toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

Re: Legato Networker Clientpak for Netapp filers
by Michael Salmon 19 Oct '99

19 Oct '99

+----- On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 09:38:17 +0200, "Schepers, Jan" writes: | Hello people, | | currently there is a Legato Networker Clientpak available | for Network Appliance Filers. Check: | | http://www-ftp.legato.com/Products/html/clientpak_for_netapps.html | | In our environment the Networker server is running on HP-UX but | Legato claims that it is available for W/NT and Solaris only. | | The first question is whether somebody wants to share experience | with the clientpak? I have recently installed it but I haven't had enough experience yet to send any info to the list. The manual doesn't mention that the backup is started using rsh, not nsrexecd so your hosts.equiv must include the backup server. | Secondly, Networker is a client/server application so did anybody | ever try the C/S combination Netapp/HP-UX rather then Netapp/Solaris? | Did it work? Why not? What were the problems? The server can be whatever you like but you must have a sparc/solaris or intel/nt machine if you want to install the s/w or recover files. I don't think that this s/w in it's current state will convince anyone to buy a toaster. BTW na_recover is not pleasant, I consider it to be at best alpha quality in it's user interface. I think that I should be paid for using this software rather than having to pay for a client license. /Michael

1 0

Legato Networker Clientpak for Netapp filers
by Schepers, Jan 19 Oct '99

19 Oct '99

Hello people, currently there is a Legato Networker Clientpak available for Network Appliance Filers. Check: http://www-ftp.legato.com/Products/html/clientpak_for_netapps.html In our environment the Networker server is running on HP-UX but Legato claims that it is available for W/NT and Solaris only. The first question is whether somebody wants to share experience with the clientpak? Secondly, Networker is a client/server application so did anybody ever try the C/S combination Netapp/HP-UX rather then Netapp/Solaris? Did it work? Why not? What were the problems? The outcome of the above may help convert somebody to NA. TIA - Yann

1 0

RE: now.netapp.com now needs javascript/cookies?
by Graydon Dodson 18 Oct '99

18 Oct '99

I don't want to feed a flame war here, but I agree that NOW access should NOT require java/javascript. GUI browsers aren't the only tools used to access this site, Some of us automate, (one of the major advantages of a CLI) and have perl scripts for pulling info from the site. Cookies complicate these programs, java/javascript makes them unworkable. > Michael Ryan wrote: > >a toaster tidbit: NOW uses cookies not only to manage Session state in IIS but >also to maintain Authentication and Authorization across our newly expanded >backend. That's why the Cookies have domain ".netapp.com" and not >"now.netapp.com." Using cookies for authentication/authorization is a bad idea. The NOW site is basically insecure to start with (no SSL, all authentication info sent in the clear). The only value the cookies have is to avoid presenting multiple login challenges to the user as they move from server to server. But this can lower security even further because a "cracker" may not need to guess a username:password, just a currently valid cookie. P.S. I don't care what you do with the corporate site (www.netapp.com) but for us folks who pay for the support site, it would be nice if "easy to use" was a priority. My $0.02 Graydon Dodson grdodson(a)lexmark.com Lexmark International Inc.

1 0

RE: now.netapp.com now needs javascript/cookies?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 18 Oct '99

18 Oct '99

On 10/18/99 10:59:17 you wrote: >that said, IMHO, i think it's key for NTAP to review and >architect, again, how NOW should handle general interactions with modern text >browsers (including the absence of javascript). Why review and architect *again*? Surely these issues were forseeable before, and yet obviously you didn't care. Did you even bother to *ask* the customer base and research this before hand? No. So either admit that you guys made a mistake, or stop paying lipservice. BTW, while you are rearchitecting, rip out IIS. You will be better off in the long run. Bruce

1 0

RE: now.netapp.com now needs javascript/cookies?
by Ryan, Michael 18 Oct '99

18 Oct '99

a toaster tidbit: NOW uses cookies not only to manage Session state in IIS but also to maintain Authentication and Authorization across our newly expanded backend. That's why the Cookies have domain ".netapp.com" and not "now.netapp.com." i hear the input about lynx and the ability to script. while modern lynx supports cookies -- e.g. release 2.8.1rel.2 libwww-FM 2.14, not all installations do. that said, IMHO, i think it's key for NTAP to review and architect, again, how NOW should handle general interactions with modern text browsers (including the absence of javascript). thanks for the feedback. //michael -----Original Message----- From: Pete Ehlke [mailto:pde@listserv.music.sony.com] Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 6:41 PM To: Luke Mewburn Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: now.netapp.com now needs javascript/cookies? Luke Mewburn (lukem(a)cs.rmit.edu.au) said, on [991017 20:43]: > Since when has now.netapp.com needed JavaScript & Cookies? > Since someone decided that IIS/ASP was a Good Thing(TM). And, AFAICT, the cookies aren't used at all for the only technical reason for using them, keeping state. I smell the presence of marketroids and user tracking. Pfeh. > I find this unacceptable: > > a) I have JavaScript (& Java) disabled on my GUI browser > because it increases the reliability and security. > > b) My text browser (lynx) doesn't support JavaScript. > As do a fair number of the people who use NOW, I'd wager. > With NetApp's drive to encouraging customers to using now.netapp.com > as a method to lodge support calls, I remind them that until this > point I could do everything (manage my filers, submit calls, look > at bug reports/new releases) via a text based connected *if* I needed > to. > So could I. And if I ever need information from NOW in the middle of the night, while I'm hunched over a dead filer in a colo cage, with nothing but a vt100 at my disposal, I'm going to pitch a pretty serious fit. This is a technical resource, folks, not just another opportunity for your marketing department to count hits. -- Pete Ehlke Sys Admin type @ Sony Music entertainment "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action." -- Ian Fleming

