toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

RE: Digital UNIX clients -- no non-root access
by Davis, John 27 Apr '99

27 Apr '99

I have a site here(CFO 5.2.1P2-F740) attached to a DEC running 4.0E via GigE that is using NFS & CIFS; save installing some DEC patches for their GigE card the system has been running fine.. -----Original Message----- From: Muhlestein, Mark [mailto:mark.muhlestein@netapp.com] Sent: Monday, April 26, 1999 7:49 PM To: 'sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com'; jgaski(a)WPI.EDU; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Digital UNIX clients -- no non-root access I'm not sure what your problem is, but I can verify that internally here at NetApp we use DU 4.0D (rev 878) extensively on several Alpha machines against multiple filers with no issues. We have also run with 4.0E. What version of the filer software are you running? Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com [mailto:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, April 26, 1999 6:39 PM To: jgaski(a)WPI.EDU; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Digital UNIX clients -- no non-root access On 04/26/99 21:11:27 you wrote: >I have an open call with Network Appliance, but they have said that >there must be something strange in Compaq's implementation of the NFS >client. The same error occurs on Digital UNIX 4.0D pl3, 4.0E pl1, and >5.0 beta. It occurs whether the mount is soft or hard, udp or tcp, >nfsv3 or nfsv2. > >It seems like such a large, ubiquitous error that I can't believe >noone would have seen it before. I thought that Digital UNIX support >was standard, and I can't imagine how all of our Alpha clients could >be non-standard in such a way. You'd be surprised. Lots of vendors have little quirks in their implementation that, while they happen to work okay with one server, are really out of spec and may not work with another. However, I know that Digital Unix *used* to work, but the last I ever saw personally work was 4.0C. So either they've changed something, or something in the new Netapp release fixed/broke something. Bruce

1 0

Re: Early Access Releases
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 27 Apr '99

27 Apr '99

On 04/26/99 17:11:16 you wrote: > So who tested cluster takeover/giveback during the "comprehensive > development and release procedure"...? Can they tell me what I'm > doing wrong? Was bug 14194 (Filer crashes during boot during > partner giveback) discovered during this testing and 5.3 was > released anyway? If so, I think you guys are carrying that MS > partnership a bit too far... > > Ok, maybe comparing you guys to MS was below the belt. I'll take > that back. But I'm still curious how 5.3 made it as far as it did? > I thought clustering was the hot new thing at NetApp. > > Did somebody decide a boot during giveback was ok for now? It's > not a problem until the partner s fixed or until your testing to > see that you got what you paid for. If this was the case, a "known > bugs list" would've been nice. I believe Netapp has said before publically that they do find bugs during testing that they don't fix by release time. This is not to say that they don't fix any, but that little bugs or big bugs that only appear under relatively rare circumstances won't be addressed until a later release. I've suggested before that Netapp publically reveal bugs that have only been discovered internally at Netapp, but I think their current policy is only to reveal bugs online that customers have encountered themselves. So it is possible they discovered the bug in advance and didn't think anyone (or perhaps very few) would encounter it. Or perhaps they didn't. They do have pretty big testing procedures for new software releases but I don't think they regression test every possible scenario. Bruce

2 1

Re: Digital UNIX clients -- no non-root access
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 27 Apr '99

27 Apr '99

On 04/26/99 21:11:27 you wrote: >I have an open call with Network Appliance, but they have said that >there must be something strange in Compaq's implementation of the NFS >client. The same error occurs on Digital UNIX 4.0D pl3, 4.0E pl1, and >5.0 beta. It occurs whether the mount is soft or hard, udp or tcp, >nfsv3 or nfsv2. > >It seems like such a large, ubiquitous error that I can't believe >noone would have seen it before. I thought that Digital UNIX support >was standard, and I can't imagine how all of our Alpha clients could >be non-standard in such a way. You'd be surprised. Lots of vendors have little quirks in their implementation that, while they happen to work okay with one server, are really out of spec and may not work with another. However, I know that Digital Unix *used* to work, but the last I ever saw personally work was 4.0C. So either they've changed something, or something in the new Netapp release fixed/broke something. Bruce

