toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

show_therm
by Graham Knight 31 Jul '99

31 Jul '99

Well, i spent a goodly amount of time integrating the output of "show_therm" into our MRTG graphs, and did some bragging to management about how cool it was (and they agreed). Now, i load rev 5.2.3 of the OS and the command is *gone*!!!! Netapp - why do you do these things to me?!?!?!?!? Graham

1 0

RE: SnapMirror Very Slow
by Melvin, Grant 30 Jul '99

30 Jul '99

Hi, Just wanted to throw in that we discussed with David Midgett (while waiting for the next SnapMirror schedule to be triggered) how he was using SnapMirror. And heard (correct me if I'm wrong David) that his copy of data was being accessed by other clients in read-only fashion effectively balancing the client load across the CFO pair. So not only does David have a (local) disaster recovery copy of his data, but its also accessible (in read-only mode) at all times (after the baseline transfer has completed). Cheers, Grant -----Original Message----- From: alexei(a)mindspring.net [mailto:alexei@mindspring.net] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 3:35 PM To: Sam Schorr Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: SnapMirror Very Slow Sam Schorr <sschorr(a)homestead.com> writes: > Actually, there is a very good reason to do both. Clustering only protects > filer head failures. If a volume on a filer loses 2 disks in 1 RAID group, > the volume built on that RAID group is useless and needs to be rebuilt upon > disk repair. So, by using SNAPMIRROR to "almost realtime" copy data to a > read-only volume on another filer, upon disk failure that volume can be made > "live" or the master volume. This is a strategy we are employing to fully > protect our users' data and insure the highest availability of that data. I am not arguing that doing both is not (potentially) good, but doing both on the same set of filers is troublesome. Individually, each solution addresses a set of problems, and each has its own set of problems. With CF (cluster failover), you get transparent (or close to) failover such that a client does not percieve a failure, just a pause. The cluster partner is then serving both sets of data (its own and that of its partner). If you do not size the filer correctly, you are going to be in trouble, especially if you loose a disk during failover. Snapshots are an additional overhead. With snapmirror, you have a copy of the data N minutes old (where N is a function based on the network latency, the size of the volume (clustermap overhead), size of the network pipe and ammount of deltas). In order to make that copy "live", you will need to update mount points across your clients in order to point at the now-read-write snapmirror volume on the other filer. So, doing snapmirror between cluster members is not a clear win. You are better off snapmirroring to a filer that is not part of the cluster. That way you can isolate your disaster backup copy from any potential problems the cluster might experience. Alex

2 1

RE: CIFS Remote Backup Options
by Garrett Burke 30 Jul '99

30 Jul '99

Hi Anissa, I currently use ARCServe 6.5 for backing up a F230,256MB RAM, 4MB NVRAM on 100BaseT full duplex, Extreme S48 switch, running OnTap 5.2.1 Issues that have bitten us in the past are: a) It's slow. Backing up 24GB from the F230 using ARCServe 6.5 build 622 on a DELL PowerEdge 1300 PIII 450 with 256MB Ram and 15 slot Compaq DLT70 library (which is actually has a HP C5173-7000) I got 92.43 MB/min last night which is about average. Note that we have lots of small files (source code) The 24GB is made up of 315,913 files and 29,525 directories on a single volume so you may see better performance or worse depending on your mix. b) careful of share permissions. Make sure when setting up the Job that the username and password entered in the security dialog can connect to the filer. We use the pre & post script option in ARCServe to create and share a snapshot (& turn oplocks off, see below), backup from the share and then unshare the snapshot. 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! d) watch your network infrastructure. If you are dropping packets then you will see a major performance hit. Of course, the usual thing of ensuring that your duplex setting match on both filer and switch need to be taken care of. Note that the performance figures given at http://www.netapp.com/technology/level3/3052.html are for ARCServe IT 6.6, but I haven't heard of any other performance figures for 6.6 from filer users. Anyone out there using ARCServe IT 6.6 to backup a filer? Regards, GB > ---------- > From: Mohler, Anissa[SMTP:amohler@mail.bokf.com] > Sent: 29 July 1999 18:28 > To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: CIFS Remote Backup Options > > I am working on design of a backup system for our F740 filer (100G usable) > in a CIFS environment. At this time we have no plans on directly attaching > a > tape backup device to the filer. Our current enterprise backup solution is > ARCserve 6.5 (on NT). > > I have the White Paper on NT Backups and am wondering what is actually in > use in the field. Are there any gotcha's I need to watch out for? Any best > practices out there? > > Thanks! > > Anissa Mohler > amohler(a)mail.bokf.com > BOKf Network Services Group >

