toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

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

RE: CIFS, UNIX and ACLs
by Norman, Paul 30 Sep '99

30 Sep '99

Why do I get the feeling that after I answer this question, the next one will be what color underwear I have on? OK, Most of the systems are SUN running Solaris, usually the latest version but some may have older revs. There are probably a few SunOS systems too. We have PCs running Win9X, NT, and Linux. Linux is recent addition but we seem to have quite a few around recently. There is an HP running HP-UX. We have a few SGI boxes but they aren't usually used in testing. Oh ya, there are a number of Dec Alpha systems running Digital UNIX. I don't recall seeing any other gear, but then I don't spend my days traipsing around the labs because I actually have a job in Product Marketing. > -----Original Message----- > From: Eyal Traitel (r55789) [mailto:r55789@email.sps.mot.com] > Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 2:15 AM > To: Norman, Paul > Cc: 'Graham C. Knight'; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: CIFS, UNIX and ACLs > > > Hi again Paul. > > We would like to ask for what are the testing that you do before a > release is made? > Against which OSs and applications you test it ? > > We feel that this information is somewhat lacking from the NOW... > > > Eyal. > >

4 3

Re: Novell 5/NT 4.0 and Netapp filers
by Luke Mewburn 29 Sep '99

29 Sep '99

"Mike Ball" writes: > We are looking at implementing Network Appliance filers into a shared NT and > Novell environment. I understand as long as "Client for Microsoft > Networking" is loaded on the Novell clients and as long as the Novell users > are being authenticated by the NT domain when they cross over to access the > filer, the Novell users will be able to store/retrieve their files on the > Netapp. My question is has anyone using Novell 5 in this environment ran > into any issues with the filer? Our department is primarily an NFS shop with an NT domain for the PCs running NT Workstation or NT Terminal Server that want to access the same home directories via CIFS. This works extremely well for us. However, our University is a Novell shop, so some of our users have to have access to Netware volumes in other departments or faculties. What we've discovered is (some of this is from slightly hazy memory; I'm the UNIX and filer admin, I only use PCs occassionally): * you should really have an NT domain to authenticate the CIFS sessions. As long as the users have the Netware client configured to synchronise passwords things should be ok on that front (log in once, and one password gets you to your NT and Netware drives) * depending on which system type you access more frequently (NT or Netware objects), you may want to tweak the `Network Services Order' (or whatever it's called) in the Control Panels -> Network section. Because our PCs are primarily accessing CIFS drives, we move Microsoft's requestor above the Netware one. We found that browsing objects through Network Neighbourhood that are of the `lower priority' type can take a while, especially if the primary `tree' is big and/or slow. * I've found the Netware client to be slow and buggy, when compared to the standard NT domain client. Due to (misguided, IMHO) university policies about `single sign-on through the central Netware NDS', we will be trialling the use of NDS for NT as a replacement for our NT domain; this may (assuming it works) make it easier for users with respect to password/account details. That would mean we wouldn't have to install the Netware client on most machines either (see above). Luke.

1 0

RE: File locking, sendmail and toasters
by Mohler, Jeff 29 Sep '99

29 Sep '99

I'll hit the WWW on that, a little learnin never hurt *grin* Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Nick Christenson [mailto:npc@sendmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 1:33 PM To: jeff.mohler(a)netapp.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: File locking, sendmail and toasters > Could you not use ProcMail for local delivery (dot locking)? > > No..im not a NetApp engineer, but in past lives that's what Ive done before when > presented with mailspools via NFS. In a general sense with general NFS implementations, that's not enough by itself to be sure you're safe. You certainly want to use file locking rather than lockd, but using files isn't a sufficient condition to be sure that your mail won't get messed up. Note, though, that you can "get away" with doing a naive NFS based mail implementation and statistically never see problems, but there is usually a race condition in there somewhere. -- Nick Christenson npc(a)sendmail.com

1 0

RE: File locking, sendmail and toasters
by Mohler, Jeff 29 Sep '99

29 Sep '99

Could you not use ProcMail for local delivery (dot locking)? No..im not a NetApp engineer, but in past lives that's what Ive done before when presented with mailspools via NFS. -----Original Message----- From: Nick Christenson [mailto:npc@sendmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 1:06 PM Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: File locking, sendmail and toasters > Nick Hilliard (nick(a)iol.ie) said, on [990929 13:54]: > > > > If you need to have text-based NFS-mounted client mailboxes, the only > > reliable option is to use a mailbox format which doesn't require locking, > > such as Maildir. > > Amen. > The only thing I've ever seen that didn't immediately give me the willies is: > > http://www.earthlink.com/about/papers/mailarch.html Just for reference, I was lead author of that paper. Running mail over NFS is doable if you're really, really careful. You will definitely want to replace the rpc.lockd locking mechanism with something better. This means modifying every program anyone uses to touch the mailbox (have to do that if you go with maildir as well). If I understand your system and requirements, which is in doubt, I don't think this is a solution I would recommend for your situation. Hope this helps. -- Nick Christenson npc(a)sendmail.com

2 1

File locking, sendmail and toasters
by Stephen C Woods 29 Sep '99

29 Sep '99

We have a medium sized environment with several discrete mail domains. The mailservers for the domains are (for historical reasons) all of a different type (HP-UX, Solaris, AIX and SGI) but are all running sendmail-8.8.8. Now in the documentation from sendmail they specificly recomend AGAINST running the mail server on a machine that is an NFS client for the user mailbox filesystem. Is anyone out there actually doing this? With a ~500 workstation, 5 mailserver environment (we'll still have multiple different mail directories one for each mail domain)? With a mixed (HP, SUN, AIX, SGI, NEXT, Linux) environment? <scw> postmaster(a)seas.ucla.edu ----- Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASnet; 2567 Boelter hall; LA CA 90095; (310)-825-8614 Finger for public key scw(a)cirrus.seas.ucla.edu,Internet mail:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU

5 4

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