toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

RE: Clustered Takeover Time
by Watanabe, Steven 21 Jul '99

21 Jul '99

The amount of time can be broken down into two components. First is the failure detection time, currently 60 seconds, which is the amount of time before one node declares the other one down. Secondly is the resource takeover time, the amount of time that it takes to bring the partner's resources online. These include disks, networking, replaying the logs, starting the services for the partner (e.g. cifs). This amount of time is variable based on the load of the node doing the takeover and the configurations/resources of the down node. We are working actively to decrease both of these times in a future release. Steve Watanabe NetApp Cluster Group > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffrey Skelton [mailto:jss@NET2PHONE.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 1:07 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Clustered Takeover Time > > > > If I have a clustered pair of 760s, how long does > it take for one to take over in the event of a > failure of the other? > > Thanks. > --jeff >

1 0

RE: Netapp hang and Security on NT2000b3
by Mohler, Jeff 21 Jul '99

21 Jul '99

Youre right David. I suppose that my experience with another software vendor that's wasted a year attempting development for a freeware *NIX..at the expense of fixing the current release software bled over. Ive NOT seen anything like that with NA or NC appliances -----Original Message----- From: Dave Hitz [mailto:hitz@netapp.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 10:27 AM To: Michael Salmon Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Netapp hang and Security on NT2000b3 > > > While/after playing around (setting) with the security features on the > > > just defined files and directories the netapp server will hang. > > > Only reboot of the sever will revive it. ... > > I would not expect NetApp to spend more than a _few_ man hours on this > > problem, while they continue to hammer out solid released for solid software > > platforms. > > > > While I agree it should not hang, theres no way to tell what NT2000 feature > > is not working properly. ... > I think that you missed the point Jeff, the W2K machine can halt and > catch fire for all I care but the filer should at worst have degraded > performance, regardless of the provocation. That's why we pay more for > filers than for an Alpha PC. There is an old saying in networking: Be conservative in what you send. Be liberal in what you receive. It is absolutely unacceptable for a filer to hang simply because someone sends it garbage data. It's true that W2K is till in Beta (alpha?), but we believe that we have done everything necessary to support W2K (if you are running a recent enough release), and we are very interested in hearing about problems that people have. Dave

1 0

None
by Kinney, Roger 21 Jul '99

21 Jul '99

unsubscribe toasters

1 0

F520 configure & upgrade questions
by Gordon Keegan 21 Jul '99

21 Jul '99

We've got a 520 with 2 shelves of 9GB drives that we'd like to add more drives to. I need to find out things like "do I have to add more shelves in pairs?" and "can 18GB drives and 9GB drives coexist in harmony" and some other related questions. Can someone point me to where on the NOW site I can find this out? Thanks in advance! -- Gordon Keegan, M10-10 Phone: (508) 261-4696 Motorola ING Fax: (508) 261-5757 20 Cabot Boulevard Mansfield, MA 02048 email: lgk011(a)dma.isg.mot.com

2 1

Jumbo Frames
by Richard L. Rhodes 21 Jul '99

21 Jul '99

<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>Hi Y'all, I just received my NetApp systems and started playing with them. So far so good. I did have one disappointment, the gigabit ethernet driver doesn't support jumbo frames. I had assumed from some of my reading in a NetApp press release that it did (my fault, I didn't ask and should have). I'm wondering if anyone might know if/when jumbo frame support might be comming. Thanks Rick <FontFamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>I<FontFamily><param>Courier New</param><smaller><smaller> <nofill> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 f: 330-384-2514

1 0

Re: Netapp hang and Security on NT2000b3
by Michael Salmon 21 Jul '99

21 Jul '99

+----- On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:20:21 CDT, "Mohler, Jeff" writes: | One of our customers is doing some evaluations of netapp. | While evaluating the new server he was using Windows(NT)2000. | He has defined some directories and files on the server from the NT. | While/after playing around (setting) with the security features on the | just defined files and directories the netapp server will hang. | Only reboot of the sever will revive it. | The customer claims he can recreate the problem at will. | Has anyone encountered such problems. | Do any of you have any words of wisdom? | The customer dos not like to accept the fact that win2000 is not yet | formally supported. he claims that win2000 talks CIFS, and even if MS is | doing wrong things at most the filer should complain but for sure not | hang... | --- | | Geesh..talk about a loose-loose situation. | | I would not expect NetApp to spend more than a _few_ man hours on this | problem, while they continue to hammer out solid released for solid software | platforms. | | While I agree it should not hang, theres no way to tell what NT2000 feature | is not working properly. | I think that you missed the point Jeff, the W2K machine can halt and catch fire for all I care but the filer should at worst have degraded performance, regardless of the provocation. That's why we pay more for filers than for an Alpha PC. /Michael

3 2

Netapp hang and Security on NT2000b3
by Itzik (Itzhak) Meirson DSc 20 Jul '99

20 Jul '99

One of our customers is doing some evaluations of netapp. While evaluating the new server he was using Windows(NT)2000. He has defined some directories and files on the server from the NT. While/after playing around (setting) with the security features on the just defined files and directories the netapp server will hang. Only reboot of the sever will revive it. The customer claims he can recreate the problem at will. Has anyone encountered such problems. Do any of you have any words of wisdom? The customer dos not like to accept the fact that win2000 is not yet formally supported. he claims that win2000 talks CIFS, and even if MS is doing wrong things at most the filer should complain but for sure not hang... Thanks Itzik

