toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13523 discussions

RE: CIFS: No permission to rename files?
by Garrett Burke 04 Aug '99

04 Aug '99

Hi Benjy, Possibly the files are locked (by a misbehaving backup app?) Can your users create a new file and then rename it? Can your user with admin priv. (Full control on the files?) rename the files that the other users can't? Check the share permissions as well as the file permissions. GB > ---------- > From: Benjy Feen[SMTP:benjy@feen.com] > Sent: 04 August 1999 00:18 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: CIFS: No permission to rename files? > > "I didn't change anything!" :) > > On two of our toasters, both running 5.1.2R3P1, our CIFS-based users have > found that they're suddenly unable to rename files. One user, who has > administrator priviledges, doesn't have this problem. > > I wanted to post this short description before hauling off and gathering > the full set of evidence/data. Anyone know this issue offhand? > > Thanks! > > > Benjy Feen > benjy(a)feen.com > There is no spoon. >

1 0

RE: 5.3D20 and bug #16084
by Melvin, Grant 04 Aug '99

04 Aug '99

Hi Shaun, > This is exactly why I moved away from using NDMP, and why I would like to > find a backup solution that doesn't require it. Just a few days ago, when > I mentioned this, NetApp went on and on about how they understood they had > a problem and worked really hard to fix it and how wonderful the new NDMP > code written in JAVA was. And then we see these problems. I still stand by what I said, which was: I believe this effort has paid off and that we have fixed our issues in 5.2.*. For 5.3 we ported the NDMP server to run in the Java Virtual Machine & support V3. Results so far have shown some bugs, reported on toasters, but these have been fixed and we have a very stable product. > I have little faith in NetApp's ability to properly impliment this > protocol. Backups are the single most important function I manage as an > administrator, and NetApp seems hell bent on making that process a > nightmare for me, rather than providing me with a rock solid solution. Obviously, the challenge for NetApp is to restore your faith in our delivery of backup solutions, NDMP compliant or not. Seems that I have a few customers to convince of our dedication to effectively supporting NDMP. Since 5.3 shipped in April we have found 6 *NDMP* bugs, including one today :( [13914, 13442, 14897, 15997, 16061, 16949]. Our record should be better, but not all bugs affect everybody or all compliant applications. 2 other bugs which cause issues while running NDMP, i.e. the NDMP experience is flawed by other services it utilizes such as the jvm or dump & restore [13252, 16084] have also been reported. These are all either fixed in 5.3.2 or fixes will be available in a subsequent (08/23) 5.3.2D1 release from customer support, except 15997 which will be fixed in a future maintenance release (slated for end of October). FYI, Data ONTAP 5.2.3 & 5.3.2 are now available for download from NOW: http://now.netapp.com/cgi-bin/software/#ONTAP5 > Does the engineer or project manager responsible for NDMP monitor this mailing list? Benjy, I'm the development manager responsible for NDMP at Network Appliance and I certainly do monitor this mailing list. Thank you all for your feedback. Hopefully, my responses are helping you understand our current NDMP position. Cheers, Grant =========== grant(a)netapp.com ========== Grant Melvin === === Mgr, FS Recovery Group === === Network Appliance === |\ | __ ___ /\ __ __ === 495 East Java Drive === | \ | |__ | /__\ |__| |__| === Sunnyvale === | \| |__ | / \ | | (R) === California === === 94089 === === Tel:(408)822-6761 =========== Network Appliance ========== Fax:(408)822-4457/4525/4559

1 0

RE: 5.3D20 and bug #16084
by Melvin, Grant 04 Aug '99

04 Aug '99

Hi Michael, We've had 5 customers report this issue and it does only affect F5xx hardware as you've pointed out. Unfortunately, this bug is a weird hardware issue that is only tickled with a java application such as the 5.3.X NDMP server. Customer Support are working to create a patch on top of 5.3.2 that will resolve this problem. It should take about another 2 weeks for the D release to be complete, so expect it around 08/23. > i'm really wishing i had not decided to go down the ndmp path. Sorry to hear this. Hopefully with 5.3.2D1 and later we can provide a better customer experience with NDMP. That is our goal. Cheers, Grant -----Original Message----- From: mgx(a)spruce.lsd.ornl.gov [mailto:mgx@spruce.lsd.ornl.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 5:52 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: 5.3D20 and bug #16084 i have to agree here. after upgrading my F520's to 5.3.X and budtool to 4.6.X i have had nothing but nightmares with respect to my backups, leaving me with a large amount of heartburn. my backups are failing due to bug #13252. this is another ndmp/java problem. here is the problem summary: Problem Summary: The problem is inherent with any process who's stack is VM mapped and touches VM mapped pages. Problem has only been seen on F5xx hardware platform. In the case of 5.3, NDMP uses Java extensively and the Java Garbage collector has the VM Mapped stack. Thus this problem is most prevalent when: - running 5.3 - during NDMP - on F5xx hardware netapp does not have a solution (or an idea when there will be one) but there workaround is: Recommended Solution/Workaround: 13252 is OPEN The chance of this problem occurring during NDMP can be minimized by: 1. Turning off file history during NDMP backups 2. Reducing the size of the dump (no suggested size except the bigger it is, the more chance you may see the problem). i'm really wishing i had not decided to go down the ndmp path. On Mon, Aug 02, Shaun T. Erickson wrote: > > I have little faith in NetApp's ability to properly impliment this > protocol. Backups are the single most important function I manage as an > administrator, and NetApp seems hell bent on making that process a > nightmare for me, rather than providing me with a rock solid solution. >