1 0

Digital UNIX clients -- no non-root access
by Joanna Gaski 27 Apr '99

27 Apr '99

We have recently obtained an F740. I have a problem when I attempt to export a shared area from the filer to any of our Digital UNIX clients. The problem is that on the alpha client, root can read and access files as normal, but if a normal user does even something as simple as a ls -lt /mnt an error message is produced: NFS3 RFS3_ACCESS failed for server toaster : RPC: Server can't decode arguments /mnt: I/O error The exports file has the share exported with -ro,access=hostname,root=hostname where hostname is a FQDN. I have an open call with Network Appliance, but they have said that there must be something strange in Compaq's implementation of the NFS client. The same error occurs on Digital UNIX 4.0D pl3, 4.0E pl1, and 5.0 beta. It occurs whether the mount is soft or hard, udp or tcp, nfsv3 or nfsv2. It seems like such a large, ubiquitous error that I can't believe noone would have seen it before. I thought that Digital UNIX support was standard, and I can't imagine how all of our Alpha clients could be non-standard in such a way. Any help or pointers are appreciated. Thanks. (BTW, I haven't yet dealt with the fact that when exporting from the filer to one of our ULTRIX boxes, a simple "ls -lt /mnt" by a non-root user results in the mount point changing to these permissions, and the share essentially disappearing. ---------- 0 root 0 Dec 31 1969 /mnt I'll get to that eyesore later.)

1 0

RE: Early Access Releases
by Melvin, Grant 26 Apr '99

26 Apr '99

Hi, The NDMP bug in Data ONTAP 5.3 affects BudTool users who are backing up to a tape drive local to the BudTool host. This is logged as defect BT 9476 at Legato (IntelliGuard) & NA 13442 at NetApp. The following BudTool certification page explains this: http://www.iguard.com/products/certmatrix.html This is resolved in 5.3D2. Sorry it affected your installation Jason. Cheers, Grant -----Original Message----- From: mgx(a)spruce.lsd.ornl.gov [mailto:mgx@spruce.lsd.ornl.gov] Sent: Monday, April 26, 1999 3:44 PM To: Shaun T. Erickson Cc: Jason D. Kelleher; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Early Access Releases oh no, now i'm starting to worry. i was told to go to 5.3 last thursday, i told the engineer that i was backing up two filers via NDMP he said no problem, go with 5.3. my first scheduled backup since upgrading is tonight. -- michael On Mon, Apr 26, Shaun T. Erickson wrote: > > I'm not confident they *have* an official stance. I opened a case on > Friday and was told I should upgrade to 5.3. I opened another case on > Saturday, and during the conversation mentioned I was told to go to 5.3. > This person said I shouldn't do that and that no one should have told me > to do so. > > How in the heck are we, as customers, supposed to believe anything they > say, if they can't even agree amongst themselves? > > -ste

1 0

Early Access Releases
by Jason D. Kelleher 26 Apr '99

26 Apr '99

Anyone know what NetApp's "official" stance is on Early Access Releases? Are they beta tested in the field before becomming Early Access? Is anyone who installs an Early Access Release a beta tester? Does NetApp beta test? Has anyone out there installed 5.3, 5.3D2 (fixes NDMP problems), or 5.3D7 (supposed to fix crash during giveback) on an F740 cluster and successfully done a takeover/giveback without at least one extra reboot (the system doing the giveback) and a core file? If so, were you using second level VIFs? If you were using second level VIFs, and it actually worked, did your messages file list network errors after takover that NetApp said were ok? I've been working with tech support for over a week now on these issues and my managers just turned up the heat on me. I'm hoping someone has an "it all worked after I did..." story. any help appreciated, jason

4 3

Undocumented commands
by Shaw, Kevin 26 Apr '99

26 Apr '99

Has anyone compiled a list of OnTap undocumented commands? If so, can I get a copy? Thanks in advance.

