toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

RE: Two files with same name under NFS
by Rudie, Tony 11 Nov '99

11 Nov '99

You can cause this to happen if you mv (and perhaps cp) a file from a snapshot back into the main filesystem, if the file already exists in the main filesystem. the approved method is to remove the one in the main filesystem first. I'm a sissy, so I prefer moving the original to some other name, then copying in the one from snapshot, then removing the renamed original. -----Original Message----- From: Stephen C. Losen [mailto:scl@sasha.acc.virginia.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 1:49 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Two files with same name under NFS We are running ONTAP 5.2.3D1 in a mixed CIFS and NFS environment. Recently we encountered a directory that had two different files with the same name under NFS. This was reported by ls -ali | grep NEW 1176207 -rwxr-xr-x 1 1224 1224 674 Nov 10 10:32 NEW2.GIF 3907524 -rwxr-xr-x 1 1224 1224 674 Nov 10 10:32 NEW2.GIF Yes, we checked very carefully and there are no spaces or other unprintable characters in the names. Not trusting "ls" I even wrote a little perl script that calls readdir to print out the filenames and they are indeed identical. Actually, this ls output is erroneous because the two files have different permissions and mod time. Still, this does show the different inode numbers, indicating two distinct files. From W98 you can see these are two different files. One is named NEW2.GIF and the other is named NEW2~0.GIF. And the mod times are indeed different. So I conclude that we have a filename mapping problem where two different files map to the same NFS name. Is this a normal situation that should be expected periodically, or should this "never happen"? We know that under NFS you can create two files with the same spelling but different capitalization, but these are not allowed under CIFS. So when a NFS dir containing such conflicts gets converted to CIFS, the filenames are "massaged" by having ~number appear in the CIFS name. However, we couldn't come up with a repeat-by where we could create two files under CIFS with the same NFS name. Anyone else figure out how to do it? Also, once you have a situation like the above, it seems like it's a toss up as to which of the two files you see under NFS. Running ls -li NEW2.GIF on one NFS client showed one of the inums while running the same command on another NFS client showed the other. So this could cause confusion. Has anyone else experienced this? Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 804-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

1 0

Re: Strange routing problem
by Michael Salmon 11 Nov '99

11 Nov '99

+----- On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 16:39:52 PST, "Bruce Sterling Woodcock" writes: | > On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Eyal Traitel wrote: | > | > > I had something a little similar I suspect... | > > Try toggling your RIP by "routed off|on". | > > You should also check that your /etc/rc contains something like: | > > | > > route add default 223.21.95.254 1 | > | > route add net default 223.21.95.254 1 | > | > to be exact. Otherwise you're putting in a host route. | | Your default route SHOULD be a host route. To the IP address of the | router. No, it is exactly the opposite. A host route implies a netmask of all 1's i.e. 255.255.255.255 but the default route has a netmask of all 0's i.e. 0.0.0.0 as it has to match all addresses. /Michael

2 1

RE: CIFS UMASK
by Muhlestein, Mark 11 Nov '99

11 Nov '99

Take a look at the security FAQ. It has info on the default perms for the various security styles when created by the various clients. In particular, look at "What kind of default security is set on files created by CIFS clients?" http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/faq.shtm l#anchor1395706 <http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/faq.sht ml#anchor1395706> Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com <mailto:mmm@netapp.com> -----Original Message----- From: Travis Zadikem [mailto:travis@aztek-eng.com] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 7:42 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: CIFS UMASK I as wondering if anyone knew of a way to set the default umask for somebody connecting via cifs. I do not want to use NFS and was not sure if this was possible or not. -- Travis A. Zadikem Senior Network Engineer PH: (303)-415-6175 Fax: (303)-786-9190 A mind is like a garden it only grows when fed and watered correctly.

