toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

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

Backup restore times
by Dave Heiland 05 Oct '99

05 Oct '99

We're using Netbackup to backup our F760 filer via NDMP to a directly connected 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 even 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 backup 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

RE: Two volumes with same name, DOT 5.2.1, how do I fix?
by David Stack 04 Oct '99

04 Oct '99

John, I had this very same problem but do you think I can remember what I did? Of course not. I put a call into Netapp and they cleared it up for me. What's listed in the manual and what I think I did was: vol rename vol0(1) vol1 Your listing does not show the (1) for the foreign volume but I seem to remember that when I did a vol status there was a vol0(1) for the foreign volume. Dave **************************************************************************** ************* EMail: dstack(a)nortelnetworks.com Phone: 403-232-4752 Fax: 781-8850 ESN:765 Addr : Nortel Networks Ltd.; 2924 11 St. NE; Calgary, AB; T2E 7L7;Canada **************************************************************************** ************ > -----Original Message----- > From: John Stoffel [SMTP:john@casc.com] > Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 8:19 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Two volumes with same name, DOT 5.2.1, how do I fix? > > > Hi guys, > > We're running DataOnTap 5.2.1 on a bunch of F330s. One of them had a > disk failure this weekend, and since I was in for a power shutdown, I > figured I'd just swap in a spare disk from a returned filer (upgrade > to an F740). > > The problem is the before the old F330 was returned, we never did any > of the disk commands to make all the disks into spares. We just > copied the data off and shutdown the system. > > So I took one of these disks from the old Filer and did the usual disk > swap, disk swap procedure to put it into the Filer with the failed > disk. And now comes the problem. The Filer sees the new disk and > scans it in, but hey! It's got volume info on it, and it won't > initialize the disk and just use it on the new filer. > > Sigh... I've tried using the command 'disk fail 8a.4' but it won't let > me because it's part of a volume. > > So I look at the volume status and I get this: > > swtoast> vol status > Volume State Status Options > vol0 online normal root > vol0 offline foreign > partial > > Yup, *two* volumes, both named 'vol0' and I can't get rid of the > foreign one. If I just do 'vol status vol0' I get the online volume > listed. What I want to do is just a volume destroy, or a disk > initialize without any questions asked. But I can't figure out how to > do this. > > Any hints? I do have a call into NetApp, but I've been on hold for > about 15 minutes already... > > Thanks, > John > John Stoffel - Senior Unix Systems Administrator - Lucent Technologies > stoffel(a)lucent.com - http://www.lucent.com - 978-952-7548 > john.stoffel(a)ascend.com - http://www.ascend.com

2 1

Autosupport email changes in 5.3
by Graydon Dodson 04 Oct '99

04 Oct '99

I have recently upgraded a filler to 5.3.2R1P1. This weekend it sent an autosupport email after a successful disk scrub, "ERROR_FREE_DISK_SCRUB". This seems odd to me since nowhere in the autosupport(8) man page is this documented. In fact it explicitly states that autosupport email is ONLY generated for system failures, weekly status and boots from disk. Since we use autosupport email to trigger actions from our administrators does anyone know of a way to suppress this specific autosupport email? Thanks. Graydon Dodson grdodson(a)lexmark.com Lexmark International Inc.

1 0

case #79131, Very Poor Backup performances: 1Gb/H with Veritas Netbackup through NFS
by Pierre Maubert 04 Oct '99

04 Oct '99

Hi, We have several F330 in TIF, 2 of them have an enourmous number of small files: over 3.5M for one single volume. We have increase the maxfiles value to 4328504. We have currently a significative degradation of backup performances on these 2 servers: backup are done at 1.5Gb, on both server, wheras we reach 5Gb/h for the 3 others. Servers are all running Dataontap5.2.3, and are all identical. F330, 128Mb Ram, 24*4Gb disks, I wonder what kind of fine tuning can be done to speed up the backup. -- Regards, Pierre . +------------------------------------------------------+ | Pierre Maubert, Sys_Admin Texas Instruments France | | email:p-maubert@ti.com Tel: +33 49322.2681 | | Fax: +33 49202.4669 Pager: 0606498982 | +------------------------------------------------------+

2 1

Re: Windows Terminal Servers??
by Luke Mewburn 01 Oct '99

01 Oct '99

"Nail, Larry" writes: > Is anyone else using files to store home directories & profiles for Windows > Terminal Servers? Yes. Our NetApps are being used to store our home directories which are shared between: 5 Sun Enterprise servers via NFS 15 SGI workstations via NFS about 100 NT workstations via CIFS 4 NT Terminal Servers via CIFS (~ 125 users) We did have roaming profiles for a while, being saved back to the user's home directory. We've recently converted the Terminal Servers back to mandatory profiles because with ~ 2500 user accounts the local profile store on the Terminal Servers was filling up. Also, some users were complaining that their quotas were filling up with profile junk. Personally, I had no problem with it, but as a sysadmin, I don't have a quota problem ;-) I seem to recall that there might have been a couple of Terminal Server bugs that needed to be worked around (I could ask our NT guys), but there should be sufficient information in TechNet about this.

