toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

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

RE: Early Access Releases
by Bulfer, David 26 Apr '99

26 Apr '99

Check out http://now.netapp.com/misc/sw_release.shtml David -----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

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

26 Apr '99

In message <199904262027.QAA12462(a)trail.cimedia.com>, Ozzie Sabina writes: > >+-- "Jason D. Kelleher" <kelleher(a)susq.com> once said: >| 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? > >I don't know about "official" stances, since I don't work for NetApp, >but I was involved in the beta testing on the 5.3 release prior to the >EA release (for ~2 months). So, yes, they do beta testing, but I >think it's fairly limited. Hmmm.... 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. Anyway, it's good to know there was beta testing. That answers a question full of expletives I was asked by my manager on Friday. :) thanks for the info, jason

2 1

Re: size of NFS ops counters (was RE: Console Break (was Y2K...))
by Jason D. Kelleher 26 Apr '99

26 Apr '99

In message <7F608EC0BDE6D111B53A00805FA7F7DA026FB274(a)TAHOE.netapp.com>, "Hac kworth, Brian" writes: >: From: Ketil Kirkerud Elgethun [mailto:ketilk@a.sol.no] > >: NetApp needs to do something about the "total nfs ops counter" - it's >: rolled 15 times since the last reboot - nfsstat -l gives some really >: interesting output : >: >: [output snipped] >: 195.225.3.37 www2.sol.no NFSOPS = 1385724634 (4294966978%) > >For the next major release of ONTAP, we'll be increasing the size >of many of the internal counters, including the NFSOPS counters, >to 64 bits. This should help for a while. ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ That's what I call confidence. jason

1 0

Re: Y2K: Any one rolled a filer forward & backwards? (&courses)
by mds＠gbnet.net 26 Apr '99

26 Apr '99

On Wed 21 Apr, 1999, beepy(a)netapp.com (Brian Pawlowski) wrote: > I truly apologize for this. > > This is a weird one. This is not a "feature" of our box, it was > something I put in that exploits capabilities of the PROM > (OpenFirmware) to allow floppy boot like processing at boot time. > > You see, in development engineering, we used to have a special build > kernels that allow booting off hard disk, but still going through the > "floppy boot menu", and profiled kernels for performance analysis... > > I, being extremely bored watching linking kernels, made it dynamically > configurable... I was playing many games quickly when I hung out > alone in a small perf lab. > > It was not meant for field use... But obviously you guys are using > it... Strikes me that if you're finding it useful then it's not a million-to-one shot that it'll be useful to customers too, albeit in a slightly different way. > > Let me check, and see if there is not yet an open RFE on this. I will > submit one, asking for enable/disable of PROM environment variables > from running system... > > Ouch. > > In one sense, I regret adding these features - since it is truly a > break from the design of a simple box (the original design was that a > floppy was required to access maintenance menu - I did an incomplete > end run - but the remote console operation precludes floppy loading, so > what is the real requirement here?) Make it possible, to competent (read: curious, brave and support-contract- holding) customers to do floppy-boot tasks with remote consoles. Document it in a place that you can only get to if you hold a support contract. I have to say that I've been using NetApp's for 3 years now, and have learnt a few tricks and tips but I'm not going to get to go on the training course as a direct result of that experience (it's not deemed necessary for my job). I'm learning things here, and from support calls that apparently get taught to customers who also buy the courses - but which are built into these boxes from the get-go. I think they'd be useful to me, I want that knowledge, and all that's needed is for a bit of documentation to be placed somewhere on NOW. Courses shouldn't teach 'secrets' IMHO, they should be about bringing people up to speed from zero-knowledge, or extending their knowledge into advanced domains in limited-time frames. Getting people away from their workplace and giving them the space and framework to learn. The knowledge should also be provided as part of the basic package for others to pick up as and when, if they've already surmounted the learning curve to a large degree. Ie in full manuals and other documents - perhaps limited to people with support contracts to keep customers honest and to keep the feedback loop closed. I have to say I'm a little peeved when courses are products in and of themselves (ie where they teach things over and above the manuals) because it's just another way for vendors to screw customers for a few more bucks IMHO. Previously I never thought NetApp was that kind of vendor. The Appliance philosphy seems to preclude this kind of thing... Someone could restore my faith by pointing me at some hidden docs on NOW that explain it all, which I've just never noticed before! 8) > > No promises on a solution here... Natch, but even the vague hint of one has some of us slavering in anticipation! > > Again, my apologies... For what? Nothing to apologise for IMHO. > >-- End of excerpt from Brian Pawlowski

10 13

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