toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13515 discussions

Multiple entries in a directory
by Dave Atkin 22 Sep '99

22 Sep '99

We recently used the "rsh filer1 dump ... | rsh filer2 restore ..." method to copy lots of user files to a new filer. We got a small number of errors, like: RESTORE: Warning: cannot rename /fsb/soci/cmm104/ini/PINERC to /fsb/soci/cmm104/ini/RSTTMP01071733 (8.3 name ~MKN0100.7~0): No such file or directory and then at the end: RESTORE: bad entry: incomplete operations RESTORE: name: ./cmm104/ini/RSTTMP01071733 RESTORE: parent name ./cmm104/ini RESTORE: sibling name: ./cmm104/ini/host-news.york.ac.uk RESTORE: entry type: LEAF RESTORE: inode number: 1071733 RESTORE: flags: TMPNAME When we looked at the source directories, we found that they had two identical entries, pointing to different inodes: # cd /usr/fsa/soci/cmm104/ini # ls -li total 48 2411623 -rwxr--r-- 1 cmm104 soci 11222 Apr 21 1998 PINERC 707049 -rwxr--r-- 1 cmm104 soci 11222 Apr 21 1998 PINERC The files were all PINERC files as generated by the PC-Pine application. Some were old but others were quite recent. Anyone else seen anything like this? [We ran wacky on the source filestore a couple of months ago to fix a different problem]. We're running 5.2.2P1. Dave Atkin ------------------------------------------------------ Dave Atkin, Head of Technical Services Computing Service, University of York, YORK YO10 5DD Phone: +44-1904-433804 (ddi) Fax: +44-1904-433740 Email: D.Atkin(a)york.ac.uk ------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: tech support waits
by Skinner, Alistair 21 Sep '99

21 Sep '99

Todd, Thanks for the feedback. Glad you like the improvements on NOW! In fact we've many more in the pipeline, including realtime case updates (they're still batched up today). You should see some more changes roll out next month. Hey, don't give up on submitting your cases through NOW! yet either. As a direct result of your feedback, we've changed the process for handling them. You're right we can't expect you to use it if we don't provide consistent response. So as of yesterday (Monday 20th) all cases submitted through NOW! get expidited service, which is tracked and reported daily to me. Thanks for your continued support and feedback. Alistair -----Original Message----- From: Todd C. Merrill [mailto:tmerrill@mathworks.com] Sent: Thursday, September 16, 1999 2:02 PM To: Skinner, Alistair Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: tech support waits On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Todd C. Merrill wrote: > I am getting frustrated with the response time from tech support. [rest of diatribe deleted] On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Skinner, Alistair wrote: > Our preferred method of online access is through the web. Using the email > option from within a case view gives you a pre-formatted subject line to > make sure the email is attached to the case in our system. The comments field > can also be used. Unfortunately currently there can be up to a day delay between > you > submitting something and it getting into our system as these updates are > batched. > We expect to have an enhanced version implemented in the next two months which > will > include immediate updates directly to the case. I have a good response and a bad response to this response. First, the good. I like what has been done to the NOW site. Getting to a final destination (ONTAP updates, case searches, etc.) requires a lot less clicking and the responsiveness seems much improved. Bravo. However, I recently entered a case into the system via the NOW site for a tech support issue. *Nine* days later I got first response from an engineer on the case. (Luckily, it wasn't a critical issue.) With a response time like that, I am not encouraged to use the web/email way of calling in for tech support. [0] Throw some more manpower on the phones, 'cause that's how I'll be entering tech support cases in the future. [1] (There's not much else to say on this case, but if you want to talk to me about it, Alistair, give a call.) [0] This is generally true of most tech support calls I make, to NetApp or other companies. Email/web requests are treated as second class, lower-priority calls. If you (enter-your-favorite-company's-tech- support-organization-here) want us to save you time by entering data into your system, the least you could do is respond to the calls with equal priority. [1] [1] Forgive the attitude. Having a bad week....bad weather....bad machines....bad network....stress headaches. Grrrr.... Until next time... The Mathworks, Inc. 508-647-7000 x7792 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick, MA 01760-2098 508-647-7001 FAX tmerrill(a)mathworks.com http://www.mathworks.com ---