1 0

Re: group issues
by Robert L. Millner 18 Oct '99

18 Oct '99

t> Or you can use different group names with the same gid and everything will t> work fine. This is what we do. ;) We use NIS for everything. The degeneracy state of group.bygid map should be causing you subtle problems somewhere. The 1k limit is inherent in the NDBM code that NIS relies on. You can change this limit and recompile if you have access to the source for libc/ypbind/ypserv/ndbm on ALL platforms you support but that is a major pain in the ass. Is netapp planning to support LDAP based access to passwd, group, etc... at some point[1]? Solaris and Linux have been able to do this for a while and RedHat 6.1 even comes with the packages. It doesn't suffer that limit and purports to perform better[2]. Rob 1. I realize that this would be an un-official word on the toasters list. 2. I have not tested this myself yet. The traditional NIS server is single threaded and really slow. LDAP parsing and record searching is a more expensive process than a simple NDBM lookup but the server should perform better against multiple clients.

3 2

now.netapp.com now needs javascript/cookies?
by Luke Mewburn 18 Oct '99

18 Oct '99

Since when has now.netapp.com needed JavaScript & Cookies? I find this unacceptable: a) I have JavaScript (& Java) disabled on my GUI browser because it increases the reliability and security. b) My text browser (lynx) doesn't support JavaScript. With NetApp's drive to encouraging customers to using now.netapp.com as a method to lodge support calls, I remind them that until this point I could do everything (manage my filers, submit calls, look at bug reports/new releases) via a text based connected *if* I needed to. Next thing we know the initial release of new features will only be available via Windows and/or Web based GUI interfaces. Memo to NetApp: if you do this, you will lose customers. Luke. (Afraid of the slippery slope to brain damaged interfaces because of PC magazine perceptions that filers ``need'' a GUI..)

10 9

Re: group issues
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 18 Oct '99

18 Oct '99

On 10/15/99 21:50:34 you wrote: > > >Or you can use different group names with the same gid and everything will >work fine. This is what we do. ;) We use NIS for everything. No, you can't. Been there, done that; it won't work for everything, and you will eventually run into NIS trouble (see other message). The best thing to do is live with the 16 group limit until a new standard version of NFS supports access lists, or wait for LDAP to become more widely adopted. I think it *is* on Netapp's agenda, but most vendors are slow to adopt it. Bruce

2 1

Re: now.netapp.com now needs javascript/cookies?
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 18 Oct '99

18 Oct '99

> CLI will be out in the next few years, no matters where your nostalgia goes. As I've said before (about Wellfleet/Bay/Nortel routers): Having a GUI is fine. Having a GUI *only* is terrible. Some of us swear by command line interfaces. They enable you to use any kind of terminal, and to work from home or over a slow dialup line. Yes, clearly, the use of GUIs is increasing. However, for us, a product which offers management via a GUI only starts off with a significant disadvantage (or disincentive for purchase, if you wish). Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

1 0

group issues
by mcbride2＠us.ibm.com 16 Oct '99

16 Oct '99

I am having an issue regarding the number of groups and, the numbers of users per group at our site. We have 3 toasters running 5.2.1P2 being administered by a solaris 2.5.1 server. We have about 75 unix style qtrees for both NFS and CIFS protocols. I have a requirement that several users need to be in more than 16 groups. I believe modifying the Solaris kernel will not only slow down the access, but may present problems on the filer. Also, I require to have more than 1024 characters needed per group entry. I have tried creating sub-groups and a master group within the group file(see below) - I cannot get this to work. Maybe I need to upgrade my Solaris NIS server? example: project1:*:100:usera,userb... project2:*:101:usery,userz mstproject:*:102:project1,project2 I would think someone has encountered this problem before. I would appreciate any feedback regarding these issues. Mike McBride IBM Global Services Unix and NT Server Support mcbride2(a)us.ibm.com (760) 634-6239

3 2

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