toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13515 discussions

Re: Running CIFS
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 17 May '99

17 May '99

On 05/05/99 15:53:45 you wrote: > >In message <7F608EC0BDE6D111B53A00805FA7F7DA03A83938(a)TAHOE.netapp.com>, "Muh >lestein, Mark" writes: >>A mixed qtree already works exactly as you want it to. In a mixed qtree the >>security of a file is based on the last security-setting operation. If an A >>CL is >>set which denies you access, but you still need to do something with a file, >>then as root you can change the security on any files/dirs in that qtree (using >>chmod, chown, or chgrp), which changes the security-style to UNIX. After that, > > Ok, so far I've read this alot. No maybe I'm missing something > 'cause I get the following errors trying to put it into practice. What errors? These are exactly correct. > Here's a test on a directory w/ NTFS permissions allowing only full > control to the owner: In other words, you've told NTFS that Administrator can't read the directory or change permissions. All Administrator can do is assume ownership. >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [130] # >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [130] # ls -ald test_dir >drwx------ 2 kelleher users 4096 May 5 14:47 test_dir >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [131] # >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [131] # ls -al test_dir >test_dir: Permission denied >total 8 This is correct; root on UNIX will map as Administrator in the NT realm, so it can't read the directory. >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [132] # >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [132] # chown 755 test_dir >chown: test_dir: Not owner Firstly, you should have done chmod, not chown. Secondly, this would be correct... Administrator (root) does not have permission to change the file permissions. >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [133] # >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [133] # chown root test_dir >chown: test_dir: Not owner >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [134] # This should have suceeded, if I understand the model correctly. I'm not sure why it didn't; perhaps it's a bug? > I can however su to the UNIX user, chmod it, and then get access to > the file: > >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [134] # su kelleher >jagular% >jagular% chmod 755 test_dir >jagular% >jagular% exit >jagular% root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [135] # >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [135] # ls -al test_dir >total 72 >drwxr-xr-x 2 kelleher users 4096 May 5 14:47 . >drwxr-xr-x 25 kelleher users 32768 May 5 15:25 .. >-rwx------ 1 kelleher users 0 May 5 14:47 test_file >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [136] # >root@jagular: fs0/home/kelleher [136] # > > Is this what you mean? This all makes sense. >>those files follow regular UNIX rules, which allows root full access. If the >>user wants to put an ACL back on afterwards, no problem. >> >>We have found that using ACLs in a mixed qtree can be helpful in a number of >>situations. That's because ACLs are enforced even for NT Admins and root. For >>example, we found that some files were being accidentally deleted by root/Admin >>users, so we put an ACL on those files which allows only READ access to all >>users. That prevents deleting, even by root or NT Admins. Of course, if we >>actually want to delete the files we just change the permissions to allow that, >>since in a mixed qtree both root and NT Admins have a special dispensation >>tochange the permissions. > > Sounds like the problem is too many people with root/Admin access. > Your solution only requires these people to take an extra step > (give themselves the permissions) before they accidentally mess > something up. If I were you I'd work on getting rid of their > access. (Not that it's an easy thing to do.) In my experience many people are unwilling to take this approach, for reasons I can't quite fathom. They would much rather let incompetent people continue to work for them and spend effort trying to keep them from shooting themselves in the foot rather than spending the time to make them competent and/or getting another employee. Bruce

2 1

ISP_2100: cmd opcode 0x28, retry count 0: command timeout, aborting request error
by Mike Ball 17 May '99

17 May '99

Can anyone shed some light on the error below? It looks like it is just a media error which was recovered from, but I wanted verification. Thank you, Mike Wed May 12 00:13:03 EDT [isp2100_timeout]: 8.45 (cmd opcode 0x28, retry count 0): command timeout, aborting request Wed May 12 00:13:03 EDT [isp2100_timeout]: isp2100_reset_device: device 8.45 (1.45)

1 0

determining patch revision level..
by Kane, Kevin 17 May '99

17 May '99

Can anyone tell me how to determine the patch level of the OS? Does a response of 5.2.1 from the "version" command mean that I have generic 5.2.1 with no P releases? TIA Kevin A. Kane Manager - Engineering Computing Infrastructure Aspect Telecommunications Direct: 978 250-7933 Business Fax: 978 250-7998 Pager: 888 799-4866 Home: 978 388-1875 Mobile: 508 783-2695 Email: Kevin.Kane(a)aspect.com Pager Email: Kevin.Kane.Pager(a)aspect.com

4 3

Re: determining patch revision level..
by Robert Palermo 17 May '99

17 May '99

Yes you are running the generic 5.2.1 as it were. If you had a patch release the console command "version" would report 5.2.1P2 for example. There are other trailing characters such as D8 and such but the system should report the actual patch version if you are running it. > From: "Kane, Kevin" <Kevin.Kane(a)Aspect.com> > To: "'toasters(a)mathworks.com'" <toasters(a)mathworks.com> > Subject: determining patch revision level.. > Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 12:51:18 -0400 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > Can anyone tell me how to determine the patch level of the OS? Does a > response of 5.2.1 from the "version" command mean that I have generic 5.2.1 > with no P releases? > > TIA > > Kevin A. Kane > Manager - Engineering Computing Infrastructure > Aspect Telecommunications > Direct: 978 250-7933 > Business Fax: 978 250-7998 > Pager: 888 799-4866 > Home: 978 388-1875 > Mobile: 508 783-2695 > Email: Kevin.Kane(a)aspect.com > Pager Email: Kevin.Kane.Pager(a)aspect.com > >