1 0

RE: tech support waits
by Mohler, Jeff 21 Sep '99

21 Sep '99

>Furthermore, the customer information is not going to be kept up to date >by many sites. IT professionals have too much to do as it is; one reason >why *you* are paid for *support* is so that *you* do some of that work. >It is not unreasonable for support to try to keep their records updated. --- I dont know the entire structure behind the technical support data dug out of the autosupport messages, but if when you got your filer, you registered on the NOW site, your system serial number should be cross referenced with the latest/greatest contact data your organization has provided us. Now, if the automated scripting, or in-place procedures do not cross reference that data..then it should be (knock knock on GSC..can you clarify this please) updated. Critical information such as who you are, and how we can best reach you isnt something any support team can be asked to proactively consult a customer for. You know best when your environment changes. I am a former customer of NetApp, and now an employee..so..dont flame on me too hard *grin* and if you must, flame me as Id flame anything else. Medium rare, charred, and with a nice dousing of HP sauce please. *grin* --- Jeff Mohler Professional Services Engineer jmohler(a)netapp.com

4 3

IIS and Netapp Compatibility
by Jay Querusio 21 Sep '99

21 Sep '99

Hi, Is anyone using IIS as a front end to the Netapp. We would like to have IIS through a mapped drive serve ASP, JavaScript, and Html pages that are stored on the Netapp. Can this be done and is anyone doing it now? If so, does anyone know if there are any bench mark tests out there that we could try? We are currently running 5.3D20 Thanks for your help in advance, Jay

2 1

autosupport mail (Was RE: tech support waits)
by Garrett Burke 21 Sep '99

21 Sep '99

Hi Diptish, With regards to NetApp starting to use the autosupport mail for automated suggestion of bug fixes might I suggest two things: a) That the contents of the autosupport mail be made configurable For example I like autosupport mail, but I don't like the NT Share ACLs, usernames nor connected hosts being included as this leaks internal security information (running 5.2.1). The mails are already in sections so your automated system could use these to see what info is avalable in the mail. I understand that the more information that I provide to support the quicker the fix, but it's a shame that it might be an all or nothing decision as regards auto support. b) Provide your customers with the same scripts that you use to process autosupport so it can be done on site or at least provide a 'what to look for in autosupport mails' guide right down to the nitty gritty like 'If nbt disconnects are more than .1% of your total CIFS operations then you should investigate for possible network problems' (Given the info & the time I'd write my own scripts and use qpage to page me when things got nasty. I'd happily share such scripts) Providing the customers with the scripts would allow those sites that don't want to run autosupport mails the ability to place a support call and be able to give more info than at present e.g. 'I'm running 5.3.2 and autosupport processing script v1.3 is giving a problem #44 - disk showing recurring errors' It's in our (i.e. filer users) interest to provide as much info as possible to help CS solve the problem and NetApp can help us to provide that info. Support is a two way thing. Thanks for taking the time to listen to users comments Regards, GB. > ---------- > From: Datta, Diptish[SMTP:diptish.datta@netapp.com] > Sent: 21 September 1999 07:11 > To: 'sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com' > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: tech support waits > >

2 1

autosupport debug
by Graham C. Knight 21 Sep '99

21 Sep '99

A few weeks ago somebody on the list told me about an option that could be set to help debug a lack of autosupport mail after reboot. autosupport works fine, except occasionally there will be no autosupport mail when a system reboots. (5.2.3). I lost the mail. Hopefully whoever it was can send it to me again. Sorry to bother the whole list with this. Thanks, Graham