1 1

Upgrading F330 from 3.14 to 5.2.2P1
by Mike Ball 20 Jul '99

20 Jul '99

I am going to be upgrading a F330 filer from Data Ontap version 3.14 to 5.2.2P1. I know the firmware needs to be upgraded to version 1.9_i, memory to 128mg, and the NVRAM to 2mg. From talking to Network Appliance technical support, they stated it should not be a problem as long as the system is booted from the 5.2.2P1 boot disks and "booted without rc". Once I am booted up with 5.2.2P1 and exported the proper permissions to mount the filer as root, I will then be able to untar the 5.2.2P1 image over to the F330 and run download. What I am trying to find out is if anyone else has done a big a jump from a 3.x version of Ontap to a 5.x version of Ontap and if there where any problems you encountered. Thank you, Mike Ball

1 0

RE: Backup alternatives (again)
by Yu, David 20 Jul '99

20 Jul '99

Lewis: Please see below. David > -----Original Message----- > From: Sherbak, Tim > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 8:10 AM > To: Yu, David > Subject: FW: Backup alternatives (again) > > > Hi David, > I don't know as you monitor this dl- so thought I would pass it along. > Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lewis [mailto:lsa@netline.net.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 7:40 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Backup alternatives (again) > > > Hi everyone, > > This is a first time posting from someone new to NatApps, so > please bare with > me. I hve been subscribed to the list for a while and read > the archive to get > up to speed on passed discussions. > > I would appreciate it if list members could make suggestions > about what > alternative backup solutions are available and what kind of > (un)recommendations this group puts on these alternatives. > > This is a follow on from from previous discussions regarding > the use of > Budtool. I have taken over responsability for the backups as > Shiona Mceill > (former list contributer is on maternity leave). > > Due to our lack of success with the implementation of Budtool > and their recent > demise from the UK market, we have decided not to pursue this > solution. > > We have looked at Netbackup from Veritas. Any comments? Veritas introduced NDMP support for NetApp last year with 3.1.1 of NetBackup. NetBackup 3.2 is out now and adds support for NT, HP-UX, and AIX in addition to the Solaris support introduced with 3.1.1. Backups are to tape drives attached to the NetApp filer, and with 3.2, support for backup from Filer 1 to Filer 2's tape drive was implemented. Certification is done by Veritas, so support for some functionality may be staged. > > We are currently looking at Quick Restore from Workstation > Solutions. Any > comments? Workstation Solutions has been a very aggressive vendor and delivered a backup solution for NetApp very quickly. Backup to local tape drives, filer to filer backup (described above), and backup of Unix and NT server data to a filer's tape drive are all supported. Support is for DataONTAP 5.2 currently. A lot of different operating systems platforms are supported. For more details, please see: http://www.worksta.com/ > > As for platforms and configuration: We have 3+ F720 on 2 sites (ONTAP > 5.1.2R3). 3 suns running SunOS 5.7, ATL L500 Library (DTL > 7000 drive) and > potentially in the future a large number of linux boxes. > > NDMP has up until now been the preferred option as it seems > to be the way > forward with the NetApps. However, all that I have seen so > far indicates that > NDMP support in existing backup tools is a bit of a bolt > inclusion that does > not sit well with existing products or product architecture. Most of the NDMP solutions for NetApp utilize the dump/restore functionality in DataONTAP and the SCSI passthrough facility in NDMP for robotics control. While it's true that this fits in better with certain backup software architectures than others, remember that NDMP itself will still evolve. Over time, the standard will change and be extended to provide more flexibility and better support for various architectures. > > In order to configure the multiplatform network, dubious (built in) > workarounds have to be made to get the system to work. These > vary from > additional links being wired into the library (locally > attached to a NetApp), > so that the unix data can be backed-up, to dummy library > configuration for not > local (library) attachments to NetApps. > > All in all, any comments? Hopefully you will be able to tell > me that I don't > have a clue what I am on about and that it is all > straightforward. Somehow I > doubt this to be entirely the case, seeing the hoops we jumps > through with > budtool. > > here's hoping, > Lewis > > > > >

5 5

RE: Non-NDMP backup solutions?
by Benn, Paul 20 Jul '99

20 Jul '99

> So, having switched away from NDMP, for the above reasons, I have no > burning desire to switch back, and am looking for backup solutions that > do not require it. Although not the scope of this list, I need to back > up Sun Solaris, IRIX & NT systems, as well. > > What is there available? If you want to back up a CIFS enabled filer and maintain UNIX- as well as NT-style file permissions, you'll need to use an NT backup solution. A UNIX backup solution will not retain the NT-style file permissions. If you use Legato NetWorker (supports the above mentioned OS's) with a UNIX based NetWorker server, you'll need to "front end" the filer with an NT server loaded with the NetWorker client (detailed in the below mentioned document). It's rumored that UNC paths can be used with NetWorker v5.5 (instead of mapped drive letters as documented in the below mentioned white paper). This white paper might be somewhat helpful: http://www.netapp.com/technology/level3/3052.html Regards, Paul Benn Network Appliance

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