toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

FW: FTP uploads from the UK (fwd)
by Nguyen, Alan 02 Dec '99

02 Dec '99

To All, First, I must apologize for NetApp's poor FTP site performance. The responsibility for this in my group. The situation is our internet connection is highly-utilized and thus your access to our FTP site is affected by this. Actions have been taken to increase internet bandwidth in the next few weeks. However, despite this, it will be superseded by our new FTP implementation. We have designed a new FTP site to improve security, system management, increase internet bandwidth/presence (i.e. ISP hosted site), and system redundancy. Because our current infrastructure is very out-dated, we have taken the "big-bang" approach rather than making incremental improvements. In a little more detail, our new FTP site is at a web-hosted site with 100MB bandwidth capacity vs current T1, and is configured with two fail-over dual-processor Unix systems with cluster fail-over (F760) Filer pair for storage. In short, the new site is very robust and will scale to meet to our customers' needs. What has been done thus far? Contract has been signed with new web-hosting site. Networking infrastructure is in place. Programming is complete for account and directory management. The new systems are racked at the new web-hosted site. As I type this, we are plugging in the cables for the new systems. What's the schedule? In the next two days, we will perform internal/external FTP tests. On Monday (Dec 6th), we will start live tests with customers assuming everything goes well this week. After which, the new site will go live. I will announce to this list when we are live. If you have any questions, please direct them to me anguyen(a)netapp.com <mailto:anguyen@netapp.com> or reply to this list as I will be joining this list soon. Again, thank you for your patience. Alan Nguyen Network Appliance Mgr., IT Server Operations

1 0

RE: User Quotas in CIFS Environment
by Plawner, Marom 02 Dec '99

02 Dec '99

I realize that the responses I received on this thread weren't posted to the group, so I'll give a quick overview of the e-mail's I received: Problem that users from the NT domain must be migrated into the /etc/passwd file (using the dos based on beta GUI based tool) to be able to give a users@tree quota. Responses: This is not unique to my system. It is in fact built this way. I've been told that this should be changed in an upcoming release (less than 12 months, hopefully). Quote, "The quota system within WAFL needs to be wired to the NTFS metadata that is maintained in the NTFS and MIXED file system styles. Currently it is only wired to the UNIX notion of ownership, which is why the UNIX<->NT user mappings are currently necessary to make user and group quotas work for Windows users." My Reaction: 12 months!!!! Problem: An NT based NIS server and make the NetApp a client. Anyone know of one? Responses: Good idea, nope, we don't. Problem: The DOS based migration tool crashes, can someone at NetApp fix it? Response: Nope. We don't even have the source, and we don't support it. My Reaction: This is a BAD answer. The NetApp filer provides a broken functionality (see first problem above), and the only interim solution isn't supported. Problem: Maybe the GUI version of the migration tool has hidden command line switches which can make it scriptable? Response: Nope. Why don't you just write your own script automatically update your /etc/passwd file? My Reaction: I bought the NetApp Filer since it's supposed to be a "black box" (ok, blue). The concept of the filer is that it is a simple, closed system that you just plug in a go with. If I wanted a system which I have to start building tools for, I'd download Linux for free and do it myself. (Or run Novell, or suffer with speed of NT.) Speed wasn't the issue, NetApp people... simplicity was. I don't need "just go and program it yourself" answers. I bought this for a CIFS environment, not NFS. I don't come from the "just build it in Perl" side of the tracks. Since you offer more functionality, you just understand your customer based and how the NT System Admins are different than the Unix System Admins. Problem: Maybe the wafl.nt_user.default option is connected? Response: No, read the man page. My Reaction: Right, good idea. Thanks to all of your responses. For those of you wanting to go into CIFS or using CIFS and wanting to go into quotas, I was given a suggestion to just limit the size of the /users folder. In theory it isn't a bad idea, but I'll tell you from the point of view of a company with about 4,000 people using the filer as a home directory, people will use it all up and fast! Not putting a quota won't work. - Marom

