toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13523 discussions

tech support waits
by Todd C. Merrill 19 Aug '99

19 Aug '99

I am getting frustrated with the response time from tech support. The engineers who take the calls are not responding to my requests for status updates, for days even. Not even a peep, such as, "We're still working on it." I have not tried the "comments" section from the call log on NOW, but I don't have faith in that if supposed *direct* communication to the engineer isn't working. I have started calling the 888-4NETAPP number, and waiting on hold for 20-30+ minutes. There is no way to quickly just say, "Have the engineer call me, *please*"; you have to wait...and wait....and wait.... I waited over 20 minutes the other day. Frustrated, I hung up, redialed, and entered the option for "the filer is not serving data," hoping I could get someone quickly. Hah. 18 minutes later someone answered the call. I asked the engineer if today was a busy day; the reply was, "Not really." I don't know about other people, but if this had been an actual emergency and our filer was down, waiting 20 minutes is unacceptable. There were threads a while back about response and wait times. Are others still experiencing these interminable delays? In defense of NetApp, though, I did make a call at 6 AM (EDT) last Friday, and got someone immediately from their third-shift in Europe. Yea! That is much improved! (Now, if I could only get a hold of that engineer *again*...) 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 ---

4 3

RE: HELP TO DECIDED THE ONTAP VERSION TO USE WITH BUDTOOL
by Melvin, Grant 13 Aug '99

13 Aug '99

Hi Alex, I received good news last night that BudTool 4.6.1 is now certified with Data ONTAP 5.2.3: NetApp Release 5.2.3 has been tested, and certified with BudTool 4.6.1. Local, Remote, and 3 party configurations were tested. Legato havn't updated their external web page yet at: http://www.iguard.com/products/certmatrix.html since the product marketing manager is out today. It should be updated next week sometime. Legato will be certifying 5.3.2D1 next. Cheers, Grant P.S. We have moved our internal version of the NetApp/VERITAS (NetBackup) software certification matrix to: http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/contents/TIP/TIP_605.shtml These URLs should provide you with the information that you require. -----Original Message----- From: Alexandre Gomes [mailto:r7043c@email.sps.mot.com] Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 10:58 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: HELP TO DECIDED THE ONTAP VERSION TO USE WITH BUDTOOL Hello, Could some one help me decided what version of Network appliance ONTAP is compatible with budtool version 4.5 and 4.6. It it the version more recently of budtool ??. If not, what is the version more recent od budtool and what version of ONTAP is compatible with it ? The version that I'm using in my Network Appliance F230 is the ONTAP 4_3_4 . We intend to install the version 5_2_1. But I would like to Know the information above ... Someone Know how many time it takes to be installed a shelf disk and do the actualization of the version to 5_2_1 ?? Thanks very much, Regards, Alex

1 0

HELP TO DECIDED THE ONTAP VERSION TO USE WITH BUDTOOL
by Alexandre Gomes 13 Aug '99

13 Aug '99

Hello, Could some one help me decided what version of Network appliance ONTAP is compatible with budtool version 4.5 and 4.6. It it the version more recently of budtool ??. If not, what is the version more recent od budtool and what version of ONTAP is compatible with it ? The version that I'm using in my Network Appliance F230 is the ONTAP 4_3_4 . We intend to install the version 5_2_1. But I would like to Know the information above ... Someone Know how many time it takes to be installed a shelf disk and do the actualization of the version to 5_2_1 ?? Thanks very much, Regards, Alex

1 0

Re: The Promise Of SAN ???.....EMC answer....
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 13 Aug '99

