toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13523 discussions

RE: NAC SAN
by Sam Schorr 30 Mar '99

30 Mar '99

However, the bold or marketleading spot would go to the first to develop such even if it requires the development of a special fibre card and driver that even may be OS specific at first. Standards are set many times by whoever gets there first and grabs market share. For me it means a truly scalable, high performance file network on par and separate from session taffic networks. Just a lust I guess. -----Original Message----- From: Dave Hitz [mailto:hitz@netapp.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 1999 10:16 AM To: sschorr(a)homestead.com Cc: hitz(a)netapp.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: NAC SAN > 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. SCSI is a raw disk block protocol. SCSI requests are very simple. They say things like "read block twelve-million and two" from disk, or "write block so-and-so to disk." There is no way in SCSI to express file level ideas like "create a file named foo" or "read the first block in a file name bar". If you make the data look like locally attached storage, then all the different hosts will access it using their own local filesystems, so the different hosts will each use a different format, and the data on disk cannot be shared. If you want the data to be shared, then you have to find some industry standard filesystem sharing techniques that everyone has implemented. Today the only such standards are the NAS standards (like NFS, HTTP, Windows Networking). There are a variety of theoretically possible solutions that we could develop, possibly involving new file sharing protocols that could run over SCSI, or "global file systems" that everyone agrees to run on their system. But there are lots of tricky issues to resolve, and the standards work has barely begun, so even in the best possible case, it'd be many years before we could get a true heterogeneous data sharing solution. Dave