1 0

Windows Terminal Servers??
by Nail, Larry 01 Oct '99

01 Oct '99

Is anyone else using files to store home directories & profiles for Windows Terminal Servers? ------------------------------------------ Lawrence D. Nail Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer Senior Server Administrator PC Workstation Support Mixed Signal Products http://www1.msp.sc.ti.com/nail/ <http://www1.msp.sc.ti.com/nail/>

1 0

Can anyone send his cache hit rate for his NetCache (+site details) ?
by Eyal Traitel 01 Oct '99

01 Oct '99

1 0

RE: BudTool NDMP backups dying prematurely.
by Melvin, Grant 30 Sep '99

30 Sep '99

Hi Paul, > We were told by NetApp that they are working on a fix, > but the bug hasn't even shown up in the NOW database yet... YMMV. I believe this bug is reported as 17997 - dump fails to handle directory names with a null dos_name. and is now online. Cheers, Grant -----Original Message----- From: ptaylor(a)catalystsg.com [mailto:ptaylor@catalystsg.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 10:59 AM To: Josh Tiefenbach Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: BudTool NDMP backups dying prematurely. We had this problem for a while, and we were told to upgrade to DoT 5.3.2D4, and Budtool 4.6.1. This stopped the pauses, but introduced a buffer overflow that makes the netapp dump core whenever it hits a "null DOS condition" while trying to back up. We aren't really sure what a "null DOS condition" is, but it makes us unhappy when we hit it. We were told by NetApp that they are working on a fix, but the bug hasn't even shown up in the NOW database yet... YMMV. Paul Taylor Sr. Systems Engineer Catalyst Solutions Group 215-841-5540 On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Josh Tiefenbach wrote: > I thought I'd toss this one up for grabs, whilst I try to find support people > to talk to. > > I've got a BudTool 4.6, clustered F760, DOT 5.2.1 setup here, and I'm having > the dickens of a time getting my filers backed up via NDMP. > > Ordinarily I have file history turned on. It would appear that because of > this, I'm ramming head on into NetApp BugID 9378. I do in fact see a large > pause between pass III and pass IV. A 2 hour pause. > > This is a problem, as 2 hours later, the backup dies with the following > message in the logs: > > Command exceeded maximum allowable run time 14400. > > ie, 4 hours. > > Questions I have: > > * Has anybody found a way to circumvent the multiple-hour pause during a > BudTool NDMP backup, _while keeping file history on_ ? > > * Anybody seen the `killing job after 4 hours' message? Anybody know a > workaround? > > While highly sub-optimal, I have a backup running with no file history right > now. I'm concerned that that 4 hour thing is gonna bite me in the butt again. > > Suggestions? Comments? Shotgun shells to rid myself of this headache? > > josh > > -- > This is my .sig! There are many others like it, but this one is mine! >

1 0

Re: NetApps Backup Strategy
by Michael Salmon 30 Sep '99

30 Sep '99

+----- On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:42:29 EDT, John Stoffel writes: | | [ Talking about the Legato NDMP module for NetApps ] | | Michael> The module has been released although I haven't gotten it to | Michael> work yet. The installation is pain free at least and the | Michael> server can at least probe the filer although it report 0 | Michael> disks. As the license hasn't arrived yet and we are at | Michael> present between support contracts I haven't complained as | Michael> yet. As you might expect the documentation was minimal, but | Michael> hey if it was easy then anybody could do it ;^). | | I guess this is a step in the right direction, and since I'd love to | move this way can we ask you to keep good notes and let us know what | you have to do to make it work? | | I'm personally running Solstice Backup 5.1 (SUN OEM version) on my | backup servers, and my Toasters are running DOT 5.2.1 right now, so I | realize I'll have to upgrade both sides to make this work, though I'm | hoping that I can get away with only upgrading the toasters. Upgrading the toasters should be enough, you may not need to buy a license in that case as I think that clientpack licensing came in networker 5.5. /Michael

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