1 0

Restore problems.Please help !!!!
by Richard Burton 30 Jul '99

30 Jul '99

Anyone has any insights as to what I am doing wrong?I am trying to restore a single file from a 5 tape dump. The tape inserted in the beginning is the correct tape (tape 5).Should I get any message from restore saying that it liked my tape 5 and would now need the next tape ? Because I inserted tape 4 after 5 and got Wrong volume 2.Can anyone explain why it does not say wrong volume 5 but says wrong volume 1. Moreover why does it crap out on me with the 'Tape Block size should be 10240, not 64512' message ? Any help is greatly appreciated.The dump command I used is : dump 0uf urst0a,urst0a,urst0a,urst0a,rst0a /vol/vol0 bean> restore xvfD rst0a /vol/vol0/test/restore /users/john/lib/hit.c RESTORE: Dump date: Mon Jul 28 15:46:35 PDT 1999 RESTORE: Dumped from: the epoch RESTORE: Level 0 dump of /vol/vol0/ on bean:/vol/vol0/../snapshot_for_backup.5 RESTORE: Label: none RESTORE: Initialize symbol table. RESTORE: Extract directories from tape RESTORE: Warning: cannot create directory /vol/vol0/test/restore: File exists RESTORE: Make node /vol/vol0/test/restore RESTORE: Extract requested files RESTORE: You have not read any tapes yet. Please start with the last tape volume and work towards towards the first. RESTORE: Specify next tape volume #:5 RESTORE: Mount tape volume on bean RESTORE: Enter ``none'' if there are no more tapes RESTORE: otherwise enter tape name (default: rst0a) urst0a RESTORE: Wrong volume 1 RESTORE: Mount tape volume on bean RESTORE: Enter ``none'' if there are no more tapes RESTORE: otherwise enter tape name (default: urst0a) RESTORE: Wrong volume 2 RESTORE: Mount tape volume on bean RESTORE: Enter ``none'' if there are no more tapes RESTORE: otherwise enter tape name (default: urst0a) RESTORE: Wrong volume 3 RESTORE: Mount tape volume on bean RESTORE: Enter ``none'' if there are no more tapes RESTORE: otherwise enter tape name (default: urst0a) RESTORE: Wrong volume 4 RESTORE: Mount tape volume on bean RESTORE: Enter ``none'' if there are no more tapes RESTORE: otherwise enter tape name (default: urst0a) RESTORE: Tape Block size should be 10240, not 64512. RESTORE: Mount tape volume on bean RESTORE: Enter ``none'' if there are no more tapes RESTORE: otherwise enter tape name (default: urst0a) RESTORE: Tape Block size should be 10240, not 64512. RESTORE: Enter ``none'' if there are no more tapes RESTORE: otherwise enter tape name (default: urst0a) none RESTORE: No more tapes, recovery operation aborted bean>

