toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

Re: LISA Conference
by jrg＠gbnet.net 04 Nov '99

04 Nov '99

On Thu 4 Nov, 1999, fubar(a)mathworks.com (Kendall Libby) wrote: >We could get tanked and then go raid the Auspex party. EMC, too, if >they actually have a party/BOF. ;-) from the current scheduled BoFs, Tuesday Nov 9, 6pm-7pm "Data Management in a Mixed Unix and Windows NT Environment" Paul Levine, Auspex Systems, Inc. a chance to actually discuss all this SecureShare business, etc, once and for all! A colleague is going to be instigating testing of all the players for sharing data to NT systems and Unix, soon, so I've gotta go, haven't I? (and then we can wander along to the Sheraton, afterwards. How convenient!) There are also some other potentially interesting BoFs, including: - Large Scale Storage Management - Automated Backup Integration: Solutions and Ideas James.

1 0

RE: Legato Clienk Pak for Netapps
by Melvin, Grant 04 Nov '99

04 Nov '99

Hi Scott, > Just received the new client pak for Netapps. Much to my chagrin, I find > out it doesn't support the F500 series filers. Anyone know why this is the > case? Its due to bug 13252, a description is online. Unfortunately, we had a strange JVM/platform interaction: Under Data ONTAP Release 5.3 or 5.3.1, running NDMP or other Java-based software on F520 or F540 systems can cause system panics or watchdog resets due to an interaction between the Java runtime environment and the F520/F540 hardware/firmware. This has been resolved in Data Ontap 5.3.4. Legato are going to certify 5.3.4R1, due in a few weeks, with the Client Pak, which will then also support F500 series filers. Cheers, Grant -----Original Message----- From: Scott Mikusko [mailto:guerilla@concentric.net] Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 12:14 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Legato Clienk Pak for Netapps Comrades, Just received the new client pak for Netapps. Much to my chagrin, I find out it doesn't support the F500 series filers. Anyone know why this is the case? And after upgrading all my systems to 5.2.3 three weeks ago, I find out I need to upgrade to at least 5.3.2. Lovely. And I see that the client does not allow backups of the snapshots, which is what I'm currently writing to tape. Apart from these annoying issues, what does anyone have to say about the client software for the Netapp? I have a system here that is taking nearly 40 hours to do a full backup, and 20 hours for incrementals to backup via NFS mounts to the backup server. I'm hoping that the client pak will help improve the time it takes to get my filers backed up. The filers themselves are not too terribly busy, I just have very large file systems. Anyone have any stats on the performance of the client software vs NFS mounting the filers to a backup server? Curious. Thanks! -Scott -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Scott T. Mikusko Scrape the clouds of rouge from his face, Systems Engineer and he's white as noise Concentric Network Corporation All About Eve Internet Guerilla -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

1 0

Legato Clienk Pak for Netapps
by Scott Mikusko 04 Nov '99

04 Nov '99

Comrades, Just received the new client pak for Netapps. Much to my chagrin, I find out it doesn't support the F500 series filers. Anyone know why this is the case? And after upgrading all my systems to 5.2.3 three weeks ago, I find out I need to upgrade to at least 5.3.2. Lovely. And I see that the client does not allow backups of the snapshots, which is what I'm currently writing to tape. Apart from these annoying issues, what does anyone have to say about the client software for the Netapp? I have a system here that is taking nearly 40 hours to do a full backup, and 20 hours for incrementals to backup via NFS mounts to the backup server. I'm hoping that the client pak will help improve the time it takes to get my filers backed up. The filers themselves are not too terribly busy, I just have very large file systems. Anyone have any stats on the performance of the client software vs NFS mounting the filers to a backup server? Curious. Thanks! -Scott -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Scott T. Mikusko Scrape the clouds of rouge from his face, Systems Engineer and he's white as noise Concentric Network Corporation All About Eve Internet Guerilla -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

1 0

Official NetApp Fan Club Reception at the LISA Conference
by Benn, Paul 04 Nov '99

04 Nov '99

The official NetApp Fan Club reception at the LISA Conference is scheduled for Schooners (in the Sheraton), Tuesday from 8-12. All NetApp users on dl-toasters are invited.

