toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

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

BudTool NDMP backups dying prematurely.
by Josh Tiefenbach 29 Sep '99

29 Sep '99

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!

3 3

Re: NetApps Backup Strategy
by Michael Salmon 29 Sep '99

29 Sep '99

+----- On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 13:16:54 PDT, Clara Bueno writes: | Greetings, | | My company purchase the Net Apps F720 series. Nevertheless, they have | not used it because the SA's are having problems finding a backup | Application that support Net Apps hardware. | | I heard Legato was planning to release the Net Apps Module, but the | schedule slipped so they will not be releasing it anytime soon. The module has been released although I haven't gotten it to work yet. The installation is pain free at least and the server can at least probe the filer although it report 0 disks. As the license hasn't arrived yet and we are at present between support contracts I haven't complained as yet. As you might expect the documentation was minimal, but hey if it was easy then anybody could do it ;^). /Michael

2 1

RE: NetApps Backup Strategy
by David Stack 29 Sep '99

29 Sep '99

Our backup strategy is currently to back up over NFS to a Sun server running Veritas Netbackup with a DLT tape jukebox on it. It works but it not ideal. We are probably going to buy a couple more jukeboxes, hang them off the F740s and use NDMP to do backups. My only concern is that I've heard rumblings in this mail list that NDMP has a few problems. Short answer: Look into Veritas Netbackup. 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: Clara Bueno [SMTP:cbueno@terawave.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 2:17 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: NetApps Backup Strategy > > Greetings, > > My company purchase the Net Apps F720 series. Nevertheless, they have > not used it because the SA's are having problems finding a backup > Application that support Net Apps hardware. > > I heard Legato was planning to release the Net Apps Module, but the > schedule slipped so they will not be releasing it anytime soon. > > If you have a Net Apps F720, and have a backup solutions. I would > greatly appreciate assistance. > > Thanks, >

2 1

RE: Code Release confusion
by Davis, Barry 29 Sep '99

29 Sep '99

Graydon, Yes we are working on the code release process and it will be much less confusing in the future. We are also working on making a tool available on NOW to compare releases and answer the exact question you are asking...."are all bugs in the x.x.xDxx release fixed in release x.x.x?" Our plans are to have this tool available in November. As for your access to certain releases on the NOW account. We are checking "entitlement" based on service agreements associated with your products. If you feel NetApp is in error, please let tech support know this and they will have our contracts group rectify the problem. We are also making changes to Bugs Online. No promises on a date here yet but we are working on internal processes to allow the release in which a bug was fixed to be visible and accurate. This way you can follow a specific bug # and know what release it was fixed in. FYI....Watch for new UI and "real time" case update capability on the NOW site coming on 10/4/99. -----Original Message----- From: Graydon Dodson [mailto:grdodson@lexmark.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 1:32 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: Private_User(a)lexmark.com Subject: Code Release confusion I know that NetApp has been working on making the code release process easier to understand but I am still having problems. Any work NetApp can make to clean this up would be appreciated. I need to upgrade from 5.2.1P2 to a 5.3* release. My problem is finding the "correct" 5.3* release for my needs. I want something stable, we have had some bad experiences in the past. I also need support for the Legato Networker client. Legato states that 5.3D11 is the minimum supported release. Obviously I probably want something newer & more stable like 5.3.2R1 So I do a bit of research on NOW, and things just get more confusing. 5.3: No way to tell if this contains all the bug fixes in 5.2.1P1 5.3D*: The "D" releases (5.3D10 5.3D11) seem to have been built from 5.3 and may therefore not include all the fixes from the previous "D" release. 5.3.1: Again no way to tell if 5.3.1 includes all the bug fixes in 5.3D11 5.3.1D*: The first "D" releases (5.3.1D2 5.3.1D4 5.3.1D6) are built from 5.3.1 But later "D" releases (5.3.1D8 5.3.1D10 5.3.1D11 ...) are built from their preceding "D" release so their fixes ARE cumulative, unlike the earlier 5.3.1D* releases. 5.3.2: The NOW webserver refuses my NOW account access to this release I can get no data on it except the limited stuff in the pubs. 5.3.2R1: This is the release that Tech Support has told me for over a month now will become "recommended later this week". Still there is no way to tell what bugs are fixed in this release, all the documentation talks about is bugs fixed in 5.3.2, not 5.3.2R1. Of course what is important to me is if all the bugs fixed in 5.3D11 are also included in 5.3.2R1. I have found no way to verify this. 5.3.2D*: These "D" releases are built upon the previous "D" release so their fixes should be cumulative. There is no way to tell (unless you want to trust the file dates) if these releases are "newer" that the "R" release or if they contain the same fixes as the "R" release. Using "Bugs Online" is hopeless, most of the bugs I try to look up (11002, 13087, 10733, ...) return "not found", and when they are found, there is no info about which "R" release they are in. (if any) What I REALLY need to know is if all the 5.3D11 fixes are in 5.3.2R1 and the 5.3.2D* releases. It is impossible to determine this from NOW. If NetApp wants to help lower calls to the help line making this information available online would help. Graydon Dodson grdodson(a)lexmark.com Lexmark International Inc.

1 0

NetApps Backup Strategy
by Clara Bueno 29 Sep '99

29 Sep '99

Greetings, My company purchase the Net Apps F720 series. Nevertheless, they have not used it because the SA's are having problems finding a backup Application that support Net Apps hardware. I heard Legato was planning to release the Net Apps Module, but the schedule slipped so they will not be releasing it anytime soon. If you have a Net Apps F720, and have a backup solutions. I would greatly appreciate assistance. Thanks,

2 1

Novell 5/NT 4.0 and Netapp filers
by Mike Ball 28 Sep '99

28 Sep '99

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? Thank you, Mike

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