1 0

Re: Ontap P* relase mess.
by Jason D. Kelleher 17 May '99

17 May '99

In message <Pine.BSF.3.96.990506145048.2243D-100000@localhost>, kg writes: > >So it looks like I'm going to have to downgrade to 5.2.1P2 from 5.2.2 to >avoid panics from assertions in the netbios name service.. Patches for >5.2.2 are somewhere in the indeterminate future.. (all of this for bug >12712, which for some reason isn't listed in Bugs Online) > >This brings up one of the points that Tom (?) was ranting on a week or so >ago.. Why release 5.2.2, a minor bug-patch revision, that don't >incorporate patches from its predecessor? > >Perhaps I shoud've called support first, but I just brought these 760's >online with 5.2.2, under the apparently false impression that I was >getting all the up-to-date fixes.. Was there an erratta for 5.2.2 that I >missed that said "THE FOLLOWING IS STILL BROKEN:"? > >argh. > >..kg.. Sounds like another vote for a concise "Known Bugs" list for each ONTAP rev... jason

1 0

Re: Network Appliance makes the news...
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 17 May '99

17 May '99

On 05/14/99 23:13:56 you wrote: > >On Fri, May 14, 1999 at 10:28:43PM +0000, Richard L. Rhodes wrote: >> Our EMC sales rep sent this to me. Any thoughts or comments, >> on what might have happened? >> >Sure. I know exactly what happened. > >Your EMC rep peed his pants when he saw a competitor having trouble >in public, and made sure you were aware of it. Pretty typical of EMC >reps, AFAICT. They also went and posted it on the NTAP Yahoo message board. 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. However, the description of events (moving mailboxes) may or may not support this. It's hard to rely on such technical details in a media report. It's not clear whether or not data was actually lost. It's also possible that the had a crash due to a bug and this left the filesystem is an inconsitent state and/or a state that caused repeated crashes. In both this and the double-disk failure case, they would have to run wack to make sure the filesystem was okay before returning it to service. This sounds like the "cleaning" they are talking about. 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. There doesn't seem to be much of a story here. Bruce

3 2

Network Appliance makes the news...
by Richard L. Rhodes 15 May '99

15 May '99

Our EMC sales rep sent this to me. Any thoughts or comments, on what might have happened? THanks rick ======================================================================== Failure hits Critical Path email By John Borland <mailto:jborland@cnet.com> Staff Writer, CNET News.com May 11, 1999, 6:05 p.m. PT An equipment failure at email outsourcing company Critical Path has kept potentially tens of thousands of email and Web hosting customers out of their mailboxes since yesterday morning. San Francisco-based Critical Path <http://www.cp.net>, which provides Web-based email services for companies such as America Online <http://www.aol.com>, US West <http://www.uswest.com>, and Sprint <http://www.sprint.com>, said one of its three core mail storage devices failed yesterday morning. The company would not comment on how many customers or email addresses were left inaccessible. One of the company's clients, Verio.com's <http://www.verio.com> TABNet Web hosting subsidiary, has between 15,000 and 20,000 customers, most of which rely on the Critical Path systems, a Verio spokesman said. According to Critical Path, the outage was sparked by the failure of a Network Appliance mail storage system. All the mailboxes affected were moved to another machine, but the data on the failed machine had to be "cleaned" before service could be restored, a spokeswoman said. Network Appliance is doing the equipment repair and data recovery work, and the companies hope to have the mailboxes back online by 10 p.m. today, the spokeswoman said. Critical Path said any email sent to one of the affected addresses is being kept in storage and will be delivered to the unavailable mailboxes as soon as service is restored. In an apparently unrelated outage, many Netcom ISP subscribers also found themselves without access to email beginning early yesterday. The company, which was recently acquired by MindSpring <http://www.mindspring.com>, said that one of its mail servers failed, largely affecting customers with last names beginning with "D," according to MindSpring spokesman Ed Hansen. Other customers also were stuck with slower or temporarily unavailable service as the volume of mail traffic outpaced Netcom's remaining server capacity, he added. The company said it expects to have service restored by the end of the business day today, Hansen said. Customers with affected mailboxes will likely see a deluge of mail, followed by a slower trickle of backlogged messages as they are re-created from the failed server, he added. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 f: 330-384-2514

2 1

Re: 100% Cpu using quotas under 5.x
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 14 May '99

