toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

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

(Kein Betreff)
by Gerd Froschermeier 26 Apr '99

26 Apr '99

unsubscribe gerd.froschermeier(a)bmw.de

1 0

remote support issues
by Richard L. Rhodes 25 Apr '99

25 Apr '99

Hi List, I don't own a Netapp, but joined this list a couple weeks ago when we decided to take a closer look at and possibly eval one. I must say it's refreshing to see a list where the vendor allows their people to help out. The comment below by Oliver gets to my biggest concern: remote support. I've made very clear to the sales and tech reps that my biggest concerns with a netapp (or anything I would purchase) is remote support. I would need to put netapps at remote sites locked in phone closets with our other networking equipment and servers. Everything is interconnected by a wan and support would be by myself from a central, but remote site. May I ask a couple of question? 1) How effectively can you support a netapp from a remote site? 2) I would be interested in hearing from anyone using a netapp for a oracle database on rs/6k computers. Thanks Rick On 22 Apr 99, at 12:49, Oliver Krause wrote: > Hello Brian, > > also from me a big thank you for this feature. Without it remote support > would be very hard. And a command to change to firmware variables from a > running system would be really valuable. > > Oliver > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard L. Rhodes e: rhodesr(a)firstenergycorp.com Ohio Edison Co. p: 330-384-4904 f: 330-384-2514

7 11

RE: Anybody using 3com switches with NetAPP?
by Garrett Burke 25 Apr '99

25 Apr '99

Hi Jaye, You don't say what model of filer you are using. I have a F230 running 5.2.1 connected to a 3COM 3900 and I see output errors (but not input errors) on the filer interface and these show up as CRC (or FCS as 3COM call them) errors on the switch port. I'm seeing about 0.03% errors. Netapp support says not to worry about this level of errors. Both are 100Mbps full duplex with no auto negotiate. I moved the filer to a Extreme Summit S48 and a different cable run and I still see the CRC errors. GB > ---------- > From: Jaye Mathisen[SMTP:mrcpu@internetcds.com] > Sent: 16 April 1999 08:49 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Anybody using 3com switches with NetAPP? > > > > I have both my ports on a linkswitch 3000, at 100mb, full-duplex. > >

2 1

Re: NetApp Cache Appliance secutity issue ??
by jrg＠acm.org 25 Apr '99

25 Apr '99

On Fri 23 Apr, 1999, Colin Johnston <colinj(a)uk.psi.com> wrote: >I understand the need to distribute pdf docs as there are useful for >administration but password info in clear text could be overcome by >encrypting the pdf's stored online(and in the binary distrib) and doing >decryption of pdf info if required. Much better to be so open about default passwords that no one mistakenly believes it could be kept secret, then people *will* change the default passwords. I almost feel compelled to go and compile a list of all default passwords for all software and hardware known to mankind (but someone has probably already beaten me to it.) James.

5 5

Re: That Darn NAC
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 24 Apr '99

24 Apr '99

On 04/24/99 00:23:33 you wrote: > > >On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > >> I'd just like to point out, once again, that Netapp >> isn't NAC anymore, having changed from "Corporation" >> to "Inc." years ago. > >Are there any significant differences between corps. and incorps.? I never really heard a reason. They did it just before going public so I would speculate there is some odd legal/investment reason why having "Incorporated" in their name was preferred. You'd have to ask someone on the Board or executive staff. Bruce

1 0

That Darn NAC
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 24 Apr '99

24 Apr '99

I'd just like to point out, once again, that Netapp isn't NAC anymore, having changed from "Corporation" to "Inc." years ago. Of course, a lot of us were in the habit of calling the boxes "nacs" so it was hard to change to "nais" or "netapps." I guess you can still call them NACs if you have a suitable acronym. "Network Appliance Computer" is fine but a little generic; "Network Appliance Cache" works fine for one product but not the other. :) Me, I just call them "filers." Bruce

2 1

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