1 0

Re: show_therm
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 04 Aug '99

04 Aug '99

On 08/01/99 12:11:39 you wrote: > > >On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Dave Hitz wrote: > >> One obvious concern on redesigning command UIs is >> breaking scripts, so we are especially interested in knowing which >> rc_toggle_basic commands people have built into scripts. > >Here is a short list of commands I've been caught using. I don't have any >of these in my scripts, but they are indispensable for me. >[various yp commands deleted] When they implemented yp/NIS, I told them to make these commands public. RFEs were opened. Netapp decided against it, so they were closed. Trot out the tired old "we're an appliance, it should be simple" explanation. >On a side note, is there a command to be used from the console or rsh that >allows one to log off the telnet session. This would be extremely usefull >as some of our admins telnet in from Windows making it relatively hard to >log them off. There was a bug/RFE opened on this as well, years ago. I think Netapp would find it more production, rather than doing another round of "tell us what you want" solicitation, is to go back and see what they got the last n times they asked "tell us what you want" and didn't do anything. Bruce

2 1

CIFS: No permission to rename files?
by Benjy Feen 03 Aug '99

03 Aug '99

"I didn't change anything!" :) On two of our toasters, both running 5.1.2R3P1, our CIFS-based users have found that they're suddenly unable to rename files. One user, who has administrator priviledges, doesn't have this problem. I wanted to post this short description before hauling off and gathering the full set of evidence/data. Anyone know this issue offhand? Thanks! Benjy Feen benjy(a)feen.com There is no spoon.

1 0

RE: CIFS Remote Backup Options
by Garrett Burke 03 Aug '99

03 Aug '99

Hi Matt, No we haven't tried 5.2.2P1 or 5.3 yet to solve the oplock bug. The reason is that out filer is stable at the moment and we have found in the past that we end up with some stability problems when we install another release of OnTap. We have a workaround for the oplocks bug which doesn't bite us so hard at the moment (Having said that we will be upgrading to 5.3 sometime as NTP would be nice) GB > ---------- > From: Matt Day[SMTP:mday@netapp.com] > Sent: 31 July 1999 00:21 > To: Garrett Burke > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: CIFS Remote Backup Options > > >c) oplocks. This has caused us numerous problems. We now run the > backups > >with oplocks turned off, as there some sort of interaction between > ARCServe > >and the oplock code (we tried a few D releases but never got around it) > >which means that things run very, very slowly. Like, 2 days to run the > >backup! > > Hi Garrett, > > There is an oplock bug in 5.2.1 (burt12483) that sometimes delays the > delivery of oplock break messages -- I bet that's the performance > problem you're hitting with oplocks enabled. The fix for this bug is > available in 5.2.2P1 and 5.3. Have you tried either of those releases? > > Matt >

1 0

RE: 5.3D20 and bug #16084
by Melvin, Grant 02 Aug '99

02 Aug '99

Hi Benjy, FYI, the fix for 16084 is targeted for a future release (slated for end of October) and should be made available in a 5.3.2 patch in the meantime. NetApp is working with Mark to determine what the "random_refusal_of_NDMP_connections" problem that he is seeing is. Cheers, Grant -----Original Message----- From: Benjy Feen [mailto:benjy@feen.com] Sent: Monday, August 02, 1999 10:32 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: 5.3D20 and bug #16084 Wow, I check my mail and in two consecutive e-mails I lose two clicks of faith in NetApps. Are these critical NDMP problems limited to 5.3.X, or does 5.2.X have issues I should know about? Is thered a 5.3 release that gives me the NDMP functionality I need without giving me the NDMP bugs I don't? Does NetApp have any kind of document, internal or external, of the form: "How to use NDMP with NetBackup 3.2 without making your filers reboot randomly, or refuse backups, or catch fire"? On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Stoltz wrote: > > Ok, so I've installed the latest and greatest development release that's > supposed to fix our clustered_filer_reboots_randomly_during_NDMP_dumps problem, > and now instead of randomly rebooting, our filer has gone the random_refusal > of_NDMP_connections route. Which leads me to my point, has anyone else who > installed this release to solve this problem seen similar results? > > Curious, > > Mark > Benjy Feen benjy(a)feen.com There is no spoon.

1 0

Re: Remote Backup Options
by Steve Kappel 02 Aug '99

02 Aug '99

>Speaking of remote backup, my backup team tells me that Veritas backups of >Filers via NDMP don't work with the current release (5.3.x) of DOT. Any >word on when (date please) this will be fixed? If already fixed, can >someone let me know so I could get the appropriate version from Tech. OnTap 5.3.2 will be qualified for local (not 3-way) backup/restores with NetBackup 3.2 very soon. 5.3.2 should be out "any day now". __________________________________________________________________________ Steve Kappel steve.kappel(a)veritas.com VERITAS Software steve.kappel(a)iname.com (Personal)

2 1

Re: Remote Backup Options
by Jason Middlebrooks 02 Aug '99

02 Aug '99

I have gotten it to work with DOT 5.3D14. I have done backups and restores. Jason tkaczma(a)gryf.net on 07/31/99 01:39:03 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com cc: (bcc: Jason Middlebrooks/Datalink) Subject: Remote Backup Options Speaking of remote backup, my backup team tells me that Veritas backups of Filers via NDMP don't work with the current release (5.3.x) of DOT. Any word on when (date please) this will be fixed? If already fixed, can someone let me know so I could get the appropriate version from Tech. Support? My whole organization (really, I'm not kidding) is anxiously awaiting SnapMirror which is available in 5.3.x. However, I can't install the new version if I can't backup the servers. Thanks Tom

1 0

Re: show_therm
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 01 Aug '99

01 Aug '99

On 07/30/99 21:27:32 you wrote: >Netapp - why do you do these things >to me?!?!?!?!? > >Graham Graham - why would you rely on undocumented and unsupported commands and risk disappointing your management?!?!? Bruce

6 5

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