13 Aug '99

>No company left the FibreAlliance. This was a mis-interpretation of >only one reporter. Note that no other press reported the same story. Whether or not the story is true, the "only one press reported it" line is hardly a defense. Remember Woodward and Bernstein? >Finally, I have seen lots of presentations by analysts about NAS and >SAN and what is stated below is really focused on the point they make >of where do NAS and SAN meet. If you need to have file sharing, then >use NAS but even the NAS server will need the benefits of SAN >(connectivity, distance, scaleability, etc). So the analysts position >NAS as using SAN on their backend. This was clearly the direction 2 years ago, and if it wasn't for SAN vendor fud more customers would realize this. >There are still, and will continue >to be, a large installed set of application that do not use NAS and >they will use SAN directly. There will continue to be a far larger installed set of applications that use only NAS and not SAN. In fact, very few applications use *only* SAN directly, because that would largely be useless; the data still has to get to the end-user to be useful, even if it's through a secondary application, and that user is very likely to be connected over a network. Bruce

1 0

Re: NFS lock tools
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 13 Aug '99

13 Aug '99

On 08/13/99 00:55:17 you wrote: >Vic Abell, the author of the o-so-useful lsof program (which knows >about locks in some cases), also has a program called lslk for listing >existing locks. Both lsof and lslk can be found at ><ftp://vic.cc.purdue.edu:/pub/tools/unix/>. I've communicated with >Mr. Abell, and he does not know of any specific tool to do what we've >been discussing. I'd like to second the recommendation of lsof, which is essentially the second incarnation of the ofiles command. I did some work on it for Vic as an undergrad. As the the locking issue, I had always found simply restarting lockd and statd on the client were sufficient, without the procedure of locking another file in-between. But perhaps it depends on the client and the filer OS version. Bruce

