toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13515 discussions

Re: Parts source for end of life products?
by tkaczma＠gryf.net 30 Aug '99

30 Aug '99

On Mon, 30 Aug 1999 sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > A cautionary note - much of the supposedly "in-spec" memory Kingston > or other vendors sell is not capable of handling the strict timing > and loading requirements of a Netapp filer. This sounds like FUD. In fact it sounds like something Kingston would say about other memory vendors. Do you have data to substantiate this? I'm not saying don't buy memory from NetApp. We buy it there and will continue to buy it there because we want to maintain our service agreements. However, since you're making claims that memory sold by NetApp is superior please show me the data from an independent source. Tom

1 0

Does the netapp support etherchannel/trunking?
by Jaye Mathisen 30 Aug '99

30 Aug '99

Can I combine 2 100mbit pipes from a 540 or 630 to something like a Foundry switch to make a 200mbit connection? Can't get gigabit for a 540, but need a bit more oomph than 100...

6 6

Re: SUMMARY: really bad NFS write performance but NFS reads are OK
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 30 Aug '99

30 Aug '99

On 08/26/99 15:41:50 you wrote: >the fix was simple. i didn't realize that things were set up for >synchronous writes. once i set it to asynchronous mode, write performance >skyrocketed. This sounds like such a mode doesn't commit the write to stable storage before responding to the client. Sure, performance will be great, but you'll lose data and have potential corruption the first time the machine goes down. This is hardly a winning quality. >to Bruce: the performance of this box is quite good actually. NetApp >isn't the only game in town. If you price/performance, multiprotocol, and ease of use are on your agenda, Netapp *is* the only game in town. With other vendors you only get to pick 2. >i sent my question to this list because from >time to time people talk about systems from auspex, emc, and many others. Well, people on the list are free to talk about what they chose, but I think the general idea is to discuss such systems only in relation to Netapp. Not "My Auspex isn't working, any ideas?" questions. Bruce

6 5

Re: Parts source for end of life products?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 30 Aug '99

30 Aug '99

On 08/29/99 18:48:09 you wrote: > >Greetings. > >I waded through the "toaster" archives hoping to get a list of vendors >which sell parts for EOL'ed toasters but had no such luck. > >Specifically, I have an F210 which has 64Mb RAM and one shelf full of 4Gb >hard disks. I'd like to upgrade it to the lastest OS release and get some >more disk on it. Upgrading will require an additional 64Mb of RAM and for >storage I either have to find a storage shelf and some more 4Gb disks, or >replace the 4Gb disks I have with 9Gb drives. Since rack space is at a >premium, I'd just as soon move to 9Gb disks but cost and availability are >likely to be the deciding factors in the end. Well, I don't have any help to offer on finding old parts, but there may be reasons why you should upgrade to a newer filer anyway. Was the F210 ever approved to support 9GB drives? (Or for that matter, 128MB memory?) I don't recall. (Is there a maximum disk space limit on the F210?) You should also consider the load on your filer; if doubling the space will support more clients then the low-end F210 may not be able to handle it. Another thing to keep in mind is in order to move to the larger drives you will have to do something like a backup/restore. Bruce

2 1

Re: SUMMARY: really bad NFS write performance but NFS reads are OK
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 28 Aug '99

28 Aug '99

On 08/27/99 14:00:26 you wrote: > >On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > > Well, people on the list are free to talk about what they chose, but I > think the general idea is to discuss such systems only in relation to > Netapp. Not "My Auspex isn't working, any ideas?" questions. > > >I thought the list was named 'toasters', not 'netapps' for a reason. >We wouldn't want to leave the Yahoo! folks out in the cold, would we? Welcome to the toasters mailing list! Please save this message for future reference. Thank you. If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, you can send mail to <lists(a)mathworks.com> with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe toasters sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com Here's the general information for the list you've subscribed to, in case you don't already have it: This is a totally unofficial mailing list for people who have Network Appliance toasters. It is not sanctioned by Network Appliance; it is, in true Internet spirit, a pure resource and grapevine for toaster administrators. It's presently administered by Tom Yates, <owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com>. He has two F330s, in case you were wondering. Bruce