2 1

Re: SnapMirror Very Slow
by alexei＠mindspring.net 29 Jul '99

29 Jul '99

Sam Schorr <sschorr(a)homestead.com> writes: > Actually, there is a very good reason to do both. Clustering only protects > filer head failures. If a volume on a filer loses 2 disks in 1 RAID group, > the volume built on that RAID group is useless and needs to be rebuilt upon > disk repair. So, by using SNAPMIRROR to "almost realtime" copy data to a > read-only volume on another filer, upon disk failure that volume can be made > "live" or the master volume. This is a strategy we are employing to fully > protect our users' data and insure the highest availability of that data. I am not arguing that doing both is not (potentially) good, but doing both on the same set of filers is troublesome. Individually, each solution addresses a set of problems, and each has its own set of problems. With CF (cluster failover), you get transparent (or close to) failover such that a client does not percieve a failure, just a pause. The cluster partner is then serving both sets of data (its own and that of its partner). If you do not size the filer correctly, you are going to be in trouble, especially if you loose a disk during failover. Snapshots are an additional overhead. With snapmirror, you have a copy of the data N minutes old (where N is a function based on the network latency, the size of the volume (clustermap overhead), size of the network pipe and ammount of deltas). In order to make that copy "live", you will need to update mount points across your clients in order to point at the now-read-write snapmirror volume on the other filer. So, doing snapmirror between cluster members is not a clear win. You are better off snapmirroring to a filer that is not part of the cluster. That way you can isolate your disaster backup copy from any potential problems the cluster might experience. Alex

1 0

RE: SnapMirror Very Slow
by Sam Schorr 29 Jul '99

29 Jul '99

Alexei, Actually, there is a very good reason to do both. Clustering only protects filer head failures. If a volume on a filer loses 2 disks in 1 RAID group, the volume built on that RAID group is useless and needs to be rebuilt upon disk repair. So, by using SNAPMIRROR to "almost realtime" copy data to a read-only volume on another filer, upon disk failure that volume can be made "live" or the master volume. This is a strategy we are employing to fully protect our users' data and insure the highest availability of that data. Regards, Sam -----Original Message----- From: alexei(a)mindspring.net [mailto:alexei@mindspring.net] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 1:48 PM To: dmidgett(a)about.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: SnapMirror Very Slow "David Midgett" <dmidgett(a)about.com> writes: > Has anyone experienced problems with the SnapMirror taking an excessively > long time to complete the transfer. We have two F760's in a cluster > configuration. The mirror is set to update every 15 minutes. There is not > that much data that is changing and the total volume is 107Gb with only 1Gb > used spanning 10 disks. The transfer takes hours for any change to be > replicated. The 'vol snapmirror status' command shows that it is > transferring. The network speed is not an issue. Also connected the two > NetApp's directly to each other with a cross cable. This does not speed it > up. Any insight? Hmm. I don't know if this should work as you describe. The normal overhead for the snapmirror includes moving a constant set of data plus the deltas. Once the initial (level 0) snapmirror finishes, how long do incrementals take? Have you tried with larger intervals? What network interface are you using to conenct the filers? snapmirroring between cluster partners does not seem like it would/should work completely. The whole point of clustering is to have access to both sets of data with a failure, so snapmirroring it between the cluster is an unneccessary step. What occurs when: - snapmirror source filer fails - cluster-failover kicks in - cf partner (snapmirror destination) takes over - snapmirror continues.... how? The filer talks to itself? Try breaking the cluster setup, then do the snapmirror again. See if the speed improves. Perhaps others have better ideas. HTH. Alex

1 0

SnapMirror Very Slow
by David Midgett 29 Jul '99

29 Jul '99

Has anyone experienced problems with the SnapMirror taking an excessively long time to complete the transfer. We have two F760's in a cluster configuration. The mirror is set to update every 15 minutes. There is not that much data that is changing and the total volume is 107Gb with only 1Gb used spanning 10 disks. The transfer takes hours for any change to be replicated. The 'vol snapmirror status' command shows that it is transferring. The network speed is not an issue. Also connected the two NetApp's directly to each other with a cross cable. This does not speed it up. Any insight?

3 3

RE: SnapMirror Very Slow
by Melvin, Grant 29 Jul '99

29 Jul '99

Hi Paul, > Well, have you tried contacting NetApp CS > and asked them to look at your setup? You > may have something different in your > environment or it could be you've uncovered a bug. David HAS contacted NetApp CS and Engineering is helping them troubleshoot the problem. Cheers, Grant

