toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

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

RE: Server Manager
by Muhlestein, Mark 30 Mar '99

30 Mar '99

Oliver is right that you have to be an administrator, but there is no need to be "root" for server manager. You have to be in the filer's BUILTIN\Administrator group. By default, the "Domain Admins" group for the domain the filer is installed into is the only member of BUILTIN\Administrators. You can add others as needed using user manager and specifying "\\filer" as the domain to work on. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----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

Server Manager
by Bernard Westwood 30 Mar '99

30 Mar '99

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?

2 1

RE: NAC SAN
by Sam Schorr 30 Mar '99

30 Mar '99

Yes, I realize there are tremendous hurdles. It will also take a vendor who builds their own solution ala Network Appliance, or even Sun. They would have to marry it to specific OS/hardware (Sun could "easily" do this, while Netapp would have to sell the internal fibre or SCSI card to go in the server as well as the disk arrays). All that aside, there would be no point if the current network technologies make it unnecessary to separate the two very different traffic requirements. I believe, though, that such an offering would hold tremendous value to large sites, particularly as virtual sites on the internet increase (many servers/services appearing as one). -----Original Message----- From: tkaczma(a)gryf.net [mailto:tkaczma@gryf.net] Sent: Monday, March 29, 1999 5:55 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: NAC SAN On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Sam Schorr wrote: > Why not a box with a special OS (ala WAFL) that runs on what servers > recognize as a fibre hub, intercepts the SCSI calls from all attached > servers, and does all the nifty stuff needed to make the SAN(?) look like > locally attached storage? Advantage? Separate file I/O from TCP session > traffic but still allow file sharing in some form or another. I thought about this, but if you really want to take it to the extreme, then the switch has to know exactly how it is used. Imagine any "erver" box that uses mirroring or striping. Unless you know exactly how data is placed you won't be able to recognize how the filesystem looks. Then there is caching. Usually systems don't worry about cache coherency on locally attached storage. The assume (fairly correctly too) that they are the only ones using the storage. Tom

2 1

Re: sm_recover messages?
by mds＠gbnet.net 30 Mar '99

30 Mar '99

Yeah. mv the files aside, delete them or truncate them to 0 bytes with cat </dev/null > [file] Don't, whatever you do, put spurious characters in them, you'll crash your filer. Bugs have been logged for both the problem and the sm file crashes and fixes are in the pipe. Can you tell we suffer(ed) from both these problems? 8) The problem arises when clients with open mounts (and probably locks on files) quietly go away, followed by the filer itself rebooting and trying to fond those now-dead clients. It never gives up unless you butcher the sm/* files, carefully! Hope that helps.

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