3 2

RE: NAC SAN
by Sam Schorr 30 Mar '99

30 Mar '99

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. -----Original Message----- From: Dave Hitz [mailto:hitz@netapp.com] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 1999 1:41 PM To: willh(a)infi.net Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com; barsellt(a)infi.net Subject: Re: NAC SAN > Tom's statement below (to a [NetApp] SAN when we build one) brings up a > familiar argument between myself and my boss. My boss contends that > NetApp is NOT capable of migrating to a "real SAN." I've been delinquent in my duty of writing a NAS and SAN paper. I'm about half way done. Whem I'm done, I'll post it here, probably in early form, so that you guys can critique it for me. Very briefly, I believe that NAS and SAN are different but related technologies, and that the definitions are as follows: NAS (Network Attached Storage) Storage accessed over TCP/IP, using industry standard file sharing protocols like NFS, HTTP and Windows Networking. SAN (Storage Area Network) Storage accessed over a Fibre Channel switching fabric, using encapsulated SCSI. I also think that both NAS and SAN are useful, and that -- in the long run -- both will be critical components in any large data infrastructure. I think there's a strong analogy to the TCP/IP networking world. Routers and switches are very similar in some ways, yet subtly different in others. In the mid-eighties, arguments raged about which was "better". (Back then switches were called bridges.) Today we understand that any large network infrastructure needs to include both. Some people would quibble with my definitions. Some would argue that if you run NFS over TCP/IP over fibre channel, then that is a SAN. I figure that we didn't invent new names for NFS over 100bT, FDDI, ATM, or Gigabit -- what's so special about fibre channel? Others argue that a SAN is any network dedicated entirely to storage traffic. Does this mean a SAN turns to a NAS if you fire up a telnet on it? A year ago these definitions were less settled, but today I think these are the definitions that are emerging. With these definitions, the key difference is between file system protocols and raw disk protocols. With NAS, the filesystem runs on the storage system itself. (For NetApp, that's WAFL.) With SAN, the filesystem runs on the hosts attached to the storage system. People familiar with EMC will recognize this model. With an EMC Symetrix, you get a big box of RAID protected disks, and you can attach multiple hosts to that one box. Thus, I view SAN as "open EMC". On the one hand, SAN could be viewed as a threat to EMC. But on the other hand, EMC has a solid history of products -- software and hardware -- based on this storage model, which means that they ought to have a real head-start on SAN. I think the SAN vendors have a great opportunity if they really can create "open EMC". After all, EMC is doing $4 Billion a year in business with this model! In any case, I think NAS has some serious advantages over SAN. One big issue with running the file system on the separate hosts is that it makes true data sharing very difficult. The on-disk byte formats are very different between UNIX and NT, and even between different flavors of UNIX. Given the differences between UNIT and NT filesystem semantics, it's no surprise that the on-disk format is different. With NAS, the filesystem is by the data, so it can convert the on-disk format into an industry standard protocol appropriate to the host that wants the data: NFS for UNIX, NT Shares for NT, and HTTP for web browsers. It is technically possible to build a "global file system" that has a common on-disk format for multiple operating systems, thus allowing NAS-like sharing for SAN. However, I'm skeptical of that model. First of all, there are no such products today. And even when they become available, sharing won't be based on industry standards. A system will only be able to participate in sharing if it runs a special SAN file system from a particular vendor. My believe is that the lesson of 20 years of networking is that we build heterogeneous environments by creating open standards and allowing everyone to support them -- not by saying that anyone who wants to participate in sharing must buy code from one particular company. Having said all this, though, NetApp does have plans to leverage SAN technology. We have announced an OEM agreement with Brocade. Here are the benefits we expect to achieve: - Attach to lots of disks. A fibre channel loop is limited to 127 drives, but with a 16 port fibre channel switch, the limit goes to almost 2000 drives. With additional switches, you can support an arbitrary number of drives. - Share tape drives between multiple servers. I believe that backup applications are the killer application for SAN. When people buy expensive tape jukeboxes, they want to be able to attach them to multiple servers. With today's SCSI tapes that's a painful job. But with fibre channel and fibre channel switches, it's easy to connect a single tape to any number of hosts. - Disaster Tolerant Solutions Fibre channel switches can do WAN tunneling to provide connections to remote disks without any changes to the server code. This makes it much easier to build remote mirrors for data replication and disaster protection. In conclusion, I believe that NAS and SAN are both important technologies, and the any large data infrastructure in the future will include both. I believe that NAS focuses on issues associated with users, applications, and data sharing. I believe that SAN focuses on issues associated with disk and tape devices, connection to large numbers of them, and moving data back and forth between them. In the long run, any large environment will have both sets of issues, and will need both types of solutions. In the short run, NAS makes good sense as a starting point, because it is here today and the standards it relies on have been solid for over a decade. I'll go ahead an post the whole paper when I finish, but I still thought it might be useful to share my thoughts in this brief, half-baked form. Dave

3 3

Anybody using the NetCache software?
by Jaye Mathisen 28 Mar '99

28 Mar '99

As opposed to the appliance? Was thinking about trying it. (Of course, if a LInux version was available, that would be even cooler. :)). I had a C630 in, but wasn't impressed enough to buy it. My squid stuff works OK, but just checking around.

3 3

RE: MAC Name Volumes
by Benn, Paul 28 Mar '99

28 Mar '99

This can't be done. The best way for Macintosh users to access a filer (or any NT box) is to use a product from Thursby Software called Dave. Here's a link to their web site: http://www.thursby.com Regards, Paul -----Original Message----- From: Jim Sanford [mailto:JSanford@rsinc.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 1999 2:21 PM To: 'Toasters' Subject: MAC Name Volumes Hello everyone, I am trying to setup MAC Naming Services on a NTFS volume on our NetApp. Not sure how this works and if it can be done. The objective is allow our MAC users access for file storage and retrieval on this volume. Anyone have any ideas ??? Thanks, ********************************* Jim Sanford IS Department Research Systems, Inc. *********************************

