toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

RE: Max number of drives.
by Mohler, Jeff 07 Oct '99

07 Oct '99

Sure, no problem. But when you add them to a volume (if you are not creating a new one) make sure you add them to the volume made up of 18G drives. (That is, if the 18G drives are a separate volume from the 9G ones). If you mix/max drive sizes in a volume, the larger drives will appear only to be the size of the smallest drive in the array. -----Original Message----- From: Jason Middlebrooks [mailto:Jason_Middlebrooks@datalink.com] Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 12:01 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Max number of drives. Question. I have 14 9Gig drives and 14 18Gig drives. So a total of 28 drives. Can I add 7 more 18Gig drives on the same loop? The filer is a F760 Thanks in advance Jason Middlebrooks

2 1

Max number of drives.
by Jason Middlebrooks 07 Oct '99

07 Oct '99

Question. I have 14 9Gig drives and 14 18Gig drives. So a total of 28 drives. Can I add 7 more 18Gig drives on the same loop? The filer is a F760 Thanks in advance Jason Middlebrooks

1 0

RE: Max number of drives.
by Alvarado, Michael 07 Oct '99

07 Oct '99

You can add the additional 7 disks since that will still be less than the maximum storage capacity currently supported on an F740. The maximum capacity of an F740 is 928 GB. -----Original Message----- From: Jason Middlebrooks [mailto:Jason_Middlebrooks@datalink.com] Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 12:01 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Max number of drives. Question. I have 14 9Gig drives and 14 18Gig drives. So a total of 28 drives. Can I add 7 more 18Gig drives on the same loop? The filer is a F760 Thanks in advance Jason Middlebrooks

1 0

More Backup Questions
by Jay Orr 07 Oct '99

07 Oct '99

Hi. Still curious about this all. Thanks for all the info people have sent me. Here's some more questions. I'm working from a system where we have a jukebox hanging off a sun box backing up an F330 (well, there's more then this, but I'm keeping it simple). 1) Does the current (5.3.2r1) version support NDMP v3? a) If not is v3 support planned and for when? 2) What (if any) advantage is there using NDMP vs. Dump (dump.FAServer)? 3) Which is better/faster for individual file restores (i.e. one or two files only)? 4) Can you extract a file out of a NDMP dump onto a different file system (i.e. onto a sun box)? 5) Are both snapshot backups (NDMP & dump.FAServer)? Important for ClearCase users.... 6) Any problems spanning NDMP dumps over multiple tapes? Concerns that bring me to these questions : 1) Budtool (now Legato) not wanting to support dump.FAServer types. vs 2) End of Life on the F330's. ----------- Fujitsu - Nexion, St. Louis, MO Jay Orr (314) 579-6517

2 1

Re: More Backup Questions
by Darrell Fuhriman 07 Oct '99

07 Oct '99

Jay Orr <orrjl(a)stl.nexen.com> writes: all of my answers assume you're backing up to local tape. > 1) Does the current (5.3.2r1) version support NDMP v3? No. the standard has not been finalized and to my knowledge no one has implemented it. > a) If not is v3 support planned and for when? I'm trying to find the answer to this myself. > 2) What (if any) advantage is there using NDMP vs. Dump (dump.FAServer)? well, NDMP will work with your backup software better. Keep in mind, NDMP is nothing but a dump which spits back some meta information to the backup server. > 3) Which is better/faster for individual file restores > (i.e. one or two files only)? they're equally bad for the reason given above. > 4) Can you extract a file out of a NDMP dump onto a different file system > (i.e. onto a sun box)? you should be able to, though frankly I've never tried it. > 5) Are both snapshot backups (NDMP & dump.FAServer)? Important for > ClearCase users.... yes. > 6) Any problems spanning NDMP dumps over multiple tapes? no. Darrell