3 2

RE: autosupport mail (Was RE: tech support waits)
by Datta, Diptish 21 Sep '99

21 Sep '99

Excellent suggestions. Both of them. I will fllow up on this with engineering. -diptish > -----Original Message----- > From: Garrett Burke [mailto:Garrett.Burke@msc.ie] > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 2:12 AM > To: 'Datta, Diptish' > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: autosupport mail (Was RE: tech support waits) > Importance: High > > > Hi Diptish, > > With regards to NetApp starting to use the autosupport mail > for automated > suggestion of bug fixes might I suggest two things: > > a) That the contents of the autosupport mail be made configurable For > example I like autosupport mail, but I don't like the NT Share ACLs, > usernames nor connected hosts being included as this leaks > internal security > information (running 5.2.1). The mails are already in > sections so your > automated system could use these to see what info is avalable > in the mail. > > I understand that the more information that I provide to support the > quicker the fix, but it's a shame that it might be an all or nothing > decision as regards auto support. > > b) Provide your customers with the same scripts that you use > to process > autosupport so it can be done on site or at least provide a > 'what to look > for in autosupport mails' guide right down to the nitty > gritty like 'If nbt > disconnects are more than .1% of your total CIFS operations > then you should > investigate for possible network problems' (Given the info & > the time I'd > write my own scripts and use qpage to page me when things got > nasty. I'd > happily share such scripts) > > Providing the customers with the scripts would allow those > sites that don't > want to run autosupport mails the ability to place a support > call and be > able to give more info than at present e.g. 'I'm running 5.3.2 and > autosupport processing script v1.3 is giving a problem #44 - > disk showing > recurring errors' > > It's in our (i.e. filer users) interest to provide as much > info as possible > to help CS solve the > problem and NetApp can help us to provide that info. Support > is a two way > thing. > > Thanks for taking the time to listen to users comments > > Regards, > GB. > > ---------- > > From: Datta, Diptish[SMTP:diptish.datta@netapp.com] > > Sent: 21 September 1999 07:11 > > To: 'sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com' > > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: RE: tech support waits > > > > >

1 0

OS2/Warp CIFS Clients?
by Mohler, Anissa 21 Sep '99

21 Sep '99

Hello all - I really doubt this is out there... but I have to give it a shot. My filer FINALLY went into production mode last night and this morning I found out that the ONE OS2/Warp Client in the company does not see the filer, at all. All other CIFS clients see the filer and are operating flawlessly. The OS2/Warp client was configured to work with NT 4.0 Servers and had no problems. You would think that the OS2 box wouldn't have any problems since it works with NT now. I'm putting some static mappings in WINS and verifying the Filer is in DNS just to be on the safe side, but I am thinking the OS2/Warp box doesn't see the filer because it is not supported by ONTAP. (We are running ONTAP version 5.3.2R1.) Has anyone tried to get an OS2/Warp client to see a filer? Has anyone been successful? This is one of those things that would be nice to have work... but if it doesn't it won't hurt. Anissa Mohler amohler(a)mail.bokf.com BOk Technical Services desk - 918.295.0431 Network Services Group pgr - 918.672.1214