1 0

The Promise Of SAN ???.....EMC answer....
by Savini, Patrice 13 Aug '99

13 Aug '99

Here is EMC answer...Regards, Patrice ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- From: "blumenau, steven" <blumenau_steven(a)emc.com> To: "'tzelnic(a)emc.com'" <tzelnic(a)emc.com> Copies to: "ofer, erez" <erez(a)emc.com> Subject: RE: (Fwd) FW: The Promise Of SAN ???..... Date sent: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:24:17 -0400 Percy, No company left the FibreAlliance. This was a mis-interpretation of only one reporter. Note that no other press reported the same story. The FibreAlliance is focused on managing SANs. The OSFI is focused on working on interoperability of the protocol for switches. Specifically, how do two different vendors switches talk to each other over eports. All the work that the FibreAlliance does is submitted to standards bodies (ANSI, IETF, DMTF, etc). So there is no reason that they can be considered proprietary. For example, the MIB is currently a proposed draft in IETF and changes to the protocols have been submitted to ANSI. The quote below from Roger (Reich) was mis-quoted out of context. Roger even sent in a letter to unigram about this and it was published. As to all the groups working on standards, it turns out that we are all working together very well. The FibreAlliance is focused on SAN management at the lower levels of protocols, APIs and MIBs. It turns out the SNIA has adopted the MIB that we submitted to IETF and have proposed changes which have been incorporated into it. Finally, I have seen lots of presentations by analysts about NAS and SAN and what is stated below is really focused on the point they make of where do NAS and SAN meet. If you need to have file sharing, then use NAS but even the NAS server will need the benefits of SAN (connectivity, distance, scaleability, etc). So the analysts position NAS as using SAN on their backend. There are still, and will continue to be, a large installed set of application that do not use NAS and they will use SAN directly. Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Percy Tzelnic [mailto:tzelnic@emc.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 10:06 AM > To: blumenau_steve(a)emc.com > Cc: erez(a)emc.com > Subject: (Fwd) FW: The Promise Of SAN ???..... > > > What's the answer? > Thanks, > Percy > > ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- > From: "Savini, Patrice" <p-savini(a)ti.com> > To: "'Tzelnic'" <tzelnic(a)emc.com> > Subject: FW: The Promise Of SAN ???..... > Date sent: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 14:39:25 +0200 > > Any comment ? Patrice > > ************************************************************** > ********* > > EMC's Fibre Alliance Woes and the state of SAN Interoperability > On 7/23 Jo Maitland announced in UNIGRAM, that more than half of the > Fibre > Channel switch manufacturers (McData, Brocade, Ancor, Gadzoox > and Vixel) > > defected from EMC's Fibre Alliance, "fed-up with its slow pace on > standardization". These 5 vendors have created their own, independent > group, > (the Open Standards Fabric Initiative - OSFI) charged with settings > standards of interoperability between their own products and between > their > products and third party products. > > Key points: > 1. Standards exist for interoperability between switches, and third > party > products, but each vendor was using their own interpretation of those > standards. This led to a lack of interoperability between different > manufacturers switch products and the need for customers to purchase > proprietary SAN solutions - something they are not interested > in doing. > This > also led to lack of plug-and-play interoperability between > switches and > third party products (such as the HBAs needed in servers to connect to > the > SAN) - in turn forcing vendors of SANs to go through exhaustive > interoperability testing every time a new product revision > was released > or a > new product line was added to their suite of SAN products. > > 2. EMC set up the Fibre Alliance in February with great fanfare, > splitting > off from the SNIA to develop interoperability between components. > Notably > absent from the group were any other storage vendors such as IBM or > Hitachi. > As a result it was seen by many in the industry as a way for EMC to > force > it's own standards on the rest of the Fibre and SAN > community. An effort > > that has obviously failed - at least for now. > > 3. Despite the fact that the OSFI has stated that it is a subgroup > within > the FibreAlliance, EMC has stated that they will monitor the group to > see if > their work conflicts with what the Fibre Alliance is doing - in other > words > EMC will do what they're doing, without input or feedback > from the OSFI, > > leading yet again to dual (and dueling!) standards. An indication of > this is > contained with the report: "One analyst on the call said that > working on > > device level interoperability is fine but without an overall framework > for > managing those devices, the storage area network is still way off. A > spokesperson for McData, a member of OSFI said, "We have to > crawl before > we > can walk." " > > 4. A third group working on standards is the SNIA (Storage Network > Industry > Association) with over 100 members. A quote from the SNIA and from a > member > of the OSFI sums up the situation with multiple standards committees > working > on the same issues but in opposite directions. SNIA chairman, Roger > Reich, > director of Compaq's network storage division said of the new > group: "I > don't know where they are going or what they are doing, but > if they need > > backing in the form of money or talent we would be happy to speak to > them." > He added that the Fibre Alliance was a closed, profit-making > group with > a > different agenda to the SNIA. In response to Reich, Greg Reyes, CEO of > Brocade and a member of the OSFI said: "We are not interested in his > offer." > > Summary > 1. Despite their protestations to the contrary, EMC is > proprietary, will > > continue to be proprietary and does not wish to work on a global scale > with > other vendors to open up interoperability of servers, storage devices > and > interconnect products such as switches, hubs and HBAs. Customer > purchasing > EMC storage devices or SAN implementations will be locking themselves > into > the high price leader and into a proprietary solution. > 2. This lends further credence to ****** stated vision (backed up by > analysts) of NAS as the "Intelligent Gateway" to the SAN, and that NAS > should be implemented today with an eye toward tomorrows SAN > implementation > (i.e. SAN should not be implemented today). Install SAN today at your > own > risk, if for no other reason than a lack of standards and a lack of a > current methodology of moving toward a single set of globally accepted > standards. > > >