1 0

RE: SnapMirror Very Slow
by Norman, Paul 29 Jul '99

29 Jul '99

> -----Original Message----- > From: alexei(a)mindspring.net [mailto:alexei@mindspring.net] > Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 1:48 PM > To: dmidgett(a)about.com > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: SnapMirror Very Slow > > > "David Midgett" <dmidgett(a)about.com> writes: > > > Has anyone experienced problems with the SnapMirror taking > an excessively > > long time to complete the transfer. We have two F760's in a cluster > > configuration. The mirror is set to update every 15 > minutes. There is not > > that much data that is changing and the total volume is > 107Gb with only 1Gb > > used spanning 10 disks. The transfer takes hours for any > change to be > > replicated. The 'vol snapmirror status' command shows that it is > > transferring. The network speed is not an issue. Also > connected the two > > NetApp's directly to each other with a cross cable. This > does not speed it > > up. Any insight? > > > Hmm. I don't know if this should work as you describe. The > normal overhead > for the snapmirror includes moving a constant set of data > plus the deltas. Correct, overhead is 1/1024 of the volume size. In this case a little over 100MB. > > Once the initial (level 0) snapmirror finishes, how long do > incrementals take? > > Have you tried with larger intervals? The implication here being that an update that does not complete due to network being down or some such will just restart at the next scheduled update time. How are you determining that updates take a long time. Have you done snap list and seen how fast the snapshot names are incrementing. > > What network interface are you using to conenct the filers? > > snapmirroring between cluster partners does not seem like it > would/should > work completely. The whole point of clustering is to have access to > both sets of data with a failure, so snapmirroring it between > the cluster is an > unneccessary step. What occurs when: > > - snapmirror source filer fails > - cluster-failover kicks in > - cf partner (snapmirror destination) takes over > - snapmirror continues.... how? The filer talks to itself? Exactly! The filer is running a virtual machine that actually sends the update to the original physical machine. Actually not as crazy as it first sounds. In fact we do have customers that just have a single filer and want to mirror so that they have two copies of data. [Poof! The engineer in me takes over for the Marketing dweeb that's been talking til now] Alright, maybe we don't have anybody doing it, but we've talked about it with customers. :-) When we first set up customer demos of snapmirroring here in corporate, we did it on a cluster since that was the equipment we had in the demo room. I don't recall any special issues in using it on a cluster. It was hard to see the updates since we had a tiny volume, 30GB, and a direct gigabit connection. Every time we did a status it was idle. Trying to catch the 30MB in flight turned out to be impossible. A sysstat would show the update going once a minute. Looking at the snapshot names incrementing turned out to be the simplest way to see what was happening. > > Try breaking the cluster setup, then do the snapmirror again. > See if the > speed improves. This shouldn't be an issue. > > Perhaps others have better ideas. Well, have you tried contacting NetApp CS and asked them to look at your setup? You may have something different in your environment or it could be you've uncovered a bug. > > HTH. > > > Alex >

1 0

Re: SnapMirror Very Slow
by alexei＠mindspring.net 29 Jul '99

29 Jul '99

"David Midgett" <dmidgett(a)about.com> writes: > Has anyone experienced problems with the SnapMirror taking an excessively > long time to complete the transfer. We have two F760's in a cluster > configuration. The mirror is set to update every 15 minutes. There is not > that much data that is changing and the total volume is 107Gb with only 1Gb > used spanning 10 disks. The transfer takes hours for any change to be > replicated. The 'vol snapmirror status' command shows that it is > transferring. The network speed is not an issue. Also connected the two > NetApp's directly to each other with a cross cable. This does not speed it > up. Any insight? Hmm. I don't know if this should work as you describe. The normal overhead for the snapmirror includes moving a constant set of data plus the deltas. Once the initial (level 0) snapmirror finishes, how long do incrementals take? Have you tried with larger intervals? What network interface are you using to conenct the filers? snapmirroring between cluster partners does not seem like it would/should work completely. The whole point of clustering is to have access to both sets of data with a failure, so snapmirroring it between the cluster is an unneccessary step. What occurs when: - snapmirror source filer fails - cluster-failover kicks in - cf partner (snapmirror destination) takes over - snapmirror continues.... how? The filer talks to itself? Try breaking the cluster setup, then do the snapmirror again. See if the speed improves. Perhaps others have better ideas. HTH. Alex

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