1 0

RE: tech support waits
by Datta, Diptish 21 Sep '99

21 Sep '99

Some comments in line ... Some of your comments I don't agree with and some points are very valid. But in summary I think what you are saying is you want to see the results. These changes are things we are working on. We'll have to wait to see the results. > -----Original Message----- > From: sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com [mailto:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Monday, September 20, 1999 12:45 PM > To: diptish.datta(a)netapp.com; armijo(a)cs.unm.edu > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: tech support waits > Importance: High > > > On 09/19/99 21:35:17 you wrote: > > > >Steve, > >I can see how the "proactive" response to a disk failure > autosupport would leave > >you rather unimpressed when the call back is after you have > already acted on it > >yourself! Fact of the matter is, that is indeed the way it > is today. Autosupport > >is filtered by a script and the ones needing attention (eg > DISK_FAIL) are > >forwarded to CSRs for attention. A call is logged and the > customer is contacted. > >Now, the info in the autosupport is not very CS-friendly > because the info that > >we need to locate the customer is not mandatory. So, often > it slows down the > >process of logging the call, finding the contact information, etc. > > In other words, Network Appliance implemented autosupport > without committing > to the staffing necessary to support all of the events > generated. The solution > then is either to ditch autosupport, or increase staffing. > Productivity > enhancements to the process (i.e. automation) are fine, but > are not enough by > themselves in the long term unless the fundamental issue is resolved. ############# I completely disagree. When autosupport was designed we thought of a lot of benefits we could get from it. Post processing the data to collect install base profile and such is one example. That is still valid. We also designed alerts that CS could trap and respond to proactively. We have a group of Customer Support Reps who are dedicated to processing autosupport alerts. We never claimed this to be a *substitute* for you being responsible for your filers. For example, when a drive fails, we designed the process to alert CS, log a call and RMA a drive. But if you receive the autosupport notification also (which is what we expect) then you will make sure that a spare was available and reconstruction completed. As a company grows, its success challenges existing processes. That is what we are faced with today. The solution is not increased staffing - the solution is automation. That is the only way we will be able to scale. And that is what we are shooting for. > > >We are looking at correcting these bottleencks by proposing > changes to > >Engineering that would make contact and customer information > mandatory in > >autosupport. > > So your solution is to shift more work off to the customer? Shift work to the customer? Entering contact information in a setup screen is that much extra work? Ok .... > Not a good > strategy. You should keep it optional so that customers can still get > *some* benefit out of autosupport if they chose, even if it > means Netapp > won't be able to respond their quickest. A simple note in > the documentation > making it clear that the more information the better would be > sufficient. Agreed. We can't make it mandatory any way because of secure sites and such. > > Furthermore, the customer information is not going to be kept > up to date > by many sites. IT professionals have too much to do as it > is; one reason > why *you* are paid for *support* is so that *you* do some of > that work. > It is not unreasonable for support to try to keep their > records updated. Paid or not, I'm not sure how we would keep our database info updated without input from the customers. The NOW site is one channel that allows you to tell us the info - I'm thinking autosupport may be another way for us to keep the info current. > > >We also have a team engaged right now to scope out automation > >around autosupport. If, for example, locating a customer > record in our database > >was simple and guaranteed (programatically) then a script > could field the > >DISK_FAIL autosupport, log a call, check the customer's > service level, issue the > >RMA and email you back the call log number and the shipment > info. (Know anyone > >that could help us with this project? :-). > > This sort of automation should have been done years ago. > Doing it now depends > a lot on your choice of customer database and may require a > new one if your old > one was not properly planned. As to who can help you, you're > in the heart of > Silicon Valley... look out the window and wave some stock > options around. Or > consider offer existing personnel additional incentives to do > the task. (Why > do we have to tell you this?) No - you really did not have to say any of that! :-) I'll pass on the idea of waving stock certificates out the window to the recruiters that are working full time trying to find people the hard way. > > >We are also thinking about automating the analysis of a > crash - I think we > >should be able to suggest patches just based on info in > autosupport ... at least > >some percent of the cases. Not sure how successful this will > be. But it would be > >really cool even if we were able to auto-analyze and propose > upgrades for 25% of > >the cases! > > This is a good idea. Thanks!!! > The wording will have to be careful to > distinguish between > "This looks like a known bug and we think this upgrade may > fix the problem" and > "We don't know specifically about this problem, but it may be > fixed by going to > the latest recommended version" and also catching those cases > where the latter > advice might actually be unwise. This can help in the > response time but in many > cases you will ultimately need some actual human intervention > to follow-up. Good points. > > >This should be possible. Autosupport has a lot of untapped > benefits that we can > >take advantage of. It is not straightforward - but you > should see some changes > >in the future - for the better. > > Look, I know this message sounded harsh. No need to respond. > But I recognize > corporate PR song and dance when I see it and it pushes one > of my hot buttons > to see it on this list. Looking at resolving the problem? > It's been around > for a long time. Considering more automation? I bet you > would have said the > same thing 5 years ago. Explanations are fine, but excuses > are just excuses. > Customers want to see results. Harsh? Naaah! Bruce, I appreciate your input. Honestly, 5 years ago (if we had autosupport 5 years ago - which we didn't) we though that the volume would be manageable. We were wrong. We did not have a problem dealing with the volume then. Now we do. Automation is now necessary. Results are what matter. Proof is in the pudding and all that. Agreed. I am not in PR - I am in CS. So, this is important to us. I can not tell you what we will end up with - all I am saying is that the areas I mentioned are areas that we are working on. > > Bruce > > Diptish Datta Director, Product Support Network Appliance