1 0

RE: NOW update?
by Davis, Barry 02 Dec '99

02 Dec '99

We have a project scheduled for completion at the end of December to allow customers with text based browsers to download software from the Web. This is in direct response to issue discussed 6 weeks ago regarding customers who have filers in remote locations or colo cages where no graphics console is available. Details will come out mid-December about this new location and how to use it. -----Original Message----- From: Pete Ehlke [mailto:pde@listserv.music.sony.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 12:14 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: NOW update? Folks: Six weeks or so ago, there was extensive discussion here about the use of javascript on NOW, and the inability of people in colo cages to get OnTap updates when no craphics capable console is available. NetApp made a fair bit of noise about wanting to address the issue, but since that time, the silence has been deafening. What's happening? -P. -- Pete Ehlke Sys Admin type @ Sony Music entertainment "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action." -- Ian Fleming

1 0

RE: FC-AL: Onboard vs. PCI Adapter Card
by Norman, Paul 01 Dec '99

01 Dec '99

> -----Original Message----- > From: Jay Soffian [mailto:jay@cimedia.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 12:54 PM > To: paul.norman(a)netapp.com > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: FC-AL: Onboard vs. PCI Adapter Card > > > "Paul" == Norman, Paul <paul.norman(a)netapp.com> writes: > > Paul> Over the last couple days, there has been some discussion > Paul> about on-board FC-AL in our filers. This summer, NetApp > ... > Paul> For more information, or if you have concerns about your > Paul> system, contact Network Appliance customer support. There > Paul> will also be more technical information posted on the NOW > Paul> site before the end of the day tomorrow. > > This information has yet to show up on NOW. > Sorry, I should have posted a pointer. Its been up for a while but it isn't that easy to find. Its in the Tip & Tech section under Knowledge Base, Its #700. The URL is http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/contents/TIP/TIP_700.shtml but you'll have to login first before you can get to this URL. You can find it with search off the Knowledge Base page, at the bottom. Select the "Tip & Tech" type and then enter "700" for the ID. > j. > -- > Jay Soffian <jay(a)cimedia.com> UNIX > Systems Engineer > 404.572.1941 Cox > Interactive Media >

1 0

Backup Help
by Alan R. White 01 Dec '99

01 Dec '99

With the recent slew of mails about backups this question is timely. Problem 1 - we're an ADSM shop. We have all the infrastructure set up to run ADSM but until now we've not had filers. Pretty soon, all things being equal, we're going to start a project which might end up as 5TB of filers over 10 heads, in 5 clusters. At the remote site we're thinking of 5 heads with 1TB each as a snapmirror destination. There's plentiful network bandwidth available between the sites. OK, snapshots will take the bulk of our restore work but there will be the usual 'keep monthly backup for 12 months, yearly for ever (= 7 years in my book)'. Then there's what to do if one breaks (double disk hit / reconstruct failure etc etc - not likely but I'm not betting the bank on it). Checking with the ADSM folks they think they will have a pretty wholesome NetApp integration by end *next* year. Timely as usual (not). So what to do? When and if ADSM native support becomes a reality we should use it if possible so its an interim thing we need. How about backups over CIFS (because I will need the security info - NFS doesn't back it up apparently)? I didn't think local tape drives was an option due to the size of each filer (500GB) and then the number of filers (10). I reckon I'd need 4 drives on each filer and then bodies running round changing them. BTW the business requirement will be to get them a service back soonest in case of outage - snapmirror looks like a last resort because it seems a tad awkward to fail back when the primary is repaired. I've read the NetApp white papers but there doesn't seem to be an ideal solution. All help gratefully received. Regards Alan

1 0

FC-AL: Onboard vs. PCI Adapter Card
by Norman, Paul 01 Dec '99

01 Dec '99

Over the last couple days, there has been some discussion about on-board FC-AL in our filers. This summer, NetApp started shipping filers with an FC-AL adapter card rather than the on-board FC-AL to improve reliability and performance. We did this because we found errors which, though recoverable, potentially effect performance and loop stability. The problem effected a very small fraction, just a few percent, of the installed base. As for the installed base, we've been monitoring Autosupport logs each week to identify Filers that are having these types of errors and arranging for installation of an FC-AL adapter card in cases that warrant it. Our customer support organization is fully aware of this issue and if a customer calls with an FC-AL problem we review their logs for the soft-errors, and arrange for installation of an adapter card where appropriate. Since it effects a very small number of installed systems, it doesn't make sense to upgrade the entire installed base. Leave stable systems lie or if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Most filers will never see this problem and the recoverable errors indicative of the problem are easily identified --- so we are approaching this problem on a case-by-case basis. For more information, or if you have concerns about your system, contact Network Appliance customer support. There will also be more technical information posted on the NOW site before the end of the day tomorrow. Paul Norman, Product Manager Direct: (408) 822-6288 Network Appliance E-Mail: pnorman(a)netapp.com 495 East Java Drive Corp: (408) 822-6000 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Web: WWW.NetApp.Com

