toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13523 discussions

mailboxes on toaster
by George Kahler 15 Oct '99

15 Oct '99

Hey folks, I'm looking for information that would help us alleviate a bottleneck with mailboxes and home directories on toaster(s). Yah, we still run sendmail and our inboxes are in the old Unix style format (one file per user, multiple messages per file). I heard some of you mention Maildir and I also came across information on mbx format. It doesn't look like I would have to do much to switch over to mbx vs. Maildir. Q: Will mbx buy me performance on the toaster ? Q: Is Maildir a better choice ? Please include any other suggestions. Thanks, George ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- George Kahler e-mail: george(a)yorku.ca Systems Administrator humans: (416) 736-5257 x.22699 Computing Services, York University machines: (416) 736-5830 Ontario, Canada, M3J-1P3

5 5

SUMMARY:Impact of adding disk to filer
by Frank Smith 15 Oct '99

15 Oct '99

Just in case anyone was curious, the consensus was that it should have little or no impact to add a disk to a volume, and that is the way it actually turned out. Physically adding the drive to the shelf froze it for 10-15 seconds, prompting my initial concern and question. The 'vol add vol0 1' command took upwards of 5 minutes to zero the disk, but the actual increase in volume size was instantaneous after the zeroing completed. There was no noticeable increase in CPU or NFS ops during the zeroing or addition (although our traffic is rather bursty in nature, but I did not see any sudden big numbers in CPU or ops). -- Frank Smith fsmith(a)hoovers.com Systems Administrator Voice: 512-374-4673 Hoover's Online Fax: 512-374-4501

1 0

Model 1400 and Y2K
by Graham C. Knight 15 Oct '99

15 Oct '99

Does anyone know if a model 1400 can be made Y2K compliant? The NOW website does not include this model in it's list of systems that can run 5.x Thx, Graham

2 1

Impact of adding disk to filer
by Frank Smith 15 Oct '99

15 Oct '99

What will happen if I add a disk to a volume (NetApp C720)? I learned the hard way that adding the drive to the shelf interrupted all NFS ops for 15 seconds, the docs said it would take that long to add it as a hot spare, but didn't mention that the filer would completely freeze while it did it. If I add a disk to a volume, what will it do to performance, and for how long? I don't mean long-range gains from having the data spread over more spindles, I mean what immediate impact will it have on current NFS clients. Will it just be a temporary increase in CPU as it spreads the data or will it freeze for some period of time, and if so for how long? Current sustained load on the filer is several hundred NFS ops/sec, and any pauses cause significant problems on the client systems, so I want to have a better understanding of what will happen when I give the vol add command before I actually do it. Thanks, Frank -- Frank Smith fsmith(a)hoovers.com Systems Administrator Voice: 512-374-4673 Hoover's Online Fax: 512-374-4501

4 3

RE: Forcing a halt/reboot without "halt -d"
by David Stack 12 Oct '99

12 Oct '99

We had this same problem in the past (coincidence that we both work for the same company?) and were told that it was bug 10186. We're now running version 5.2.3D1 and haven't had the problem in a month or so. Dave **************************************************************************** ************* EMail: dstack(a)nortelnetworks.com Phone: 403-232-4752 Fax: 781-8850 ESN:765 Addr : Nortel Networks; 2924 11 St. NE; Calgary, AB; T2E 7L7;Canada **************************************************************************** ************** > -----Original Message----- > From: Luke Mewburn [SMTP:lukem@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au] > Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 8:47 AM > To: Arden, Bruce [HAL02:8883:EXCH] > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Forcing a halt/reboot without "halt -d" > > "Bruce Arden" writes: > > I have just had to reboot our filer for the second time in about 3 > > months. Both times the reboot failed with the error: > > > > A CIFS I/O operation may be hung. Shutdown the system using halt > > -d > > and report this incident to NetApp. > > > > But I don't want to do a "halt -d". This causes a core dump which > > means that the filer may be down for about 10 mins. Is there a way > > of forcing a halt without using the -d switch (halt on its own just > > gives the CIFS error message again). I'm currently running 5.3.1D5. > > > > - Bruce > > > > PS The problem that caused me to reboot was that I was getting the > > error "Cannot find logon server" from PCs trying to connect to the > > filer. The reboot fixed this. Any ideas? > > A suggestion which won't solve your problems, but may help the boot > time: move savecore to the end of /etc/rc; it speeds up availability > after a boot at the potential expense of corrupting your coredump. > > PS: I have seen the ``can't halt because filer is wedged on CIFS > users'' problem on older 5.x releases (can't remember exact numbers), > but I think we've been OK since 5.3 (now running combination of > 5.3D19 and 5.3.2D4, with the latter on our more loaded systems). I > know this contradicts your experience (since you're running 5.3.1D5), > but you never know; 5.3.2Dx may have fixed something related to this. :-/