2 1

SUMMARY: really bad NFS write performance but NFS reads are OK
by Matt Harrington 26 Aug '99

26 Aug '99

the fix was simple. i didn't realize that things were set up for synchronous writes. once i set it to asynchronous mode, write performance skyrocketed. to Bruce: the performance of this box is quite good actually. NetApp isn't the only game in town. i sent my question to this list because from time to time people talk about systems from auspex, emc, and many others. ---matt

1 0

Re: really bad NFS write performance but NFS reads are OK
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 26 Aug '99

26 Aug '99

On 08/26/99 11:37:05 you wrote: >what could be causing this poor NFS write performance? The fact that the NAS box is from Western Scientific and not a Netapp filer? Bruce (wondering what this mail is doing on this list)

1 0

really bad NFS write performance but NFS reads are OK
by Matt Harrington 26 Aug '99

26 Aug '99

I have a NAS device on eval which performs well with NFS reads but not with NFS writes. I can read at about 9 MByte/sec (or faster) with certain NFS clients but I can only write at 0.22 MByte/sec from any client. nfsstat looks fine -- no badcalls. here is the setup: - RAID5 NAS device (from Western Scientific) 218GB - Alteon gigabit ethernet NIC - NFS version 2 - clients mostly run Irix 6.5 but there are a few Alphas running DU 4.0E and a Linux box running RH6 (kernel 2.2.5-15). - clients are on 100baseT - NAS box is connected to a Baystack 350-24T switch with a gigabit uplink module what could be causing this poor NFS write performance? matt harrington 415-476-4628

2 1

Re: NDMP and Security
by Steve Kappel 26 Aug '99

26 Aug '99

>We have a UNIX machine running Netbackup. It is initiating backups to >locally attached tapes drives on our filer. Can anyone explain how the filer >knows it's supposed to allow the UNIX host to initiate backups? I would >assume the machine/userid pair would need to be in the hosts.equiv before >this would work. However, backups are working without this entry. How does >security work with NDMP? The command set_ndmp_attr is used to set the password for the filer. Usage: set_ndmp_attr -auth ndmp_server username set_ndmp_attr -robot ndmp_server robotic_device robot_ctrl scsi_id logical_unit_number set_ndmp_attr -list The password is stored in an encrypted format. During NDMP authentication, the password will be sent to the filer either as clear text (NetBackup 3.1.1 or if the filer doesn't support MD5) or a MD5 digest. __________________________________________________________________________ Steve Kappel steve.kappel(a)veritas.com VERITAS Software steve.kappel(a)iname.com (Personal)

1 0

Copying small directory on netapp
by Stephen C. Losen 26 Aug '99

26 Aug '99

We are using our netapps for home directories in a mixed NFS and CIFS environment. We have a prototype new user directory that we set up with some unix "dot" files, a public_html directory, etc. Most of our CIFS users never touch unix, so from CIFS we make the unix dot files hidden. We do this in the hope that they won't delete them and then later on give unix a try and have problems when their account doesn't behave as documented. We use the netapp dump program to dump the prototype directory to a disk file. We create new accounts from unix. We make a new user directory and populate it with netapp restore. Then we chown all the files to the new user. This works great because it preserves the "hidden" attribute on all the "dot" files. Unfortunately, the netapp dump utility writes all the inode information for the entire filesystem to the dump file. So our little prototype directory, which tars into a file of about 20K, dumps into a 2.5M file. This really slows down bulk user adds, because it takes several seconds for each restore to run. Not a surprise when you have to rsh over 2.5M. We added 4700 accounts for our new incoming students and it took about a day -- almost all of the time taken up by restore. And yes, we dump once to file, and do multiple restores from it. I suppose I could build a very small and empty netapp filesystem and put the prototype in there and dump it. That would certainly reduce the size of the dump, but that's an impractial waste of resources. So here are my questions: 1) Is there some way other than dump/restore to copy a directory on a netapp that preserves all NFS and CIFS attributes? 2) We are running 5.2.2P1 and I don't see any dump flags that avoid including all the inode info in the dump. Am I missing something? 3) Is there a way from unix to set the CIFS hidden attribute? If so, I would just use tar and set the attribute. Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 804-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

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