1 0

RE: tech support waits
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 20 Sep '99

20 Sep '99

On 09/19/99 21:35:17 you wrote: > >Steve, >I can see how the "proactive" response to a disk failure autosupport would leave >you rather unimpressed when the call back is after you have already acted on it >yourself! Fact of the matter is, that is indeed the way it is today. Autosupport >is filtered by a script and the ones needing attention (eg DISK_FAIL) are >forwarded to CSRs for attention. A call is logged and the customer is contacted. >Now, the info in the autosupport is not very CS-friendly because the info that >we need to locate the customer is not mandatory. So, often it slows down the >process of logging the call, finding the contact information, etc. In other words, Network Appliance implemented autosupport without committing to the staffing necessary to support all of the events generated. The solution then is either to ditch autosupport, or increase staffing. Productivity enhancements to the process (i.e. automation) are fine, but are not enough by themselves in the long term unless the fundamental issue is resolved. >We are looking at correcting these bottleencks by proposing changes to >Engineering that would make contact and customer information mandatory in >autosupport. So your solution is to shift more work off to the customer? Not a good strategy. You should keep it optional so that customers can still get *some* benefit out of autosupport if they chose, even if it means Netapp won't be able to respond their quickest. A simple note in the documentation making it clear that the more information the better would be sufficient. Furthermore, the customer information is not going to be kept up to date by many sites. IT professionals have too much to do as it is; one reason why *you* are paid for *support* is so that *you* do some of that work. It is not unreasonable for support to try to keep their records updated. >We also have a team engaged right now to scope out automation >around autosupport. If, for example, locating a customer record in our database >was simple and guaranteed (programatically) then a script could field the >DISK_FAIL autosupport, log a call, check the customer's service level, issue the >RMA and email you back the call log number and the shipment info. (Know anyone >that could help us with this project? :-). This sort of automation should have been done years ago. Doing it now depends a lot on your choice of customer database and may require a new one if your old one was not properly planned. As to who can help you, you're in the heart of Silicon Valley... look out the window and wave some stock options around. Or consider offer existing personnel additional incentives to do the task. (Why do we have to tell you this?) >We are also thinking about automating the analysis of a crash - I think we >should be able to suggest patches just based on info in autosupport ... at least >some percent of the cases. Not sure how successful this will be. But it would be >really cool even if we were able to auto-analyze and propose upgrades for 25% of >the cases! This is a good idea. The wording will have to be careful to distinguish between "This looks like a known bug and we think this upgrade may fix the problem" and "We don't know specifically about this problem, but it may be fixed by going to the latest recommended version" and also catching those cases where the latter advice might actually be unwise. This can help in the response time but in many cases you will ultimately need some actual human intervention to follow-up. >This should be possible. Autosupport has a lot of untapped benefits that we can >take advantage of. It is not straightforward - but you should see some changes >in the future - for the better. Look, I know this message sounded harsh. No need to respond. But I recognize corporate PR song and dance when I see it and it pushes one of my hot buttons to see it on this list. Looking at resolving the problem? It's been around for a long time. Considering more automation? I bet you would have said the same thing 5 years ago. Explanations are fine, but excuses are just excuses. Customers want to see results. Bruce

2 1

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