toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

FW: Slow sequential disk reads on F740
by Smith, Gil 02 Apr '99

02 Apr '99

-----Original Message----- From: Smith, Gil Sent: Friday, April 02, 1999 4:18 PM To: 'toaster(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: Slow sequential disk reads on F740 Hi, You might want to try, filer> options nfs.udp.xfersize 32768 which is a hidden option (doesn't show up when you type options with no arguments). This might be especially usefull in Gigabit Ethernet environments. Regards, Gil -----Original Message----- From: Brian Tao [mailto:taob@risc.org] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 1999 5:02 PM To: Brian Meek Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Slow sequential disk reads on F740 On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Brian Meek wrote: > > I'm not sure this is related, but if you do a nfsstat -m on the client, does > it show the rsize to be 8192 or 32768? Interesting... I was forcing rsize and wsize to 32768 on the mount command line just to be pedantic, but this is what I'm seeing (output edited for brevity): # mount -o vers=3,proto=udp,rsize=32768,wsize=32768 e2.j:/ /j # mount /j on e2.j:/ vers=3/proto=udp/rsize=32768/wsize=32768/remote on Thu Apr 1 16:51:27 1999 # nfsstat -m /j from e2.j:/ Flags: vers=3,proto=udp,sec=sys,hard,intr,link,symlink,acl,rsize=8192,wsize=8192,retran s=5 > When reading data from our NetApps using our E450's we don't see > anywhere near the same performance as when we read data from our > E450's with our E450's using NFS3 over udp. I've always attributed > this to the client code forcing an rsize of 8192 when connecting to > the filler, and allowing a rsize of 32768 when connecting to > anything else (Sun, Dec, SGI). Has anyone else seen this? It sounds like the NFS server dictates the parameters. I can connect with 32K rsize/wsize using UDP transport between Solaris servers, but only 8K between a Sun and an Netapp, and 16K between a Sun and a FreeBSD machine acting as the server. TCP transport allows me to use 32K block sizes in any server. -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

1 0

Slow sequential disk reads on F740
by Brian Tao 02 Apr '99

02 Apr '99

64MB file on an F740 running 5.1.2, minra=on on that RAID volume. The filesystem is mounted via NFSv3 and UDP transport. Network connection is fast Ethernet via crossover cable. First run is from a Sun E450 reading in the file with dd and 32K block size. Second run is from another E450 (same network config, different NIC on the F740) reading in the same file. Reading a file from disk seems to be exceptionally slow. Reading the same file from cache is faster, but still not close to what I'd expect over an otherwise quiet 100 Mbps link. Is there something I need to tune? CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 19% 455 0 0 92 3890 3639 0 0 0 7 18% 437 0 0 90 3732 3507 0 0 0 7 18% 436 0 0 89 3720 3480 0 0 0 7 16% 364 0 0 74 3109 2922 0 0 0 7 18% 426 0 0 86 3638 3411 0 0 0 7 18% 435 0 0 88 3712 3480 0 0 0 7 [...] CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 12% 560 0 0 122 4708 0 0 0 0 2 19% 1029 0 0 224 8780 0 0 0 0 2 19% 993 0 0 217 8472 0 0 0 0 2 19% 1017 0 0 222 8677 0 0 0 0 2 20% 1025 0 0 224 8746 0 0 0 0 2 19% 1017 0 0 222 8677 0 0 0 0 2 [...] -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

5 9

RE: Server Manager
by Hawley, Rob 02 Apr '99

02 Apr '99

First I assume you are using Domain Authentication. If not, then that is why it does not work. A better way is to use User Manager. Connect to the filer with an account that is a member of the filer's domain Domain Admins group. You can then edit the local Administrators group using User Manager. Remember if you change a group membership that it does not take effect until the user reconnects. Instead of knocking all of cifs down, you can terminate an individual PC. You can tell the group membership of a particular user using cifs sessions -s. You need to be a member of the local administrators or power users group. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > mailto: hawleyr(a)netapp.com <mailto:hawleyr@netapp.com> US Mail: Network Appliance Inc. > Phone: 408-367-3254 2770 San Tomas Expressway > FAX: 408-367-3451 Santa Clara, CA 95051 -----Original Message----- From: Oliver Krause [mailto:okrause@netapp.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 1999 1:03 PM To: 'Bernard Westwood'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Server Manager Hi, first ensure that your user is a domain admin. If you are in the group "Domain Admins" but you are not DOMAIN\Administrator the edit the file /etc/usermap.cfg in the root volume and map your user to root. Then cifs terminate/restart and it should be possible to access the filers for your user. Oliver > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dl-toasters(a)netapp.com > [mailto:owner-dl-toasters@netapp.com]On Behalf Of Bernard Westwood > Sent: Dienstag, 30. März 1999 22:33 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Server Manager > > > When accessing Server Manager on a NT Server running 4.0 and > NetApp Data > OnTap 5.2.1 does anyone know why "Access Denied" comes up > when any of the > NetApp servers are selected? > > >

1 0

RE: Slow sequential disk reads on F740
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 02 Apr '99

