toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

VERITAS announce support for 5.2.3 & 5.3.2
by Melvin, Grant 06 Aug '99

06 Aug '99

Hi, > Regarding certification Legato, Veritas & CommVault are all > currently testing our 5.2.3 & 5.3.2 maintenance releases, so > we seemed to have closed this loop too. Since there has been a lot of traffic on NDMP recently. I thought I'd let you know that VERITAS just informed us that they now support DATA ONTAP 5.2.3 & 5.3.2. ++++++++ > Any ETA on a certification announcement? Hi Grant, Both 5.2.3 and 5.3.2 are now qualified with NetBackup 3.2. 5.2.3 is now qualified with NetBackup 3.1.1. 5.3.2 is supported for local backup/restore only. Regards, Tom Nelson ++++++++ Cheers, Grant

1 0

RE: ok, so what do you use?
by Melvin, Grant 06 Aug '99

06 Aug '99

Hi, We use BudTool 4.6 (plus patches - don't think we've installed 4.6.1, but we might have) in IT on our corporate filers. A big part of the decision was that BudTool offers local, 3-way & remote (back to the NDMP client host) backups. In engineering we have an internal test department that adminsters a set of production filers. Here we run VERITAS NetBackup 3.2. Since we wanted to get exposure to multiple backup solutions within the organization. Cheers, Grant -----Original Message----- From: dnb(a)ccs.neu.edu [mailto:dnb@ccs.neu.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 10:26 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: ok, so what do you use? Howdy- The whole backup discussion leads me to a (potentially loaded) question: what software does NetApp (the company) use to back up its data? Peace, dNb

1 0

RE: Linux, Samba and CIFS
by Stephen Wu 05 Aug '99

05 Aug '99

We've upgraded to 5.3.2, but found several problems. Any advice would be much appreciated. - smbmount commands work, and you can verify that the Linux box is connected to the filer. - The ls commands return unexpected output. For example, ls -l on an smbmount returns [root@bombay InetPub]# ls -l ls: ~snapsho: No such file or directory ls: users1: No such file or directory total 0 The actual sub-directories in this directory are ~snapshot and users14. - the smbumount command also has problems [root@bombay InetPub]# smbumount /mnt/frick/InetPub Could not umount /mnt/frick/InetPub: Device or resource busy -Stephen -----Original Message----- From: Benn, Paul [mailto:paul.benn@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 11:18 AM To: 'Sam Schorr'; Benn, Paul; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Cc: Stephen Wu; Mike Mcnelly Subject: RE: Linux, Samba and CIFS You might want to consider upgrading to Data ONTAP 5.3.2. The smbmount command works with that version. Out of curiosity, is there any reason that you would rather use CIFS than NFS to connect from a Linux box (assuming your filer is licensed for both)? Regards, Paul -----Original Message----- From: Sam Schorr [mailto:sschorr@homestead.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 10:49 AM To: 'Benn, Paul'; Sam Schorr; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Cc: Stephen Wu; Mike Mcnelly Subject: RE: Linux, Samba and CIFS We are using Samba 2.0.3-8. the filers are running 5.2.1P2D6. -----Original Message----- From: Benn, Paul [mailto:paul.benn@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 10:46 AM To: 'Sam Schorr'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Cc: Stephen Wu; Mike Mcnelly Subject: RE: Linux, Samba and CIFS What are you using to mount the share? What version of Data ONTAP are you using? Regards, Paul -----Original Message----- We're trying to get a Linux box, using Samba, to mount an NT share to our filers. We have been, quite successfully, accessing the filers from the NT domain they are in using normal UNC share names. We have also, successfully, mounted NT shares from the Linux box using Samba. The failure seems to be in some area of authentication on the part of the filers that is somehow unique to them as other NT systems are quite happy talking to the Linux/Samba mount.