1 0

solaris tuning (forked from 'Failure of rm -rf')
by Nick Christenson 11 Nov '99

11 Nov '99

> On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Aimee Schmidt wrote: > > > Try installing the appropriate Solaris patches and tune NFS/DNLC > > parameters. This will improve performance by an order of magnitude or > > so. Whether/how much these patches help depends a great deal on the specifics of your situation. Nonetheless, these are probably good things. I wish Sun would let us know exactly how these patches implement their fix. > > Patches: > > 5.6 sparc - 105720-08 > > 5.6 i386 - 105721-08 > > 5.7 sparc - 106541-06 > > 5.7 i386 - 106542-06 > > > > Tunings (for /etc/system): > > set nfs:nfs_nra = 10 > > set nfs:nfs3_nra = 10 > > set nfs:nfs_max_threads = 24 > > set nfs:nfs3_max_threads = 24 > > set ncsize=8192 > > Aimee Some of these values are very different from what I've found to be effective on high volume mail systems. I'm not at all sure that ncsize needs to be set this low if the above patches actually fix bug "4212925 NFS client unlink operation slow" effectively, but again, since I don't know what the actual fix introduced was, it's hard to tell. > Does netapp have a white paper discussing suggested solaris > tuning parameters with some explanation on why the values were picked? Not that I know of. The "correct" numbers are application, machine, RAM, and implementation specific, so I doubt they could provide something simple that improved everyone's situation. > My department recently put a 740 in production as a mail spool with > a mid of solaris 7 and solaris 8(beta) hosts. I got a list of parameters > from another netapp engineer through a salesperson but was reluctant to > change the value of nfs:nfs_nra to 24 for example. For mail systems with small mailboxes I would expect that "10" might be higher than optimal. If you message store is one file per message and most messages are small, I would actually expect performance to be marginally worse with nfs_nra = 10 than with a lower value. I'd hesitate to speculate on what would be optimal without knowing the specific characteristics of a particular situation. > The default value for > this appears to be 524288! This would be several Gigabytes in size. In some situations, automatically loading in the whole file might be a good thing. In some situations, especially where the client connection was very slow, it might read the whole file into memory, but be so slow about sending the connection down to, say, a POP client that LRU caused some of this info to be flushed from the buffer cache before it got transmitted, in which case it would have to be read again, which would be a waste. > Since there are other applications that > suggest tuning these parameters, and Sun asks us to change them from time > to time, it is helpful to know 'why' we set the values. Certainly, it is important to understand what each of these parameters controls. > If the real answer is "we just iterated through lots of different > numbers and these are the ones that provided the best performance mix", > thats OK.. In most cases, this is probably the case. Note, though, that if your servers are memory poor the same parameters that work best on a similar machine with memory to spare are likely to be sub-optimal, for example. > FYI, here is the list of things we got from the salesperson: > ---- > set npty = 1024 > set nfs:nfs_nra = 10 > set nfs:nfs3_nra = 10 > set nfs:nfs_max_threads = 24 > set nfs:nfs3_max_threads = 24 On really busy mail servers with much memory, my opinion is that nfs_max_threads can be set much higher than this. I believe that one thread per concurrent process accessing data over NFS is not unreasonable as a rule of thumb, as long as the box doesn't start thrashing as a consequence. > set maxusers = 256 Depends on your box and how much RAM you use. For E250, E450, E3500, and larger servers, boosting this to 2048 is not unreasonable if you have RAM to burn in order to gain performance. > set ncsize = 30000 If you don't have one of the patches listed above applied, this may be a little too high. With the patches installed, without knowing how the problem was fixed, it's hard to say whether this number is too high or not. > set doingcache=0 I don't know what this does. > ----- It's impossible to come up with a general set of kernel tuning parameters for Solaris clients doing email over NFS without more information. The nature of the message store is important. The load characteristics are important. What client machines are being used and how much RAM do they have? Is it worth consuming more memory, network, and filer I/O resources to reduce POP or IMAP connection latency? Is the system primarily a POP, file based, or IMAP server? There are a large number of variables that precludes a simple answer. In everyone's case, there's not much to do about it except to understand what the parameters do and to iterate on them until good things happen. In order to understand what they do, I recommend the 2nd edition of Adrian Cockroft's Solaris performance tuning book and the SMCC NFS Server Performance and Tuning Guide from Sun. For the latter, it's a matter of time and effort. However, for those sites managing less than 100,000 mailboxes, the return on lots of careful tuning is probably small enough that it's not worth pursuing. One note of caution, Cockroft's book covers Solaris tuning up through about Solaris 2.5.1. While the descriptions are still valid, some of the math and parameters have changed. Not all the advice is good advice if you're running Solaris 2.6 or higher. The same would be true for older editions of the Tuning Guide. -- Nick Christenson npc(a)sendmail.com