1 0

RE: LISA Conference (NetApp reception)
by Benn, Paul 04 Nov '99

04 Nov '99

Hey gang.... I just heard from the guy that does our shows: NetApp will be having a reception on Tuesday evening from 8-12 at the Schooners bar in the Sheraton. Have Fun! Paul Benn Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Benjy Feen [mailto:benjy@feen.com] Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 10:47 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: LISA Conference On 3 Nov 1999, Darrell Fuhriman wrote: > How 'bout just get tanked? I'd like to support this proposal. As many of you know, there are a number of bars on Pine St. They're uphill from the convention center, so the return trip will be on gravity-assist. I'd like to recommend to NetApp that they take steps to provide enhanced beverage throughput for this year's hospitality suite. 1. More blenders (N + 1 blenders?) 2. A caching system; just like DLT tape operations, beverage production is most efficient when given the opportunity to continue streaming despite momentary breaks in demand. The cache also helps minimize the impact of the high-latency nature of pina colada/margarita blending. 3. Hopefully, metrics from last year were saved in order to provide for predictive engineering. -- Benjy Feen | benjy(a)feen.com | http://www.monkeybagel.com

1 0

Re: LISA Conference
by Darrell Fuhriman 04 Nov '99

04 Nov '99

fubar(a)mathworks.com (Kendall Libby) writes: > We could get tanked and then go raid the Auspex party. EMC, too, if > they actually have a party/BOF. ;-) How 'bout just get tanked? :) I doubt Auspex could afford a party, what with practically no new income. :-| I'm making my local netapp reps pony up some more drink tickets, and trying to get him to get some Netapp t-shirts that aren't white for once. :) Glad to see you'll be there, Kendall. :) Darrell

2 1

Re: LISA Conference
by Arvind K Aggarwal 04 Nov '99

04 Nov '99

Sure I would not minding joining in. > Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:37:04 -0800 (PST) > From: Cheryl Cruddace <cruddace(a)feather.llnl.gov> > Subject: Re: LISA Conference > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-MD5: H3IvMA27rXQ5e1ulAi/rYA== > > > I asked whether anyone was going to LISA a few months ago and a few > beer drinkers answered affirmatively. Is anyone still interested in > getting together for a bar-hopping-birds-of-a-feather. If so there > is usually a bulletin board that we could post to at the conference > center. Mind you this is all in the interest of sharing priceless > tidbits of technical information so that I can go home and rip open > those boxes and build our new F740's with gusto and a lot more knowhow > than when I built the F630. (My boss doesn't know that the filers > build and run themselves so he thinks I am on a fact finding mission!) > > Cheryl Cruddace > LLNL Thank You Arvind Aggarwal Network Solutions Sector 1421 West Shure Drive, 3A4 Arlington Heights, IL 60004 (847) 435-9665 (847) 632-6658 (Fax) qa1162(a)email.mot.com

1 0

Doubled directory sizes
by tkaczma＠gryf.net 04 Nov '99

04 Nov '99

Could someone point me to a piece of documentation which explains why the directory files double in size between say Auspex and the NetApp? One of my users is complaining that now that we moved his directory all of the directory files doubled in size overnight. Tom

5 9

Re: Doubled directory sizes
by dnb＠ccs.neu.edu 03 Nov '99

03 Nov '99

Howdy- The other, less likely possibility is that this user had sparse files that got filled in because the copy program couldn't/didn't cope with it. Much less probable than the other block size theories, though. Peace, dNb

1 0

Re: Java Thread & TimeDaemon
by Sam Cramer 02 Nov '99

02 Nov '99

> I've been running 5.3.2R1 since Aug 12th, and I had set up the timed to : > > timed.enable on > timed.log off > timed.max_skew 2s > timed.proto ntp > timed.sched hourly > timed.servers 205.246.15.5 > > Today, I started seeing in my syslogs : > > ..... Tue Nov 2 10:10:42 CST [Java Thread]: TimeDaemon: NTP server > '205.246.15.5' reports that the time is Tue Nov 02 10:14:45 CST 1999, > > for both of the toasters. Anyone know what this is about? these toasters > have been up for around 40 days or so... The syslog messages result from a misunderstanding regarding the meaning of the "timed.max_skew" option. Looking at the name of the option, one could reasonably assume that it controls how far out of whack we'll let the filer's notion of time get before we synchronize with the time server. In fact, it controls how far out of whack a timer server's time can be before the filer will no longer synchronize with the timer server. We use this field to prevent "time poisoning" of the filer by a grossly inaccurate time server. If we had it to do over again, we'd probably change the name of this option to something less confusing. So, when you specified "options timed.max_skew 2s", you were actually saying "if the time reported by the time server is more than 2 seconds away from the filer's notion of the correct time, don't synchronize to the time server." You can eliminate these messages, and get the filers back into synch with the time server by setting "timed.max_skew" to something like 30 minutes (30m). Sam

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