk trays for a f720. We are being told form our reseller they can only get 18gig drives now. Thats a problem for us since we just want a couple more to expand our current raidset. Not to build another raidset of larger drives. Or to format the 18gig drives to 9gig to use in the current raid set. -Cameron Slye

1 0

Re: Goodies (was wack)
by chris＠cecil.muscat.com 04 Jan '00

04 Jan '00

Nick Hilliard wrote: >Perhaps this is o/s revision dependent, but 4.x can have many millions of >objects. Bzzzzt. 256bytes RAM per object so on a C760 only 4M objects. We were hoping to cache pure html (which would never be more than a few K in size) and 200M documents was the minimum number of documents for things to be usefull to us. [sigh] -- Chris Good - Dialog Corp. The Westbrook Centre, Milton Rd, Cambridge UK Phone: 01223 715006 Mobile: 07801 788997 http://www.dialog.com

3 2

"Wac"-ing the WAFL?
by E Hunter 03 Jan '00

03 Jan '00

Greetings. I'm brand-spankin' new to this list, so please please please excuse me if I landed this question in the wrong space/time. I'm looking for infomation on NetApps because the company I'm working for is considering a 760 for our network. I have been told by someone who is only vaguely familiar with the NetApps that the filesystem has to be maintained in some way by running a _wac_ command, but I have been unable to find any information on such a command in a week of searching . Can anyone fill me in on the use of this _wac_ command , what it does, how often it needs to be done, and whehter or not the filer requires downtime to do it? Thanx. -- Eric Hunter System Administrator _______________________ eric(a)gigaton.com

22 35

Netcache object capacities (was Re: Goodies (was wack))
by jrg＠acm.org 02 Jan '00

02 Jan '00

On Fri 31 Dec, 1999, chris(a)cecil.muscat.com (Chris Good) wrote: >BTW who else thinks it sucks that you can only have a million or >so objects in a netcache. bang went another couple of sales when >we discovered that... I've not played with one in ages, but can that really be right? The Tech Specs sheet says that the C740 maxes at 990GB, (ok, probably because that's what the filer can do), so for an average 13kB object size that gives space for: 990*1024*1024/13 = approx 79 000 000 objects. Even for the C720 (4 disks)'s more reasonable max 27GB, that's around 2 million. The C720/486GB is 39 million or so. Surely you wouldn't have a system that would waste all that disk space? To look at it another way, 990GB of disk and only one million objects would mean the average file size could be as high 1MB. The aforementioned specs, and the rest of the docs, have nothing to say on the matter though. James.

2 1

RE: volcopy and snapmirror performance
by Walters, Mike 31 Dec '99

31 Dec '99

We did this transfer on a site to migrate around 150GB data between F630 to F760 - it went though at around 14-15MB/s (50+GB/hour) on a direct cross-over GbE connection. Although it's not a requirement, I would sugggest using the same versions of ONTAP - we hit a hardware problem on one filer which aborted the transfer, & there was a problem with aborted transfers when the filers were on 5.2.1 and 5.2.3 resp. - we upped them both to 5.2.3 & all was well ;-) Cheers Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dl-toasters(a)netapp.com > [mailto:owner-dl-toasters@netapp.com]On Behalf Of kevin graham > Sent: 30 December 1999 11:54 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: volcopy and snapmirror performance > > > > We're looking at moving 287gb (~10.7m inodes) worth of data > from a 630 to > a clean volume on a 760. > > To schedule the downtime, I need to know if anyone has > ballpark figures > for calculating the tiem for a volcopy. The filers are well > connected > (gbit ether on both of them), and I can sacrafice big chunks of > performance to make this go in a timely manner. (the > 100mbit interfaces > are inactive as well, if those should just be strapped together) > > Later on, we're looking at trying to snapmirror 536gb > (~17.2m inodes) > spread pretty evenly across two volumes between two > locations. Are there > numbers available on the approximate overhead of the > snapmirror protocol > (delta bytes * overhead), and how often it would be > feasible to run it > (I'd prefer something in the neighborhood of 5-10 minutes). > > The best numbers I could find on NOW were "36GB/hr will > drive the cpu to > 100%" without any reference to the filer model, cache sizes > (the filer > does do read-aheads, right?), inode density, etc... > > thanks. > > ..kg.. > >

2 1

RE: Goodies (was wack)
by Mohler, Jeff 31 Dec '99

31 Dec '99

Depends. If it's a round of golf or a T-shirt..its a safe bet, feel free to produce a P.O.. But if it's a leather jacket...hold out for the jacket, because between the jacket and the gold, you KNOW the salesguy _wants_ that round of golf. Isn't there a Dilbert about this..yet? :-----Original Message----- :From: Alan R. White [mailto:arw@tipper.demon.co.uk] :Sent: Thursday, December 30, 1999 12:44 PM :To: toasters(a)mathworks.com :Subject: Re: Goodies (was wack) : : :Wonder how many sales folk actually believe that there is a direct :relationship between giveaways and meeting their end of year targets? : :....or is it me thats being naive.....

1 0

toasters
by TomArlington 30 Dec '99

30 Dec '99

toasters

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