toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13523 discussions

Netgroups
by Mohler, Jeff 22 Jul '99

22 Jul '99

Ive defined some large netgroups to save me some brain twisting in my /etc/exports file on my 760. /vol/volx access=Netgroup Should export to that volume all hosts in group Netgroup...yes? Its not likin what im typin.

2 1

RE: Non-NDMP backup solutions?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 22 Jul '99

22 Jul '99

On 07/20/99 15:48:35 you wrote: > Sorry to see that you've "switched away from NDMP", > since this is the strategic direction for backups > at Network Appliance. Network Appliance better figure out real quick that NDMP should remain solely *a* strategic direction for backups, not *the* strategic direction. Support for it is still in the early stages and a new standard could come along tomorrow that everyone will want to start using. Too much focus on NDMP will alienate customers and prevent important resources from being allocated to the support and software for other backup strategies, as has happened in the past. I don't mean to jump on your personally if you simply misspoke, Grant, but I think the point had to be made. Bruce

1 0

RE: Non-NDMP backup solutions?
by Benn, Paul 22 Jul '99

22 Jul '99

> Anyone know if the two DLT4000's in a Breece Hill Q7 can be replaced > with two DLT7000's? That would speed things up even further for me. I > suppose I'll have to give Breece Hill a call ... In a past life, I was able to upgrade two of our Q2-15's to DLT-7000. The drives came complete with drive trays making for a painless upgrade. Your reseller should be able to get the drives for you. You may have to get the part numbers form Breece Hill, though. Good Luck Paul Benn Network Appliance

1 0

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

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