1 0

HTTP on a filer
by mitch＠netline.com 06 Oct '99

06 Oct '99

Greetings. I hope there are some folks out here that have experience using a filer as an HTTP server. First some specifics: Filer: F740, 512MB RAM, 32MB NVRAM, FC disks, 100Mbit switched Enet conn. Version: NetApp Release 5.3.2R1: Thu Aug 12 19:16:27 PDT 1999 We purchased the HTTP protocol license to offload images to the filer directly rather than have an intermediate host serve them up by grabbing them off that filer. After some basic testing we put this into the start of production and all was well, though first connections by a browser seemed to lag a bit, subsequent connections were fine. All was well for about 2 weeks when things came to a crawl and finally to a stop. Several observations 1. httpstat reported 512 peak and 512 open connections. 2. despite doing an "options httpd.enable off" and leaving it down for a while, open conn. never dropped and the http server was non-responsive. I even tweak the timeout down to 30, which is the lowest it can go. 3. NFS service was seemingly unaffected 4. netstat reported *many* (512?) connections in either ESTABLISHED or CLOSE_WAIT and those connections didn't seem to ever go away. 5. The log file was at it's maximum. I moved it to another filename and did an httpd.enable on then off, but another log file was never written to. How do you rotate the logs on a filer for HTTP? A possible kink in the matter is that I am using the VH interface and have two IP's aliased to it, the filer's address is aaa.bbb.ccc.xxx and then it has: ifconfig vh alias aaa.bbb.ccc.yyy ifconfig vh alias aaa.bbb.ccc.zzz I then use the httpd.hostprefixes to map each VH to the appropriate area: /path/YYY host-y.domain.com aaa.bbb.ccc.yyy /path/ZZZ host-z.domain.com aaa.bbb.ccc.zzz /path/TESTy test-y.domain.com /path/TESTz test-z.domain.com and this all works fine as far as things being pointed to the right places. All of this leaves me with some questions: 1. How do you turn off httpd on a filer? "options httpd.enable off" does not seem to do the trick. After doing that, if I telnet to port 80 I do not get a connection refused, it just sits there. At least when it was in this "hung" state. 2. How do you rotate log files. Actually, for the images, I don't want the log file at all, but the manual doesn't say how to make it go to the filer equivalent of /dev/null. 3. Can the number of connections be raised from 512? Can the timeout be made shorter than 30 seconds? Can the filer close idle/lost connections faster? 4. Is this a known problem with a fix? NOW didn't seem to have anything that I thought matched the problem. 5. Is it reasonable to even put a filer's HTTP into an environment that will generate roughly several million hits per day? -- do svidaniya, ~mitch

1 0

converting a disk to be a hot-spare
by Mitch Wright 06 Oct '99

06 Oct '99

Greetings, I've got an F220 running 4.3.3. It is doing fine and we've recently moved all of it's workload off to another filer. This filer had all of the disks in use for data (sans the one for parity of course), but what I'd like to do is take back a disk as a hot-spare. There is no longer any data on the filer that we care about with the exeception of the OS itself. Is there a way I can reclaim one of the disks as a hot-spare without reinstalling from scratch? -- do svidaniya, ~mitch

1 0

Re: Backup restore times
by Darrell Fuhriman 06 Oct '99

06 Oct '99

Dave Heiland <dheiland(a)lucent.com> writes: > entire filer. Thats just about ok, but the problem is that restores of user > files can also take up to 8 hours which is a bit long. The problem may get even It's much, much too long in fact. One has the option of making smaller volumes, but that's not always the best option. The problem is *greatly* aggravated if one has to use incrementals also. One thing that would really, really help is if the NDMP v3 spec were (finally) finalized and implemented. v3 includes the ability to send tape positioning information to the backup system, meaning restores can quickly find the correct tape file & record for a given disk file. I don't like the fact that the positioning information is defined on an implementation specific basis, though. After that, netapp needs to either modify dump, or create another backup utility that can actually make use of said information. Disk capacity is rapidly out-pacing tape capacity and speed -- an issue Netapp needs to address sooner rather than later. Doing dump on a 400 GB filesystem (6 dlt7000's!) is down right primitive. Darrell

1 0

Shelf firmware
by tkaczma＠gryf.net 05 Oct '99

05 Oct '99

Is there a way to update the shelf firmware? I wondered so I searched NOW, but I couldn't find any meaningfull references. Is there any reason to do so? Tom

1 0

Re: Backup restore times
by Stoltz 05 Oct '99

05 Oct '99

The "substantial time increase" you mention is most likely caused by the creation of the snapshots before each individual backup. With large numbers of directories, this can really add up (as it has for us). We've been waiting on Netapp to fix bug #15998, which will allow us to directly dump the pre-existing snapshots *and* have /etc/dumpdates updated correctly :P You can work around it by manually editting /etc/dumpdates and stripping out the .snapshot portion of "/vol/<volume>/.snapshot/<identifier>" but we were hoping they'd have fixed it by now. Anyway, dumping the pre-existing snapshots speeds things up immensely with large numbers of dump requests. Hope that helps. Bug #15998 TITLE: ndmpd updates the dumpdates table incorrectly when dumping pre-existing snapshots DESCRIPTION: In 5.3, if a dump of a pre-existing snapshot (such as /vol/vol0/.snapshot/hourly.0) is used, the dumpdates table is updated without the ".snapshot/hourly.0". It should only show: /vol/vol0/ 0 Sun Jan 1 00:00:00 1999 However, ndmpd prints out /vol/vol0/.snapshot/hourly.0 0 Sun Jan 1 00:00:00 1999 In message <37FA25BA.82769EDE(a)lucent.com>, Dave Heiland writes: > >We're using Netbackup to backup our F760 filer via NDMP to a directly connecte >d >STK robot. Full backups take about 8 hours - we tell Netbackup to backup the >entire filer. Thats just about ok, but the problem is that restores of user >files can also take up to 8 hours which is a bit long. The problem may get ev >en >worse as we might be moving from 70-80GB of user space to about 200GB, which >would mean any restores would stop the night's backup and take far too long. > >Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to rearrange the backups to reduce >this time?. We've considered backing up individual directories, but the backu >p >time increases substantially. > >Dave >-- >David J. Heiland Lucent Technologies Tel: +44 (0)1666 83-2504 >dheiland(a)lucent.com CIO Department Malmesbury, England

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