toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

Start a nNew thread

Please disregard my last message
by Brian Meek 21 May '99

21 May '99

I have to many aliases in my address book that start with Net...

1 0

Re: ndmpcopy
by Jason D. Kelleher 21 May '99

21 May '99

Hmmm... Looks like part of your message got garbled. I'll have to put on my Postmaster hat later and look into that... >ac220 is the 220, nac330 is the 330 and nac330-bak is the private 100mb >network connection between the two. > >Here is my command: > >ndmpcopy nac220:/vol/vol0/testdir nac330:/vol/vol0/testdir -sa root:pass >-da root:pass -d nac330-bak I'd guess that the NetApp's aren't routing over the private connection. Try specifying the interfaces in the ndmpcopy command, like this: ndmpcopy nac220-bak:/vol/vol0/testdir nac330-bak:/vol/vol0/testdir -sa root:pass -da root:pass I'm not sure what the -d you're using is for, but I've used ndmpcopy to move ~6GB/hr over a 100mb-full connection from an F330 to an F740. >One other piece of info--the 220 is used to store Netnews data. When >I am testing I have not turned news off, so the data is continually >changing. When I do the actual transfer news will be turned off. But No it's not. The ndmpcopy is doing a dump on the source filer, so the data is comming out of a snapshot. >I can't turn it off for my testing. > >1. Is my ndmpcopy command correct? > Looks good to me, just explicitly state the interfaces you wish to use. >2. Is it abysmally slow because the news is still up? Don't know. How loaded is the filer? jason

2 1

dump to tape collisions?
by Joanna Gaski 20 May '99

20 May '99

During some testing I found that when a dump is already in progress to our filer's local tape library (one drive), another dump can be run. (Okay, so I as at home and thought that the previous dump would have finished.) Both dumps were apparently running, thinking that they were successfully writing to the same tape. An mt status command run during this period showed that the drive was ready, but checking the status several times showed that writing was occurring (block numbers were changing). Also, the fileno number increased several more times than it should have. The behaviour I would expect is that is a dump is already running, another attempt to dump to the tape would result in a device busy message. Did I witness one dump clobbering another? The filer is an F740, the library is a Qualstar 6110, and Data OnTap is version 5.2.1. Thanks for any insight.

2 1

Script to see which machines have open sockets to Fantomas
by Brian Meek 20 May '99

20 May '99

It also prints how many sockets each machine has open. This is handy to find out which frontlines are running new or old DispatchWeb code. netstat |grep 54321|awk '{print $5}'|awk -F. '{print $1}'|sort|uniq -c

1 0

native file locking
by Jason Middlebrooks 20 May '99

20 May '99

Is there a way to turn on Native File Locking on the netapp filers or is all the locking simply rely on the how the clients lock the files? Thanks, Jason

2 1

ndmpcopy slower than tar, huh?
by Lisa Malgeri 19 May '99

19 May '99

Hello, I am moving 20 GB of data from a 220 to a 330. A support engineer at Network Appliance suggested using ndmpcopy. I acquired this software and compiled it on a Solaris 2.5.1 machine and am now testing. I have a 190 MB directory that I copied from the 220 to the 330 in 9 minutes using GNU tar over the public 10mbs network. I then tried to copy the same data using ndmpcopy. It took 1 hour 6 minutes! I set up a direct ethernet connection between the two filers running at 100mbs full duplex. From a Solaris 2.6 workstation on the public network I kicked off the ndmpcopy. nac220 is the 220, nac330 is the 330 and nac330-bak is the private 100mb network connection between the two. Here is my command: ndmpcopy nac220:/vol/vol0/testdir nac330:/vol/vol0/testdir -sa root:pass -da root:pass -d nac330-bak One other piece of info--the 220 is used to store Netnews data. When I am testing I have not turned news off, so the data is continually changing. When I do the actual transfer news will be turned off. But I can't turn it off for my testing. 1. Is my ndmpcopy command correct? 2. Is it abysmally slow because the news is still up? Thanks for any help. Lisa Malgeri

1 0

None
by Kinney, Roger 19 May '99

19 May '99

unsubscribe toasters roger.kinney(a)netapp.com

1 0

None
by dtm＠blue.hex.net 19 May '99

19 May '99

unsubscribe toasters dtm(a)hex.net

1 0

Re: Network Appliance makes the news...
by Andrew Hobson 18 May '99

18 May '99

On Mon, 17 May 1999 20:48:23 -0400, Jay Soffian <jay(a)cimedia.com> said: > Maybe we're just not a big enough NetApp customer. We have an F540, > and F630 and an F740. None of them have ever given us the least bit > of trouble. We do have a goodly number of Netapps, but I suspect we have a different mix of NFS ops. Maybe our bugs are in a different part of the code. :-) Of course, I'm more Netapps means more hardware, and more opportunity for foulups, but we've received cards that were bent so badly we couldn't put them in. The box didn't appear damaged at all. Drew

2 1

Re: Network Appliance makes the news...
by Jim McCoy 18 May '99

18 May '99

sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com writes: >As to what happened, the most *likely* scenario for any signficant >downtime of the Netapp is double disk failure. That is, one disk >failed, and during reconstruction they lost another. I beg to differ. YahooMail has had significant problems with all sorts of unpleasant little bugs which has led to downtime for the system and in two cases actual data loss. Since the beginning of this year we have apparently run into every possible failure mode of these systems, except for a dual disk failure, and I can assure you that there are all sorts of reasons that an event like this could occur. Reading the tea leaves on this one I would guess that they also run into bug 1549 and were forced to run a wack on a filer (props to John E. for the fast wack, if it were not for that single improvement I can assure everyone at NetApp reading this that Yahoo would be using EMC boxes right now...) >If they were running a cluster, most likely there would have been >no interruption in service. You get what you pay for. I'm sure >their Apache (or whatever) web servers have crashed more than their >filers have. How I wish we would get what we paid for... We run a hacked version of Apache and have probably had a total of 30 minutes of system downtime due to this Apache problems this year (mostly due to a memory leak I think that we introduced into our version.) Contrast that with a total of 36 hours of system downtime since January due to filer failures. If NetApp expects us to pay twice as much per MB of storage and run a cluster then they are going to start getting into the realm where an EMC box begins to look like a better deal, and when it comes to system reliability NetApp still has a long way to go to reach the sort of reputation that EMC has in the industry. NetApp had a very serious problem with quality control on hardware and QA within the engineering department was so useless as to be non-existent. We have been given assurances that this specific problem as been recognized and is being addressed. Only time will tell. >There doesn't seem to be much of a story here. But there is a story here, and one which needs to be addressed. NetApp charges a large premium over the raw costs of the disks and hardware to hook them together compared to what I could rig up with a PC and a few raid controllers, as a customer I would like to know that I am getting some value for this addtional cost. When that "value-add" proves to be a mirage I think that I have a justifiable reason to be pissed off. Critical Path was just the first customer to admit that NetApp was the source of the downtime, the prompt attention we have received from NetApp (even when there was nothing they could do) is the only thing which prevented Yahoo from being the first one to attribute responsibility for system downtime to NetApp in a press release. jim mccoy Yahoo! Inc.

5 4

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