1 0

disk_fw_update
by kevin graham 05 Aug '99

05 Aug '99

I was reading the docs prior to upgrading to 5.2.3, and I realized that I get to upgrade everything, os, filer fw, and disk fw.. The thing that occured to me as unfortunate was from na_disk_fw_update(1): This command makes disks inaccessible for up to 2 minutes, so network sessions using the filer should be closed down before running it. I've only got 4 shelves, so its not a huge deal, but I could see this having a big impact in larger environments.. Obviously the disk has to be inaccesible during the period of the fw upgrade, but disabling file service necessary? The reason I ask is that the filer can already run short a disk following a failure, so why not copy this functionality so that disk_fw updates can be done without service disruption? ....just a'wonderin'.. ...kg..

2 1

Re: [Fwd: disk_fw_update]
by raster＠netapp.com 05 Aug '99

05 Aug '99

>I was reading the docs prior to upgrading to 5.2.3, and I realized that I get >to upgrade everything, os, filer fw, and disk fw.. > >The thing that occured to me as unfortunate was from na_disk_fw_update(1): > > This command makes disks inaccessible for up to 2 minutes, so network > sessions using the filer should be closed down before running it. > >I've only got 4 shelves, so its not a huge deal, but I could see this having a >big impact in larger environments.. > >Obviously the disk has to be inaccesible during the period of the fw upgrade, >but disabling file service necessary? The reason I ask is that the filer can >already run short a disk following a failure, so why not copy this >functionality so that disk_fw updates can be done without service disruption? Hi Kevin. You are correct that a RAID system protects against a single disk failure; the raid group is placed into degraded mode and the contents rebuilt onto a spare. Now, to address your point, yes, it's technically possible to place a raid group into "pseudo-degraded" mode where a disk is temporarily take offline but no reconstruction is started. Note, OnTap doesn't work this way and making it work this way would take quite a bit of doing. For one thing, "re-syncing" the disk which was temporarily taken offline and then brought back later would take quite a bit of book keeping and associated headaches. *If* the above machinery was in place, firmware updating could be made to work one-disk-at-a-time without any disruption of service. However, one has to ask oneself whether it's worth it? How often does one upgrade disk firmware? Hope this answers your question. Let me know otherwise. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Radek Aster [ raster_at_netapp_dot_com ] | "I bike, therefore I am" http://www.nowhere.net/~raster/ | - Rene' DesBiketes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: Adding a FC shelf in a cluster w/o downtime
by Norman, Paul 05 Aug '99

05 Aug '99

Actually it is documented in the "Fibre Channel StorageShelf Hardware Guide". There is a chapter on doing exactly this although the doc says attach A channel first. You can see it on-line on NOW: http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/docs/hardware/fcshelf.pdf Its in appendix A, entitled "Adding Hardware for a Cluster". I'm not surprised that you didn't find it. I'm the product manager for Clusters and I've reviewed every manual numerous times. I knew it existed somewhere but it still took me 15 minutes to dig it up. Unless your one of those people who reads every manual cover to cover you probably would never have known it existed. The Tech Pubs crew here has done major reorganizations of the manual set. They have put all the software manuals on line in HTML in addition to the pdf format. They are always looking for ways to improve the doc set and welcome comments from customers on things they can do to make the docs easier to use (It would be nice if you told them when they've done something you like too, but that might be pushing it). You can send comments via feedback on NOW or send e-mail to doccomments(a)netapp.com. When you run across issues like this, where you can't find something, a quick note saying what you wanted and where you looked might help the next time they reorganize the manual to put the information in a better place or create a better index or whatever. PS. In house we just rack the shelf and shut down, add the daisy chains, power up. It only takes a five minutes, but then we're pretty adept at cabling since we get so much practice, YMMV. Cheers Paul Norman, Product Manager Direct: (408) 822-6288 Network Appliance E-Mail: pnorman(a)netapp.com 495 East Java Drive Corp: (408) 822-6000 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Web: WWW.NetApp.Com > -----Original Message----- > From: Mohler, Jeff [mailto:jeff.mohler@wilcom.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 9:42 AM > To: Jay Soffian; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Adding a FC shelf in a cluster w/o downtime > > > My initial feelings are 'bad things will happen'. > > I dont have any technical data to back that up, other than its not > documented to do it that way. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jay Soffian [mailto:jay@cimedia.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 10:05 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Adding a FC shelf in a cluster w/o downtime > > > > We are going to be adding an additional FC shelf to our clustered > F740's. Obviously, the safe way to do this is to halt both 740's, > attach the A & B loops, then bring both filers back up. > > But, what I was wonder was, would it be possible to: > > - Attach the B-loop first. > - Have the B-Loop Filer take over all th shelves (including > the new shelf). > - Attach the A-Loop. > - Give back the shelves to the A-Loop filer. > > I don't think we'll do this as we're only talking about about maybe 2 > minutes of downtime vs 30 seconds, but I was wondering if this is a > feasible thing to do. > > Thoughts? > > j. >

