toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

Whats better: several narrow or one wide
by Richard L. Rhodes 05 Jun '99

05 Jun '99

Hi Ya'll, This is probably one of those questions for which there's no true correct answer, but I'm interested in peoples opinion. 1) In setting up a NetApp, is it better to use one big/wide connection (say gigabit ethernet) as opposed to a bunch of narrow connections (say, 4 100mbps ethernet in a etherchannel). (Note that for this discussion I'm ignoring the redundancy in a etherchannel.) 2) On a Unix system that will be doing heavy NFS work to a NetApp, is it better to use separate mounts on separate but smaller ethernet connections (100mbps ethernet), or, run all mounts through one wide ethernet connection (gigabit ethernet)? Specifically, I'm going to be setting up an Oracle DB on a NetApp. I'm looking at whether I would be better off using multiple 100mbps ethernets or one gigabit ethernet connection. Thanks in advance for all opinions!!!!!!!!! rick ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 f: 330-384-2514

2 2

Re: Whats better: several narrow or one wide
by Michael Salmon 04 Jun '99

04 Jun '99

+----- On Thu, 03 Jun 1999 13:44:32, "Richard L. Rhodes" writes: | Hi Ya'll, | | This is probably one of those questions for which there's no | true correct answer, but I'm interested in peoples opinion. | | 1) In setting up a NetApp, is it better to use one big/wide | connection (say gigabit ethernet) as opposed to a bunch of | narrow connections (say, 4 100mbps ethernet in a etherchannel). | (Note that for this discussion I'm ignoring the redundancy in | a etherchannel.) | | 2) On a Unix system that will be doing heavy NFS work to a NetApp, | is it better to use separate mounts on separate but smaller ethernet | connections (100mbps ethernet), or, run all mounts through one wide | ethernet connection (gigabit ethernet)? | | Specifically, I'm going to be setting up an Oracle DB on a NetApp. | I'm looking at whether I would be better off using multiple 100mbps | ethernets or one gigabit ethernet connection. In my experience using a single big whatever is best unless you know precisely what your are going to be doing with it. A single big whatever is much more flexible. Having said that though I am not sure that a single gigabit connection is going to give you more throughput that an ether-channel, your really comparing 2 sorts of big. The same thing applies on the Unix side, I would probably be more inclined towards ether-channel on both. One thing that I have found is that having large differences in the speed of your server and client nearly always causes problems. /Michael

1 0

RE: Restoring DOT 4.x tapes on 5.X?
by Melvin, Grant 04 Jun '99

04 Jun '99

Hi Benjy, We work very hard in the File System Recovery group to maintain both backwards & forwards compatibility with our dump format. We also strive to be compatible with Solaris ufsrestore. If you have any restore issues then we'd like to hear about them. The best mechanism for this is to open a call record with NetApp support. Cheers, Grant -----Original Message----- From: Benjy Feen [mailto:benjy@feen.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 1999 10:11 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Restoring DOT 4.x tapes on 5.X? On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Jason D. Kelleher wrote: > Haven't yet had the need. I have however restored files from > both DOT 4.X & 5.X with ufsrestore on a Solaris 2.6 system. Is there a recipe to do this, or did it "just work" for you? We've been unsuccessful thus far in doing restores to Solaris 2.6... -=- Benjy Feen benjy(a)feen.com http://www.feen.com Specialization is for insects. =-=

1 0

Re: Restoring DOT 4.x tapes on 5.X?
by Jason D. Kelleher 03 Jun '99

03 Jun '99

In message <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906030409500.22731-100000(a)lucien.blight.com>, Ben jy Feen writes: >Anyone ever successfully restored a tape created with DOT 4.X on a 5.X >toaster? Haven't yet had the need. I have however restored files from both DOT 4.X & 5.X with ufsrestore on a Solaris 2.6 system. jason

2 1

None
by Jim Sanford 03 Jun '99

03 Jun '99

I've just downloaded amanda in an effort to help me with a problem on an HP. First off, I'm impressed with the product. However, my particular problem is that HPUX wont recognize the norewind tape device for fbackup (it's local backup utility) altho tar likes it just fine. My question then is, how does amanda use the HP norewind device? Am I correct in presuming it just dumps tars/gtar to the device? How does it handle incrementals? If I did a find . -mtime -1 | tar ..... I'd pick up all the files created/modified within the last day but some of these files would have the same names (eg .dt/... files) altho they'd reside in different directories. Unless the path was hardcoded to each, they'd overwrite each other on the tape, right? And if they path is hardcoded, how could tey be restored to different directories? So is amanda just a client/server package layered onto gtar? Thanks ********************************* Jim Sanford IS Department Research Systems, Inc. *********************************

3 2

Restoring DOT 4.x tapes on 5.X?
by Benjy Feen 03 Jun '99

03 Jun '99

Anyone ever successfully restored a tape created with DOT 4.X on a 5.X toaster? -=- Benjy Feen benjy(a)feen.com http://www.feen.com Specialization is for insects. =-=

1 0

Re: CIFS
by Matt Day 03 Jun '99

03 Jun '99

>Is or has anyone experienced any problems getting cifs to run on the netapps ? > We have an F720 and >are having performance problems with our win95 users. Just transfering files > from a server drive to the >F720 is very slow. The other problem is that several programs wont run if the > files have multiple access, >such as access. We changed the cifs.oplocks.enable to off .... Can anyone > shed some light ? Hi Mark, Sounds to me like you're probably running into a known CIFS bug. What version of Data ONTAP are you running? I strongly recommend contacting Netapp support about getting a software upgrade. Matt

1 0

CIFS
by Mark D Fowle 03 Jun '99

03 Jun '99

Is or has anyone experienced any problems getting cifs to run on the netapps ? We have an F720 and are having performance problems with our win95 users. Just transfering files from a server drive to the F720 is very slow. The other problem is that several programs wont run if the files have multiple access, such as access. We changed the cifs.oplocks.enable to off .... Can anyone shed some light ? Mark Fowle

1 0

Will cluster failover occur with either 5.21 or 5.3 if NIC card fails?
by Mike Ball 03 Jun '99

03 Jun '99

Will a cluster failover occur if a NIC card fails in one of the clustered filers? I have not been able to find a answer from level 1 tech support at Netapp or from the NOW site? Thank you, Mike Ball

6 8

Implementing Progress on NetApp
by itzik meirson 02 Jun '99

02 Jun '99

I would appreciate if anyoune could provide some relevant information regarding implementation of Progress database on NetApp filers. Searching the NetApp web did not provide any hints or pointers. TIA Itzik -- Itzik (Itzhak) Meirson DSc. e-mail: Imeirson(a)xpert.com Systems & Storage Integration Specialist ph. (972) 3 618 1118 Xpert Integrated Systems mob. (972) 5 322 4777

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

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