4 3

NOW update?
by Pete Ehlke 01 Dec '99

01 Dec '99

Folks: Six weeks or so ago, there was extensive discussion here about the use of javascript on NOW, and the inability of people in colo cages to get OnTap updates when no craphics capable console is available. NetApp made a fair bit of noise about wanting to address the issue, but since that time, the silence has been deafening. What's happening? -P. -- Pete Ehlke Sys Admin type @ Sony Music entertainment "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action." -- Ian Fleming

1 0

RE: Backup solutions
by Jim Cozens 01 Dec '99

01 Dec '99

We've been using Workstation Solutions Quick Restore to backup an F740(DOT5.2.3) via NDMP to an Exabyte 220 Mammoth library for a couple of months now. I've found it to be an excellent combination. One of the nice things about WS is that if you do find a bug they'll fix it quick. I haven't had any problems with the filer crashing while backing up. Jim Cozens CAD Systems Manager Imagination Technologies Ltd Home Park Estate Kings Langley Herts UK -----Original Message----- From: mgx(a)spruce.lsd.ornl.gov [mailto:mgx@spruce.lsd.ornl.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 10:30 PM To: lpaton(a)cfa.harvard.edu Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Backup solutions hi lisa ... are you a happy budtool user ;-) i'd really like to here about the demo. a reliable, affordable NDMP backup solution would be great! -- michael On Tue, Nov 30, Lisa Paton wrote: > > Actually Workstation Solutions has an NDMP client too. > They seem to be a bit cheaper than Veritas, but less > scalable for very large installations. For me, that's > fine. Especially considering it's about 1/3 the price. > > I'm demo'ing the Workstation Solutions product next > week and will post the results if folks are interested. > We're also a current Budtool customer. > > Lisa

5 6

RE: Backup solutions
by Jim Cozens 01 Dec '99

01 Dec '99

According to the release notes QR does support 3-way NDMP backup and recovery. -----Original Message----- From: Brian Tao [mailto:taob@risc.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 3:18 PM To: Jim Cozens Cc: 'mgx(a)spruce.lsd.ornl.gov'; lpaton(a)cfa.harvard.edu; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Backup solutions On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Jim Cozens wrote: > > We've been using Workstation Solutions Quick Restore to backup an > F740(DOT5.2.3) via NDMP to an Exabyte 220 Mammoth library for a > couple of months now. Does QR support 3-way NDMP dumps where the tape library is located on a Solaris host (i.e., does QR come with an ndmpd for Solaris)? Veritas also does 3-way, but only to a tape drive attached to another filer. I need something that can efficiently handle over a dozen filers dumping to a couple of Solaris boxes sharing a single stacker (like an X200 Mammoth2 library or something). -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

3 2

RE: FTP uploads from the UK
by Sam Schorr 01 Dec '99

01 Dec '99

Don't feel alone...the US ftp site does not handle large core dumps very well either. I am constantly getting "connection closed by remote" while trying to send a core of approx. 730 meg (F760 with gig of memory). I've been "hearing" about an upgrade for months. Maybe their ftp process has "feature creep" so they can't do what has been going on for years by others quite successfully. -----Original Message----- From: Dave Atkin [mailto:dla1@york.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 1:00 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: FTP uploads from the UK I'm having awful trouble uploading core dumps these days from the UK. Very often it goes slowly and then the ftp times out with a "broken pipe". Access to everwhere else (including the Netapp web site) is quite fast so I don't think our UK academic network is to blame. At the moment the mean time between crashes on one of our 740s is less than the mean time to get an upload to work!! Is there any chance that Netapp could look at this or alternatively perhaps provide a European ftp site? Or maybe a web-based upload facility might be provided as an alternative to ftp (dunno if that would be more reliable or not..). Dave Atkin ------------------------------------------------------ Dave Atkin, Head of Technical Services Computing Service, University of York, YORK YO10 5DD Phone: +44-1904-433804 (ddi) Fax: +44-1904-433740 Email: D.Atkin(a)york.ac.uk ------------------------------------------------------

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