toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

RE: [Fwd: The Promise Of SAN ???.....]
by Savini, Patrice 12 Aug '99

12 Aug '99

I will verify information with EMC. Regards, Patrice -----Original Message----- From: G D Geen [mailto:geen@msp.sc.ti.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 3:06 PM To: Toasters Maillist; storage(a)list.ti.com - Share information on Storage config and prices Subject: [Fwd: The Promise Of SAN ???.....] Hi, I just received this message from Auspex and thought that I would share it. I do not make any claims to the validity of the message. I only pass it along so that it may be verified. The writer does not quote the source, thus I am at first sceptical. Comments and suggestions on ways to verify are, of course, welcomed. -gdg -------- Original Message -------- Just had to put this out as food for thought. As Auspex begins building SAN gateways we are even more confident the analysts are correct about the convergence of NAS/SAN. Hope you enjoy. Kevin Kirksey Auspex Systems 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 Auspex 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.

1 0

[Fwd: The Promise Of SAN ???.....]
by G D Geen 12 Aug '99

12 Aug '99

Hi, I just received this message from Auspex and thought that I would share it. I do not make any claims to the validity of the message. I only pass it along so that it may be verified. The writer does not quote the source, thus I am at first sceptical. Comments and suggestions on ways to verify are, of course, welcomed. -gdg -------- Original Message -------- Just had to put this out as food for thought. As Auspex begins building SAN gateways we are even more confident the analysts are correct about the convergence of NAS/SAN. Hope you enjoy. Kevin Kirksey Auspex Systems 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 Auspex 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.

1 0

RE: backing up a filer w/Legato Networker
by Chambers, Carolyn 12 Aug '99

12 Aug '99

The NDMP version is in external test now. I think it's very flexible in that you can setup any number of Networker Storage Nodes and use them as backup servers. The plan is to have each NSN SCSI connected into a tape library. Then point them, through a logically or physically separate LAN, to filers for backup over the network. With a backup network and snapshots, your backup window should now be 7x24. Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: Geir Odden [mailto:etogod@ericsson.no] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 3:02 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: backing up a filer w/Legato Networker Michael Salmon wrote: > | I've perused the archives here, and checked out the netapp and legato > | websites, and have come up with no hard information about the > | availability of a networker client for my netapp. > > AFAIK networker cannot backup netapp filers, the functionality was > promised for february but by all accounts it appears to have > disappeared into the black hole at Legato. The only way that I know of > backing a filer is via NFS or CIFS and I presume that is what you have > done, you need to look carefully at your client specification to see > exactly what you are backing up. I found this at the Legato web. Our incorporation of an NDMP II compliant backup solution will occur in NetWorker release 6.0, due in Dec, 1999. This should better facilitate NetApp integration within a backup and restore strategy. Geir Odden

1 0

Re: backing up a filer w/Legato Networker
by Michael Salmon 12 Aug '99

12 Aug '99

+----- On Wed, 11 Aug 1999 19:07:33 EDT, "Marc C. Poulin" writes: | We have an f740 providing nfs to a bunch of sun boxes hard-mounted to it | over a private network. We have been *aparrently* backing up the | filer via Legato Networker to a DLT jukebox (i.e. the networker logs | claim to have backed things up). While perusing dejanews recently, I | noted some comments about Networker not backing up filers properly. | Sure enough, after several vain attempts to restore some files, | Networker complains that I am trying to restore files for a client | that is not registered. | | I've perused the archives here, and checked out the netapp and legato | websites, and have come up with no hard information about the | availability of a networker client for my netapp. AFAIK networker cannot backup netapp filers, the functionality was promised for february but by all accounts it appears to have disappeared into the black hole at Legato. The only way that I know of backing a filer is via NFS or CIFS and I presume that is what you have done, you need to look carefully at your client specification to see exactly what you are backing up. /Michael

2 1

backing up a filer w/Legato Networker
by Marc C. Poulin 11 Aug '99

11 Aug '99

We have an f740 providing nfs to a bunch of sun boxes hard-mounted to it over a private network. We have been *aparrently* backing up the filer via Legato Networker to a DLT jukebox (i.e. the networker logs claim to have backed things up). While perusing dejanews recently, I noted some comments about Networker not backing up filers properly. Sure enough, after several vain attempts to restore some files, Networker complains that I am trying to restore files for a client that is not registered. I've perused the archives here, and checked out the netapp and legato websites, and have come up with no hard information about the availability of a networker client for my netapp. Does anyone out there have any suggestions or ideas? Thanks, Marc Poulin

1 0

Re: How does Netapps win and lose business?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 11 Aug '99

11 Aug '99

On 08/10/99 18:25:05 you wrote: > > >On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > >> Given that Netapp's NVRAM allocates writes and then dumps them to disk >> periodically in stripes, this type of optimization would probably work >> well with them. Perhaps they do it already. :) > >I'm sure they do it. Does NetApp's NVRAM allocate writes? I though >NetApp held raw NFS packets in the NVRAM. Yes. I was sorta speaking in shorthand. My understanding is that the raw NFS packets get storied both in NVRAM and main memory; the point is once the NVRAM is half-full, or at 10 seconds, outstanding write data is collected and sent to disk, and the NVRAM flushed. There's some amount of allocation involved here and I think some parity stuff that actually gets stored in NVRAM as well; I didn't mean to imply, however, that actual SCSI commands or disk blocks are being stored there. My knowledge of exactly what happens in detail ends here, so I'll let someone else explain more thoroughly if you're really curious. Bruce