2 1

CIFS UMASK
by Travis Zadikem 11 Nov '99

11 Nov '99

I as wondering if anyone knew of a way to set the default umask for somebody connecting via cifs. I do not want to use NFS and was not sure if this was possible or not. -- Travis A. Zadikem Senior Network Engineer PH: (303)-415-6175 Fax: (303)-786-9190 A mind is like a garden it only grows when fed and watered correctly.

1 0

Re: AW: 'Loop break detected' followed by failover
by alexei＠mindspring.net 11 Nov '99

11 Nov '99

bentele(a)mtu-friedrichshafen.com writes: > Replacing motherboard and FC-Adapter-Card at last solved the > problem, after we replaced all cables, all shelves of this loop, and about 3 > disks. One of my main complaints about the current fcal implementation for the filers is that there is no visual indicator of loop status. I know NetApp is working toward addressing this, but it would have been nice to have from the start. I wish fcal were more like token ring or fddi and that the loop were "self healing". When I had an LRC fail on an fcal shelf, there was no way of finding which LRC (used process of elimination) was the culprit, as the entire loop was offline, not just the failed shelf and those after it. Alex

5 4

Fast ENet cards for F330 and F540
by Walsh, Warren (MN65) 11 Nov '99

11 Nov '99

Hi All - We've got two toasters, a F330 and F540. They're currently networked with FDDI, but we would like to migrate to 100BaseT. NetApp has EOL'd these models, even thought they're three years old, and does not sell these parts. Anyone have suggestions for finding an alternate vendor for NetApp NICs? Or a recommendation for a used/surplus dealer? Thanks in advance. -warren Warren M. Walsh Honeywell Technology Center 612-951-7837 walsh_warren(a)htc.honeywell.com

1 0

Two files with same name under NFS
by Stephen C. Losen 11 Nov '99

11 Nov '99

We are running ONTAP 5.2.3D1 in a mixed CIFS and NFS environment. Recently we encountered a directory that had two different files with the same name under NFS. This was reported by ls -ali | grep NEW 1176207 -rwxr-xr-x 1 1224 1224 674 Nov 10 10:32 NEW2.GIF 3907524 -rwxr-xr-x 1 1224 1224 674 Nov 10 10:32 NEW2.GIF Yes, we checked very carefully and there are no spaces or other unprintable characters in the names. Not trusting "ls" I even wrote a little perl script that calls readdir to print out the filenames and they are indeed identical. Actually, this ls output is erroneous because the two files have different permissions and mod time. Still, this does show the different inode numbers, indicating two distinct files. From W98 you can see these are two different files. One is named NEW2.GIF and the other is named NEW2~0.GIF. And the mod times are indeed different. So I conclude that we have a filename mapping problem where two different files map to the same NFS name. Is this a normal situation that should be expected periodically, or should this "never happen"? We know that under NFS you can create two files with the same spelling but different capitalization, but these are not allowed under CIFS. So when a NFS dir containing such conflicts gets converted to CIFS, the filenames are "massaged" by having ~number appear in the CIFS name. However, we couldn't come up with a repeat-by where we could create two files under CIFS with the same NFS name. Anyone else figure out how to do it? Also, once you have a situation like the above, it seems like it's a toss up as to which of the two files you see under NFS. Running ls -li NEW2.GIF on one NFS client showed one of the inums while running the same command on another NFS client showed the other. So this could cause confusion. Has anyone else experienced this? Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 804-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