2 1

RE: NetGroup issue..last time
by Mohler, Jeff 13 Aug '99

13 Aug '99

Yep, many of you bent me in the right direction, actually a sudden vision of clarity about11 last night got me to the same place, but this AM's Email confirms. I _really_ must admit, that Toasters isnt line any other technical mailing list where "Duh, its in the manual" is the most common answer. Thanks! -----Original Message----- From: Stephen C Woods [mailto:scw@seas.ucla.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 6:03 PM To: steveb(a)sh-gpl.ti.com; jeff.mohler(a)wilcom.com Subject: Re: NetGroup issue..last time Steve, If by 'netaccess' you really ment root access you are correct. Granting root access requires a specific list of hosts. <scw> > From steveb > According to my docs. You can't give netgroups netaccess. Just specific hosts. > Although I am only running version 3.1. this may have changed in later versions. > According to Mohler, Jeff : > :-) > :-) Ok..sendmail ate my brain today, so a simple netgroup insertion..NO problem. > :-) > :-) My /etc/netgroup file on the filer: > :-) > :-) dgrmouse# more netgroup > :-) News-Feeders (news-feeder2-qfe1.wiltec.twc.com,,) > :-) (news-feeder2-qfe0.wiltec.t > :-) wc.com,,) (news-feeder-qfe0.wcg.net,,) (news-feeder-qfe1.wcg.net,,) > :-) News-Readers (news-reader-qfe0.wcg.net,,) (news-reader-qfe1.wcg.net,,) > :-) (news- > :-) reader3-qfe1.wcg.net,,) (news-reader3-qfe0.wcg.net,,) > :-) > :-) All hosts resolve, and are also entered in /etc/hosts on the filer. > :-) > :-) My attempted export: > :-) > :-) /vol/NetMaint -access=News-Feeders,root=News-Feeders > :-) > :-) Output: > :-) > :-) ratbert> exportfs -a > :-) export: Can't find address for host News-Feeders > :-) > :-) > :-) ? > :-) > :-) > :-) Everything Ive looked at, "feels" ok, looks OK, but the filer dont think > :-) it's ok. Netgroup is told to look in 'files' initially in Name > :-) Services/DNS as well. > :-) ----- 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

1 0

Re: NFS lock tools
by dnb＠ccs.neu.edu 13 Aug '99

13 Aug '99

Thanks, this gets me a little closer. What you write below leads me to believe that I need to grovel around in statd source (or sniff the wire) to find our just what it is sending at this moment. "Keith Brown" <keith(a)netapp.com> writes: > 4. Restart statd. Statd will send a STATMON packet to the filer > that causes the filer to blow away all of the locks for that > client. Here's another quick tip for folks: Vic Abell, the author of the o-so-useful lsof program (which knows about locks in some cases), also has a program called lslk for listing existing locks. Both lsof and lslk can be found at <ftp://vic.cc.purdue.edu:/pub/tools/unix/>. I've communicated with Mr. Abell, and he does not know of any specific tool to do what we've been discussing. Peace, dNb

1 0

NFS lock tools
by dnb＠ccs.neu.edu 13 Aug '99

13 Aug '99

Howdy- I have a quick question which is marginally connected to NetApp-land. I was wondering if anyone had a tool for spoofing the RPC call(s) necessary to tell an NFS server to let go of a lock. Barring that, any pointers (besides OS source, which is my next stop) to documentation of the necessary dance would also be appreciated. I'd like to deal with the cases where a server thinks a file is locked, but the client has forgotten all about it (in a more graceful way than changing the file's inode by moving the data to another new file and then back again). I'm guessing the folks in NetApp engineering must have a lock make/break tool handy for their regression testing, hence my request here. I'd also be interested in knowing if there are any magic OnTap commands for showing all of the exisiting locks that the box is holding. Thanks! Respectfully, David N. Blank-Edelman Director of Technology College of Computer Science Northeastern University

2 1

NetGroup issue..last time
by Mohler, Jeff 12 Aug '99

12 Aug '99

Ok..sendmail ate my brain today, so a simple netgroup insertion..NO problem. My /etc/netgroup file on the filer: dgrmouse# more netgroup News-Feeders (news-feeder2-qfe1.wiltec.twc.com,,) (news-feeder2-qfe0.wiltec.t wc.com,,) (news-feeder-qfe0.wcg.net,,) (news-feeder-qfe1.wcg.net,,) News-Readers (news-reader-qfe0.wcg.net,,) (news-reader-qfe1.wcg.net,,) (news- reader3-qfe1.wcg.net,,) (news-reader3-qfe0.wcg.net,,) All hosts resolve, and are also entered in /etc/hosts on the filer. My attempted export: /vol/NetMaint -access=News-Feeders,root=News-Feeders Output: ratbert> exportfs -a export: Can't find address for host News-Feeders ? Everything Ive looked at, "feels" ok, looks OK, but the filer dont think it's ok. Netgroup is told to look in 'files' initially in Name Services/DNS as well.

3 3

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