02 Apr '99

On 04/01/99 22:14:49 you wrote: > > >On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Val Bercovici (NetApp) wrote: > >> 5 data disks or 5 disks including parity (meaning 4 data disks)? Either >> way, that's well below our sweet spot of 14 9GB disks per raid group. > >Wow, I'm discovering my psychic abilities. 14 is exactly the raid group I >chose on our filers. Can you share some data on how NAC arrived at this >number. In our case it just happened that we wanted to have two volumes >as separate as we could make them and we happened to have 4 shelves in >each filer. I think it's derived empirically, although you can make some rough calculations yourself and see when you have a typical "mix" of NFS operations (reads, writers, lookups, getattrs, etc.) it's hard to get more than 100-200 NFS ops per disk, with the filer being in the upper end of that range. Of course as disk drives improve this should as well. Unless you want to set off a very small filesystem that's only going to get limited access, you probably want more disks than that. In other terms of raid group size, I think 14 became an ideal spot because it was a good compromise between low overhead (the more data disks per parity disk you have, the less disk you waste), acceptable raid reconstruction times in case of disk failure (the fewer disks you have, the quicker the reconstruction), and ease of use (it's conventient to think of disks in groups of 7 and 14). Bruce

1 0

RE: Slow sequential disk reads on F740
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 01 Apr '99

01 Apr '99

On 04/01/99 00:34:34 you wrote: > >Hi Brian, > >> 64MB file on an F740 running 5.1.2, minra=on on that RAID volume. >> The filesystem is mounted via NFSv3 and UDP transport. Network >> connection is fast Ethernet via crossover cable. > >What are results with minra=off? Wouldn't that be a better setting for >large sequential files? That was my first reaction as well. >> First run is from a Sun E450 reading in the file with dd and 32K >> block size. Second run is from another E450 (same network config, >> different NIC on the F740) reading in the same file. Reading a file >> from disk seems to be exceptionally slow. > >I agree, this seems slow. How many disks in that volume/raid group in >question? Could that file somehow be very fragmented? And this was my second. Try creating the file "fresh" (via copy) and then reading it (later, after you're sure it's no longer in cache) and seeing the results. Also, I suspect having fewer than 7 drives could be a limiting factor. >> Reading the same file from cache is faster, but still not close to >> what I'd expect over an otherwise quiet 100 Mbps link. > >Can't agree with you here. You're getting roughly 8.4 MB/s over link >capable of about 10-12.5 MB/s max. Not optimal, but not bad either... And this was my third. The in-cache response doesn't seem to be out of line given other possible variables. Bruce

3 3

Upgrade F330 to Data ONTAP 5.2.1
by Pierre Maubert 01 Apr '99

01 Apr '99

All, I plan to upgrade 6 F330 to 5.2.1, in order to be y2000 compliant. According to the documentation in need first to upgrade the firmware to 1.9_i . Current version of firmware are: 1.6_i or older. Current version of OS are: 4.0.1c, 4.3.4, 4.3.5. Is anybody aware of problems , or traps i need to take care with this new version. Thanks, -- Regards, Pierre . +------------------------------------------------------+ | Pierre Maubert, Sys_Admin Texas Instruments France | | email:p-maubert@ti.com | | msgid:PIMO Pager: 0606498982 | | Tel: +33 49322.2681 Fax: +33 49202.4669 | +------------------------------------------------------+

2 2

Re: Upgrade F330 to Data ONTAP 5.2.1
by Jason D. Kelleher 01 Apr '99

01 Apr '99

In message <370326E9.55BB03B3(a)ti.com>, Pierre Maubert writes: >All, > >I plan to upgrade 6 F330 to 5.2.1, in order to be y2000 compliant. >According to the documentation in need first to upgrade the firmware >to 1.9_i . >Current version of firmware are: 1.6_i or older. >Current version of OS are: 4.0.1c, 4.3.4, 4.3.5. > >Is anybody aware of problems , or traps i need to take care with >this new version. > >Thanks, > >-- >Regards, >Pierre . You might want to take a look at the (rather long) list of bugs fixed in 5.2.1P2 to see if any of them concern you. And I was told a 5.3 release is comming out shortly. Tech Support is very helpfull if you call and ask them about possible issues/problems with an upgrade. The firmware upgrade is trivial. I also beleive the minimum memory requirements increased in version 5.x. Good luck, jason

1 0

Re: Anybody using the NetCache software? (fwd)
by Luke Gain 01 Apr '99

01 Apr '99

> > As to performance; the software is pretty good. > Benchmarks that HP performed show that NetCache-HPUX > runs about 8X faster than Squid on FreeBsd. > Wow...that tells us alot(NOT)...How about NetCache vs Squid on the SAME box/os. -Luke

3 2

Diagrams..Visio et-al...
by Mohler, Jeff 31 Mar '99

31 Mar '99

Anyone know of a simple figure I can toss into Visio to represent a F760 (or any other filer for that matter).

3 2

RE: NAC SAN
by mds＠gbnet.net 30 Mar '99

30 Mar '99

On Tue 30 Mar, 1999, "Adams, Christian" <Adams_Christian(a)emc.com> wrote: > Hey Dave Hitz - > <tongue-in-cheek> Hey Christian Adams. Is there an EMC-specific mailing list we can all join and be obnoxious on? Please? </tongue-in-cheek> Otherwise please alter how you frame your contributions so they're less irritating to read. I find that you're coming across with a very arrogant tone which, I'm sorry to say, precludes my giving you, or your company, much credence. The same comes across in EMC marketing and interviews in the press so perhaps it's one of those go-get-'em, can-do, East coast culture things. It's one of the reasons I enjoy talking to NetApp folk - they're almost always willing to listen rather than butting in, and almost always very considered in their replies and statements. > > Loved your EMC bit, > /Christian Adams > EMC > >-- End of excerpt from "Adams, Christian"

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