2 1

(no subject)
by Alexandre Gomes (r7043c) 11 Aug '99

11 Aug '99

unsubscribe toaster

1 0

Power supply failure notifications
by Brian Tao 11 Aug '99

11 Aug '99

We had an F740 chassis power supply fail this morning (the second power supply was right there to keep things going of course, yay). The e-mail it sent out had a couple of oddities in it, but nothing really major: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:39:59 -0400 > From: xxxxxxxxx(a)netcom.ca > To: xxxxxxxxx(a)netcom.ca > Subject: System Notification from pb ( Power Supply #1 Failed > > POWER_SUPPLY_DEG) > > GENERATED_ON=Wed Aug 11 12:39:59 EDT 1999 > VERSION=NetApp Release 5.1.2: Sat Sep 26 05:05:59 PDT 1998 [...] Is the subject line supposed to read "System Notification from pb ( Power Supply #1 Failed POWER_SUPPLY_DEG)" all on one line? It looks like that line was unintentionally split in two, so the "POWER_SUPPLY_DEG)" part appears in the message body. > Wed Aug 11 11:34:51 EDT [power_low_monitor]: Power Supply #1 Failed > Wed Aug 11 11:34:51 EDT [power_low_monitor]: Power supply is in degraded mode! > Wed Aug 11 11:34:51 EDT [asup_main]: System Notification mail sent > Wed Aug 11 11:34:51 EDT [asup_main]: System Notification mail sent > Wed Aug 11 12:35:31 EDT [power_low_monitor]: PS #1 Removed > Wed Aug 11 12:35:31 EDT [power_low_monitor]: Power supply is in degraded mode! > Wed Aug 11 12:35:31 EDT [asup_main]: System Notification mail sent > Wed Aug 11 12:35:31 EDT [asup_main]: System Notification mail sent > Wed Aug 11 12:36:14 EDT [power_low_monitor]: PS #1 Added > Wed Aug 11 12:36:15 EDT [power_low_monitor]: Power Supply #1 Failed > Wed Aug 11 12:36:15 EDT [power_low_monitor]: Power supply is in degraded mode! > Wed Aug 11 12:36:15 EDT [asup_main]: System Notification mail sent > Wed Aug 11 12:36:15 EDT [asup_main]: System Notification mail sent I swapped the failed power supply, but the filer syslogs a "Power Supply #1 Failed" message even when I insert/power up the replacement. According to the most recent syslog messages, the filer is still in degraded power mode. Can it log repair events as well as failure events, and is there a way (sysconfig?) to check the current power supply status? I had to go look at the filer LED's to make sure everything was indeed okay. Just to nitpick :) ... why does "System Notification mail sent" show up twice? Once for the e-mail and once for the short pager notification? Or is it because I have two addresses in autosupport.noteto?

2 1

Re: How does Netapps win and lose business? (cont.)
by Arvind K Aggarwal 11 Aug '99

11 Aug '99

Maybe our Auspex sales people don't know what is going on with CIFS. They have constantly pointed us to using SAMBA because of their inability to support CIFS. Overall Auspex is HIGHLY unreliable as compared to Network Appliances. At least that is OUR experience here. Arvind > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: How does Netapps win and lose business? (cont.) > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 07:39:30 +0200 > From: Michael Salmon <Michael.Salmon(a)uab.ericsson.se> > > +----- On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 12:24:31 CDT, Arvind K Aggarwal writes: > | > | > > One other thing that came to my mind is that Auspex does not support > | > > CIFS and HTTP. I believe they do FTP. I'm not interested in CIFS > | > > or HTTP myself as I use Filers with NFS exclusively, but I am glad > | > > that I have the option of turning on CIFS when my organization > | > > decides to use CIFS directly from storage appliances. You may say > | > > that the presence of the host processor on an Auspex enables one to > | > > do a variety of things like run Samba, but I assure you that Auspex > | > > is not optimized to perform any major file operations via its host > | > > processor. Also, if you think that you can rdist something quickly > | > > to an Auspex box you're in for a disappointment. Both NAC and > | > > Auspex are built with a small set of file services (NFS, etc.) in > | > > mind. If you don't go through these services in case of Auspex you > | > > suffer severe performance penalties. With NetApp this is not a > | > > problem as there is no way circumventing those services aside from > | > > their proprietary volume copy mechanism which is very robust itself. > | > > | > Tom, when was the last time you looked at an Auspex? > | > > | > CIFS is supported. (I also only use NFS :) > | > > | > | Really! Auspex was in our office (I work with Tom) last Friday and asked > | us to use SAMBA. > > Auspex has implemented AT&T's ASU, they call it NeTservices. As such it > is a couple of steps removed from M$ so you don't get the latest bugs. > There are some restrictions to using NeTservices with regards to OS > which I don't recall too well but I don't believe that any of our > machines qualified due to the hardware being too old. The 4front > machines do pretty well as CIFS servers. If Auspex had had the 4front > ready earlier then it would probably have tipped the scales from 49/51 > in Dell's favour to 51/49. > > /Michael

1 0

Re: How does Netapps win and lose business?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 11 Aug '99

11 Aug '99

On 08/10/99 17:46:04 you wrote: >So, in a conclusion, you can't bypass NFS, NetApps NFS servers are >performant, not expensive NFS/CIFS servers, but not very reliable. No >chance for 99% uptime. Despite your particular experiences, I believe that Netapp has a measured uptime far in excess of 99% over all of their customer base. You could ask them for the precise figures. Obviously some customers will fall below this level. A lot of components fail due to improper handling or shipping. Bruce

3 2

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