14 May '99

On 05/14/99 01:10:13 you wrote: > It's the [de0|de1|hipri|lopri]-bit that puzzles me a bit - > can anyone explain ? I can't address your general problem (as you've said in another post, it appears to be SNMP-related) but as to this I've been told that this is just the particular thread the software happened to be in when the quota was to be exceeded. Seeing this in the wafl layers makes sense; I'm not exactly sure how this can occur in the network (de) modules but I've seen it before and been told there's no problem here. I agree, it is a little confusing, but I suppose it's better than not getting the information at all. :) Bruce

2 1

Stale NFS errors
by Jay Orr 14 May '99

14 May '99

HI I'm sure this is a frequently asked question, but I'm stumped... Running an F330 (4.2a) on some sun 2.5.1 systems. /var/adm/messages gives : May 12 23:51:52 cleats unix: NFS write error on host hardrock: Stale NFS file handle. May 12 23:51:52 cleats unix: (file handle: 939e1400 577cd30c 0 856f1000 49ee7326 0 2ae0500 51356400) May 13 00:07:24 cleats unix: NFS write error on host hardrock: Stale NFS file handle. May 13 00:07:24 cleats unix: (file handle: 939e1400 577cd30c 0 816f1000 3fda490e 0 2ae0500 51356400) May 13 03:13:35 birdland unix: NFS write error on host hardrock: Stale NFS file handle. May 13 03:13:35 birdland unix: (file handle: 939e1400 577cd30c 0 856f1000 d1f07326 0 2ae0500 51356400) May 13 03:24:07 therat unix: NFS write error on host hardrock: Stale NFS file handle. May 13 03:24:07 therat unix: (file handle: 939e1400 577cd30c 0 866f1000 9b927326 0 2ae0500 51356400) May 13 11:38:28 mcbutts unix: NFS write error on host hardrock: Stale NFS file handle. May 13 11:38:28 mcbutts unix: (file handle: 939e1400 577cd30c 0 866f1000 df967326 0 2ae0500 51356400) Now, I'm trying to figure out WHAT file(s) are doing this. I've read NetApps "Troubleshooting NFS Stale File Handles on Sun Clients (Series of FAQs)" doc, and SunWorld's "Errno Libretto" which discuss tracing these things, but nothing is what it should be. **1) "use showfh". That's not in 2.5.1. I got a copy of fhfind, but that doesn't work either. 1a) First, it looks in /etc/mnttab for the device id to decide where to search. NO DEVICE ID MATCHES!!!! 1b) it uses the 4th number for the inode number. WRONG -- that translates into a 10 digit INODE number. All the inode numbers are 5-7 digits. **2) NetApp's doc states that the second number is the device number of the file system, and the third number is the inode number. NO, the 3rd number is "0". My guess is that the filer uses a 64bit INODE number, while solaris is using a 32bit inode. How can I figure out what is going on?? ----------- Fujitsu - Nexion, St. Louis, MO Jay Orr (314) 579-6517

3 8

RE: Multiple subnets, NT and Netapp
by Mankovsky, Mike 14 May '99

14 May '99

Give this a try this. Use -wins option with the ifconfig command on filer to suppers the registration of both filer IP addresses with WINS. Use OPTIONS CIFS.NETBIOS_ALIASES to add a second netbios name for each filer that corresponds to the filer's second NIC. Add a static entry to WINS that maps the first netbios name to the ip address of the first NIC. Do not make this a multihomed entry. Add a second static entry to WINS that maps the netbios alias name to the ip address of the second NIC. Do not make this a multihomed entry. >From the IIS machine use UNC path to connect to the filer's alias name. Mike Mankovsky Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Sam Schorr [mailto:sschorr@homestead.com] Sent: Friday, May 14, 1999 8:47 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Multiple subnets, NT and Netapp Folks, I hoping someone out there can help us understand how we can setup a network "backchannel" in an NT domain environment. Here's the situation: One NT domain that has approximately 20 servers in it. Of those, 8 are IIS servers. The HTML content, dynamically created and accessed by anonymous web users, is stored on 2 F740's. Right now, all the servers, domain controllers, SQL servers, and the filers are on one subnet. The filers are accessed by dlls on the IIS systems using UNC - \\filername\dir1\dir2\websitename. The filername part of that path conforms to the hostname given the filer in the NT domain; the websitename part if dynamically created when the anonymous web user creates a web site. What I want to do is have the filers connect to the IIS systems, and only the IIS systems, on a second subnet to maximize bandwidth and isolate the file access traffic from other traffic. However, I cannot seem to get around the fact that NT wants to take the UNC pathing and do a name resolution through WINS; and WINS does not like 2 network addresses for the same host. NT does not seem to handle the idea that allows name resolution by NIC, something easy to setup on the filer and in UNIX. When we have tried this, the IIS systems seem to ignore lmhost files where we have put the second filer NIC name and address, routes a call to WINS, then finally seems to find the second subnet when WINS fails to. We have tried putting the IP address of the second NIC in the UNC call, but NT treats it as a string, so no go. BTW, the IIS servers do have a second NIC card on the backchannel switch that we connect the second filer NIC to. Help? Sam Schorr Homestead Technologies ph: (650) 549-3152 fax: (650) 364-7329 sschorr(a)homestead.com Don't just build a home page...build a Homestead!! http://www.homestead.com

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