5 4

Re: Forcing a halt/reboot without "halt -d"
by Luke Mewburn 12 Oct '99

12 Oct '99

"Bruce Arden" writes: > I have just had to reboot our filer for the second time in about 3 > months. Both times the reboot failed with the error: > > A CIFS I/O operation may be hung. Shutdown the system using halt > -d > and report this incident to NetApp. > > But I don't want to do a "halt -d". This causes a core dump which > means that the filer may be down for about 10 mins. Is there a way > of forcing a halt without using the -d switch (halt on its own just > gives the CIFS error message again). I'm currently running 5.3.1D5. > > - Bruce > > PS The problem that caused me to reboot was that I was getting the > error "Cannot find logon server" from PCs trying to connect to the > filer. The reboot fixed this. Any ideas? A suggestion which won't solve your problems, but may help the boot time: move savecore to the end of /etc/rc; it speeds up availability after a boot at the potential expense of corrupting your coredump. PS: I have seen the ``can't halt because filer is wedged on CIFS users'' problem on older 5.x releases (can't remember exact numbers), but I think we've been OK since 5.3 (now running combination of 5.3D19 and 5.3.2D4, with the latter on our more loaded systems). I know this contradicts your experience (since you're running 5.3.1D5), but you never know; 5.3.2Dx may have fixed something related to this. :-/

3 2

Forcing a halt/reboot without "halt -d"
by Bruce Arden 12 Oct '99

12 Oct '99

I have just had to reboot our filer for the second time in about 3 months. Both times the reboot failed with the error: A CIFS I/O operation may be hung. Shutdown the system using halt -d and report this incident to NetApp. But I don't want to do a "halt -d". This causes a core dump which means that the filer may be down for about 10 mins. Is there a way of forcing a halt without using the -d switch (halt on its own just gives the CIFS error message again). I'm currently running 5.3.1D5. - Bruce PS The problem that caused me to reboot was that I was getting the error "Cannot find logon server" from PCs trying to connect to the filer. The reboot fixed this. Any ideas? -- Bruce Arden arden(a)nortelnetworks.com Nortel, London Rd, Harlow, England +44 1279 40 2877

2 1

Re: Autosupport, 5.2.3 upgrade, diskscrub and wackz
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 12 Oct '99

12 Oct '99

On 10/11/99 07:41:30 you wrote: >The volume could be offline, that's for sure, but why the machine ? This is the result of a less-than-thorough multivolume implementation plan. Originally, there only *was* one volume, so taking the whole filer down wasn't an issue. Presumably when mutlivolume was to be implemented, Netapp decided it was more important to get that out the door than to spend more time and resources modifying a better wack interface to run on an offline volume while the system remained up. Note that this is also different from a request for a completely online wack on an active filesystem, or allowing a filesytem to remain online read-only while being wacked. I still question the utility of the latter, but it might be good as part of an automated process strategy (just as snapshots are created for dump). Anyway, these are all very different enhancements. Netapp will have to decide which ones to implement, and which ones to implement first. Bruce

2 1

Client pack fo NetApp - implementation ???
by Itzik (Itzhak) Meirson DSc 11 Oct '99

11 Oct '99

I wonder how is the backup performed by the new client for NetApp... 1. Is the backup done from a special snapshot or from the "live" files? 2. When defining the NetApp client what directive should be used? I might have missed this information from the docs I have seen. Thanks in advance, Itzik

1 0

Re: Autosupport, 5.2.3 upgrade, diskscrub and wackz
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 11 Oct '99

11 Oct '99

On 10/10/99 12:12:52 you wrote: > > "sirbruce" == sirbruce <sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com> writes: > > sirbruce> The problem is that with a changing filesystem, such > sirbruce> programs could easily report a problem when in fact > sirbruce> there is none. There are some ways around this. > >Huh? If the filesystem is made immutable, it isn't a changing >filesystem. e.g, on a Unix host, this _should_ be safe: > >unmount filesystem. >mount filesystem read-only. >run fsck on filesystem. >remount filesystem read-write. Sure, but for many environments, read-only is not an option. It may be for you, but for others it's still downtime. >Why should I expect downtime? A failed disk is a problem, but it >doesn't cause downtime. A failed power-supply is a problem, but it >also doesn't cause downtime. A failed head is a problem, but in a >cluster, no downtime (well, 60 seconds downtime). NA has designed the >filer to stay up in the face of these problems. So if NA has a check >list of problems and it is working its way down the check list to keep >filers up in the face of these problems, then "file-system >health-check and fix" needs to be added to that list. Sure, it isn't a >common occurance, but clearly it happens often enough for NA to have >written wack and constantly improved it over the years. I'm arguing >that the next improvement is to allow wack to be run on an on-line >filer. Upgrading your software/firmware/disk firmware is more common. So is adding new cards into the system. Yet you expect downtime on those. So if what was most common was the measure of importance, then these should be worked on before an on-line wack. I agree online wack is a good thing to have, but I guess I'm satisfied in seeing Netapp concentrate on other bugs and features first. I wasn't arguing that it shouldn't be done. Bruce

4 3

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