toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

Start a nNew thread

(no subject)
by Matt Reynolds 06 Aug '99

06 Aug '99

subscribe toasters

1 0

subtle changes cause problems
by Graham C. Knight 06 Aug '99

06 Aug '99

A "df" on a 5.2.1P2D14 system shows: Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on vol0 396529396 302447476 94081920 76% /vol/vol0/ snap reserve 69975772 66004776 3970996 94% /vol/vol0/.. nosnap 15813736 8979244 6834492 57% /vol/nosnap/ snap reserve 0 0 0 ---% /vol/nosnap/.. On a 5.2.3 system it shows: /vol/vol0/ 549255588 211150080 338105508 38% /vol/vol0/ /vol/nosnap/ 78241536 67460044 10781492 86% /vol/nosnap/ The "snap reserve" line has disappeared. That makes my SNMP query of the percentage of snap space being used return a bogus number (which happens to be 100% which sets off various alarms) :-( Is there any way to get the snap reserve lines back *without* turning nosnapdir off? Or is there a better way to get the nunmber via SNMP? I'm using mib numbers that appear to use the same output that the "df" command uses ie: Target[ast-h-dcf01.snapshot]: 1.3.6.1.4.1.789.1.5.4.1.6.2&1.3.6.1.4.1.789.1.5.4.1.6.2:public@ast-h-dcf01 Thanks, Graham

1 0

None
by Hiu-Man Cheung 06 Aug '99

06 Aug '99

subscribe toasters

1 0

Re: disk_fw_update
by Michael Salmon 06 Aug '99

06 Aug '99

+----- On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 13:06:37 PDT, kevin graham writes: | | 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. We have noticed that the ATM driver also shuts down when disk_fw_update is run in 5.3. Again it isn't a big deal as you shouldn't need to run the command often but it doesn't make me feel warm inside. On a related note, I note that disk_fw_update can be run from telnet and rsh in 5.3. My understanding was that disk_fw_update wasn't a security problem because it could only be run from the console. /Michael

1 0

Re: tape drives in a cluster
by Michael Salmon 06 Aug '99

06 Aug '99

+----- On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 10:43:51 PDT, kevin graham writes: | | 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.. I am interested in a related problem and I have found the following SCSI switches: http://www.digital-interact.co.uk/site/html/switches/switch_matrix.html http://www.peripheral-vision.com/switch.htm The Peripheral Visions switch looks particularly promising. /Michael

1 0

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

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