toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

Re: F540 F520...
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 05 May '99

05 May '99

On 05/04/99 23:43:32 you wrote: >Hmmmm, I have an F540 filer. I'm sure it's a 540. Positive. Says 540 on >it somewhere. I'm sure. > >No such thing as a 540 on www.netapp.com. There's a 520, which looks >pretty darn similar. Can I just s/540/520/g, and be a happy camper? Note to Netapp - All filer models, no matter how old, should still have information accessible off the web site. The price of keeping this information on there is minimal. By not keeping this information someone is just going to wind up doing it third-party with some sort of filer FAQ. Note to Jaye - If you actually have a older file model like the F540, you will need access to more than just general information. Most of the technical details *should*, in an ideal world, be available off now.netapp.com. Have you tried looking there? Bruce

2 1

Re: NetApp Warranty
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 05 May '99

05 May '99

On 05/05/99 09:27:28 you wrote: > ><color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>My Sales rep is saying that a netapp comes with a 3 months hdwr warranty - >that I need to purchase 9mo hdwr support in the first year. Netapp's web >site says the following: > > > "NetApp's hardware warranty program provides customers with free 24x7 > telephone support for one year from the date of purchase along with same > day shipment of replacement parts." > >This sounds like a 1yr warranty. No, it sounds like you get free phone support for 1 year, and if you need a replacement part, they'll ship it same day. However, whether or not you have to pay for that replacement part depends on your hardware warranty. Your Sales rep is saying you've only got 3 months; you need to purchase more if you want more. If you don't, that doesn't mean your 1 year free support is worthless. You can still call them and get help with software issues, or even determine if the problem is in the hardware. They just won't replace it for you for free. Bruce

2 1

Anybody have any comment on this article, as relating to FCAL reliability?
by Jaye Mathisen 05 May '99

05 May '99

(Long night tonight waiting on formatting RAID array.s :() I do not have an FC-AL arrays at this time, although I know it is something that is rolling out. The comments on reliability concern me a bit, at least for me, my NetApps have been "plug" and go. No muss, no fuss. http://www.performance-computing.com/features/9903sra.shtml Just curious if people are having trouble with their FC-Al disks on their Netapps...

2 1

NetApp Warranty
by Richard L. Rhodes 05 May '99

05 May '99

<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>My Sales rep is saying that a netapp comes with a 3 months hdwr warranty - that I need to purchase 9mo hdwr support in the first year. Netapp's web site says the following: "NetApp's hardware warranty program provides customers with free 24x7 telephone support for one year from the date of purchase along with same day shipment of replacement parts." This sounds like a 1yr warranty. Question: Just what is NetApp's hdwr warranty? Thanks rick <nofill> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 f: 330-384-2514

2 1

Running CIFS
by Mark D Fowle 05 May '99

05 May '99

I am trying to set up a mixed environment on 2 720's. I have created a test share and a usermap.cfg file that has domain\user unix-user mapped out. My problem is that only 2 our 7 people can get access to the share. What else might I be missing? Mark Fowle Caterpillar - BCP fowelmd(a)cat.net

1 0

Re: Anybody have any comment on this article, as relating to FCAL reliability?
by Jason D. Kelleher 05 May '99

05 May '99

In message <Pine.BSF.4.10.9905050123350.249-100000(a)schizo.cdsnet.net>, Jaye Mathisen writes: > >(Long night tonight waiting on formatting RAID array.s :() > > > >I do not have an FC-AL arrays at this time, although I know it >is something that is rolling out. > >The comments on reliability concern me a bit, at least for me, my NetApps >have been "plug" and go. > >No muss, no fuss. > >http://www.performance-computing.com/features/9903sra.shtml > >Just curious if people are having trouble with their FC-Al disks on their >Netapps... No trouble so far (only had 'em since Feb). It's nice not having to run "disk swap". Just pull a bad drive out and slide in a replacement. Much better than the SCSI shelves. jason

1 0

Re: F540 F520...
by mds＠gbnet.net 05 May '99

05 May '99

On Tue 4 May, 1999, Jaye Mathisen <mrcpu(a)internetcds.com> wrote: > Hmmmm, I have an F540 filer. I'm sure it's a 540. Positive. Says 540 on > it somewhere. I'm sure. > > No such thing as a 540 on www.netapp.com. There's a 520, which looks > pretty darn similar. Can I just s/540/520/g, and be a happy camper? >-- End of excerpt from Jaye Mathisen Not quite. But almost. We've got an F540 and an F520 here, the differences are slight but significant. The F520 uses FW/SE while the F540 shipped with FW/D SCSI interfaces. A few bits of the F520's are more recent than the F540 - NVRAM cards for example. Plus the F540 was rated as a FOADBMF (a big machine) at launch and NetApp revised down what customers could expect from it, and relaunched it as the F520 in the shadow of the F630 which was the new FOADBMF in town until the F760 came on the scene. 8)

1 0

F540 F520...
by Jaye Mathisen 05 May '99

05 May '99

Hmmmm, I have an F540 filer. I'm sure it's a 540. Positive. Says 540 on it somewhere. I'm sure. No such thing as a 540 on www.netapp.com. There's a 520, which looks pretty darn similar. Can I just s/540/520/g, and be a happy camper?

2 1

Judging Netapp Performance
by Richard L. Rhodes 05 May '99

05 May '99

On my "normal" unix systems with local disk drives, I get a rough idea about the disk subsystems performance from the (on aix) iostat wait-for-io percent and individual disk drive statistics. Question: How do you judge the performance of a NFS filesystem, and a NetApp server in particular? THanks rick ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 f: 330-384-2514

1 0

adding second LRC to FC7 FC-AL shelves
by Jay Soffian 04 May '99

04 May '99

[ I may have already sent this message a couple weeks ago, but I can't ] [ find it anywhere in my mail archives. And I was wondering why I didn't ] [ get any replies. :) ] Can someone from Netapp give me the run down on upgrading FC-AL shelves for clustering. I've heard conflicting information. We have three FC-AL FC7 shelves that only have a single LRC card in them. I know that for clustering, the shelves will need an additional LRC card (for the second FC-AL loop). It is not clear to me what is involved in adding the LRC card. I don't see this documented in the cluster conversion guide nor in the shelf hardware guide. I have heard that this is a field procedure that Netapp needs to perform and that after it is done, the shelves need to be calibrated. I heard the down time for all of this is supposed to be several hours. The downtime is not a problem as we plan to move the disks from these shelves into a new set of FC7 shelves we are getting that will have two LRCs from the outset. I sent a message to toasters about this a few weeks ago. I'd like to get an idea of exactly what is involved. Thanks. j. -- Jay Soffian <jay(a)cimedia.com> UNIX Systems Administrator 404.572.1941 Cox Interactive Media

3 2

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