2 1

Adding a FC shelf in a cluster w/o downtime
by Jay Soffian 05 Aug '99

05 Aug '99

We are going to be adding an additional FC shelf to our clustered F740's. Obviously, the safe way to do this is to halt both 740's, attach the A & B loops, then bring both filers back up. But, what I was wonder was, would it be possible to: - Attach the B-loop first. - Have the B-Loop Filer take over all th shelves (including the new shelf). - Attach the A-Loop. - Give back the shelves to the A-Loop filer. I don't think we'll do this as we're only talking about about maybe 2 minutes of downtime vs 30 seconds, but I was wondering if this is a feasible thing to do. Thoughts? j.

1 1

managing permissions in mixed qtrees
by Gregory M. Paris 05 Aug '99

05 Aug '99

Toasters, We have a new filer with NFS and CIFS. The plan is to move/merge all of the NT and UNIX homes (from NT and UNIX servers) onto mixed qtrees. Each user gets one and only one home directory. Conceptually simple. However, we now see one thing that may bite us in practice: Doing recursive mode/ACL changes in user home directories will have the effect of converting some UNIX-security files to NT-security files or vice versa (depending on whether the operation done from NT or UNIX). At a minimum this will cause confusion, but in some cases could break things -- most probably things that depend on NT ACLs that get wiped when somebody does chmod. I'd like to hear from other admins that have merged UNIX/NT home directories. Have you had this kind of problem? If so, have you found ways to work around it? Thanks i.a., Greg -- Gregory M. Paris CIS Engineering Systems Bose Corporation Email: paris(a)bose.com The Mountain Phone: +1 508 766-6080 Framingham, MA 01701-9168 FAX: +1 508 820-0173

1 0

RE: NetApp/NDMP
by Melvin, Grant 05 Aug '99

05 Aug '99

Hi Bruce, I still foresee a role for NDMP in a hybrid NAS/SAN solution: 1. Scheduling backups 2. Maintaining catalog of backed up images 3. Changing tapes within a library Cheers, Grant -----Original Message----- From: sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com [mailto:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 9:47 PM To: michael.marchi(a)netapp.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: NetApp/NDMP On 08/04/99 15:27:17 you wrote: > NDMP is the strategic direction for backup at > Network Appliance. We see NDMP as a winner for Network > Attached Storage (NAS) vendors and ultimately we > think this could also be very prevalent in Storage > Area Network (SAN) environments too. When Netapp has a hybrid NAS/SAN solution, I would expect straight "local" backup to a tape device on the SAN to be an option, via traditional dump, without NDMP involved. Bruce

1 0

tape drives in a cluster
by kevin graham 05 Aug '99

05 Aug '99

Does anyone know if there's a way to modify the scsi id of the tape controller in a 760? It would be nice if our clustered 760's could share a tape drive, or pair of drives, especially given how there's a whole controller set aside for it.. ...kg..

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