1 0

Re: Early Access Releases
by Jason D. Kelleher 26 Apr '99

26 Apr '99

In message <199904262120.RAA12822(a)trail.cimedia.com>, Ozzie Sabina writes: > >+-- "Jason D. Kelleher" <kelleher(a)susq.com> once said: >| Let me guess. You had it installed on a single filer and didn't >| use NDMP to back it up to a remote media server, right? I had >| problems with these immediately after installation of 5.3. > >We had it on two filers, and we primarily tested the Snap Mirror, >Secure Admin, Snap Restore, and the ntp support. Unfortunately we >don't use NDMP, so we didn't test that. Primarily, the beta group >tested what they were interested in testing, and I believe NetApp >looked for people who were interested in testing different things. Sorry, by "single" I meant non-cluster. The SNTP support is great (although why it comes up before the network interfaces is confusing). And support for VIF failover was the main reason I went to 5.3 -- very nifty. jason

1 0

Re: Early Access Releases
by Jason D. Kelleher 26 Apr '99

26 Apr '99

In message <3724D487.E0D244DF(a)research.bell-labs.com>, "Shaun T. Erickson" w rites: >"Jason D. Kelleher" wrote: >> >> Anyone know what NetApp's "official" stance is on Early Access >> Releases? > >I'm not confident they *have* an official stance. I opened a case on >Friday and was told I should upgrade to 5.3. I opened another case on >Saturday, and during the conversation mentioned I was told to go to 5.3. >This person said I shouldn't do that and that no one should have told me >to do so. > >How in the heck are we, as customers, supposed to believe anything they >say, if they can't even agree amongst themselves? Until NetApp slows down the pace of their releases, I think getting bug lists for each OS release is critical. At least then you can go over the list and decide whether or not upgrading will cause you more or less trouble. jason

1 0

Re: Early Access Releases
by Jason D. Kelleher 26 Apr '99

26 Apr '99

In message <7F608EC0BDE6D111B53A00805FA7F7DA0200F6CA(a)TAHOE.netapp.com>, "Bul fer, David" writes: >Check out http://now.netapp.com/misc/sw_release.shtml > >David So who tested cluster takeover/giveback during the "comprehensive development and release procedure"...? Can they tell me what I'm doing wrong? Was bug 14194 (Filer crashes during boot during partner giveback) discovered during this testing and 5.3 was released anyway? If so, I think you guys are carrying that MS partnership a bit too far... Ok, maybe comparing you guys to MS was below the belt. I'll take that back. But I'm still curious how 5.3 made it as far as it did? I thought clustering was the hot new thing at NetApp. Did somebody decide a boot during giveback was ok for now? It's not a problem until the partner s fixed or until your testing to see that you got what you paid for. If this was the case, a "known bugs list" would've been nice. disappointed, jason >-----Original Message----- >From: Jason D. Kelleher [mailto:kelleher@susq.com] >Sent: Monday, April 26, 1999 12:22 PM >To: toasters(a)mathworks.com >Subject: Early Access Releases > > > > Anyone know what NetApp's "official" stance is on Early Access > Releases? Are they beta tested in the field before becomming Early > Access? Is anyone who installs an Early Access Release a beta > tester? Does NetApp beta test? > > Has anyone out there installed 5.3, 5.3D2 (fixes NDMP problems), or > 5.3D7 (supposed to fix crash during giveback) on an F740 cluster > and successfully done a takeover/giveback without at least one > extra reboot (the system doing the giveback) and a core file? If > so, were you using second level VIFs? If you were using second > level VIFs, and it actually worked, did your messages file list > network errors after takover that NetApp said were ok? > > I've been working with tech support for over a week now on these > issues and my managers just turned up the heat on me. I'm hoping > someone has an "it all worked after I did..." story. > > any help appreciated, > > jason >

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