2 1

Re: Failure of rm -rf
by Aimee Schmidt 10 Nov '99

10 Nov '99

> Since my original mail I've discovered that the problem > is also occuring on another filer which is still running > 5.2.2P1. I'm now wondering if it's more related to running > Solaris 2.7 - the Sun system on which we now regularly see the > problem was upgraded to 2.7 a few weeks ago. > > My admin hosts, on which I see the problem, remain at 2.5.1 and even > 2.5 (horrors). Try installing the appropriate Solaris patches and tune NFS/DNLC parameters. This will improve performance by an order of magnitude or so. Patches: 5.6 sparc - 105720-08 5.6 i386 - 105721-08 5.7 sparc - 106541-06 5.7 i386 - 106542-06 Tunings (for /etc/system): set nfs:nfs_nra = 10 set nfs:nfs3_nra = 10 set nfs:nfs_max_threads = 24 set nfs:nfs3_max_threads = 24 set ncsize=8192 Aimee _____________________________________________________ Aimee Schmidt aimee(a)netapp.com Software Test Engineer Voice: 408.822.6840 Network Appliance Fax: 408.822.4559 / |\ / | \ "We cannot direct the wind __o / | \ but we can adjust our sails" _`\<,_ / | \ (_)/ (_) ---------- \________/ |_|

2 2

RE: 'Loop break detected' followed by failover
by tomi.rautio＠nokia.com 10 Nov '99

10 Nov '99

Hi there, we also have loop break couple months ago and it stays mystery. F740 single head, 5.1.2, FC-AL 18 GB disks in 6 shelves. We test all disk shelves one shelf at time with 2 disks and all works ok, but adding all 6 shelves loop stays broken. Swapping one shelf nro3 and problem disappears. What disk fw do you have at that time, I have pretty old. -TomiR- tomi.rautio(a)nokia.com > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT bentele(a)mtu-friedrichshafen.com > [mailto:bentele@mtu-friedrichshafen.com] > Sent: 10. November 1999 11:18 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com; jay(a)cimedia.com > Subject: AW: 'Loop break detected' followed by failover > Importance: High > > > Hi Jay, > > we also had a ' isp2100_timeout]: Resetting ISP2100 in > slot ..' a > few weeks ago. > F740 , DOT 5.2.3, FC-AL 18 GB, Gbit Card. > > !! Be careful !! > > Replacing motherboard and FC-Adapter-Card at last solved the > problem, after we replaced all cables, all shelves of this > loop, and about 3 > disks. > > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen > > Markus Bentele > MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH > * 07541-90-2654 > * bentele(a)mtu-friedrichshafen.com > > > ---------- > > Von: Jay Soffian[SMTP:jay@cimedia.com] > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. November 1999 08:07 > > An: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Betreff: 'Loop break detected' followed by failover > > > > > > I've opened a case with NOW on this. > > > > One of my filers (F740/512MB/28x9GB disks/DOT 5.2.3) > tonight just did > > this: > > > > Tue Nov 9 19:00:01 EST [subzero: statd]: 7:00pm up 44 days, 13:45 > > 2570782327 NFS ops, 0 CIFS ops, 0 HTTP ops > > Tue Nov 9 19:16:46 EST [subzero: isp2100_main]: Loop break > detected on > > ISP2100 in slot 1. > > Tue Nov 9 19:16:50 EST [subzero: isp2100_timeout]: > Resetting ISP2100 in > > slot 1 > > Tue Nov 9 19:19:14 EST [subzero/viking: cf_takeover]: > relog syslog Tue > > Nov 9 19:17:15 EST [subzero: isp2100_timeout]: Resetting > ISP2100 in slot > > 1 > > Tue Nov 9 19:19:14 EST [subzero/viking: cf_takeover]: > relog syslog Tue > > Nov 9 19:17:27 EST [subzero: isp2100_timeout]: Resetting > ISP2100 in slot > > 1 > > Tue Nov 9 19:19:15 EST [subzero/viking: asup_main]: > Cluster Notification > > mail sent > > > > No core dump, I found the filer at an 'ok' prompt. > > > > I rebooted the filer, did a cf giveback a few minutes later and all > > appears fine now. > > > > Anything recommended besides checking that all cables are tight and > > all drives are fully seated? > > > > I couldn't find any bugs relating to this on NOW (except a > bug in the > > Diagnostics not resetting the FC-AL loop properly when a loop break > > occurs). I've heard rumors that some F740's were shipped with bad > > on-board FC-AL controllers, but this F740 has been in operation for > > over a year w/o any problems (it's only been clustered since June > > though). > > > > Suggestions? > > > > j. > > >

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