3 2

Migration to NetApp 740 from AlphaServer 2100
by Joanna Gaski 28 Mar '99

28 Mar '99

I have several concerns about the migration process from an AlphaServer 2100 (Digital UNIX 4.0D) to a NetApp 740. If anyone has specific information / suggestions about any of these issues, you can mail me individually, or the list if it abides by list policy. 1) Filesystem layout We have about 5000 user home directories and several (maybe 10) other logical areas that we will be migrating. Total disk space used initially will be small, about 35G. My guess is that it would be best to keep user directories as a logically separated area (from, say, Alpha binaries) because of differences in default quotas and snapshot and backup policies. Does this sound reasonable, or could it be best to lump them together? 2) Large directory constraints Also, for the user areas, what are the practical constraints on the number of files in a directory? I am most used to AdvFS, under which large directories can be slow to open and read, if a user tries to do something like tab completion on a filename in a directory of 1000 entries. Will I see the same kind of behavior with WAFL, and if so, does anyone have a good suggestion on breaking up the user space? We were thinking of using directory structure organization (nothing at logical partition level) for this. 3) Quotas How sophisticated are the quota manipulation tools? Are there utilities for changing whole sets of quotas, or do admins just use homemade scripts for this? (And if so, does anyone have a pointer to a useful script set?) Also, any suggestions on the best way to migrate AdvFS quotas on user directories? I can foresee the C or scripting part of the AdvFS side of this, but I have no idea what tools we even have to work with on the WAFL side. 4) Backups I am used to vdump and amanda, which don't split single backup sets across multiple tapes. Do the native filer backup utilities handle that? And are backups on a per logical partition basis? 5) Snapshot policies These are defined on a per logical or per physical partition basis? We will be getting the filer documentation before the filer, so that should answer my questions about snapshot policies, backup and quota utilities. But any additional info on these, pointers to public scripts, and insight on the file organization issues is appreciated. Also, references to other info sources are appreciated. Thanks.

4 4

RE: NAC SAN
by Adams, Christian 27 Mar '99

27 Mar '99

Hey Will Harper - The discussion of SAN - or ESN as EMC likes to call it - IMO should address the issues of management. The EMC offerings do include both NAS and direct SCSI connections, but more importantly there is software bundled with the Fibrechannel switches and with the disk arrays which support such functions as dynamic reallocation of drives and bandwidth. The intention of all this additional technology is to give you choices on how you deploy and re-deploy your storage rather than enforcing a traditional static model. And just in case you missed the recent EMC announcement, the file server product supports the Alteon Gigabit Ethernet NIC. But I do agree with you that the term SAN is being used freely without much precision. /Christian Adams EMC > -----Original Message----- > From: Will Harper [SMTP:willh@infi.net] > Sent: Friday, March 26, 1999 6:47 AM > To: NetApp Toasters (E-mail) > Cc: Tri N. Barsell [Barsellt(a)Infi.Net] (E-mail) > Subject: NAC SAN > > Tom's statement below (to a NAC SAN when we build one) brings up a > familiar > argument between myself and my boss. My boss contends that NetApp is NOT > capable of migrating to a "real SAN." > > He bases this statement on his definition of SAN as "direct-attached > storage (as in a direct SCSI connection) via a network of FiberChannel > switches - but with the capability of also supporting NFS, CIFS, and HTTP > mounts." > > For instance, in a capability matrix of several vendors, which we recently > > compiled, he responds "yes" to the question of future SAN migration to an > EMC, and to an EMC lookalike, Network Computers. To the same question, he > > responds "no" to the question of future SAN migration to a NetApp 740 > cluster. > > My position is -- when I see a SAN, I'll tell you what it is, but right > now > it's just an acronym for "Still Ain't None." I also contend that ALL of > the storage vendors will implement SAN technology, if and when the > technology gets fully defined and if and when the market demands it. In > the meantime, I believe that NetApp is closer to being able to implement a > > SAN, than EMC and all of it's clones. > > I also contend that SAN does NOT NECESSARILY imply FiberChannel. In fact, > > I see near-time SAN technology taking the route of 1000BaseT, because > studies indicate that more (normal, read "small") data I/O's can be moved, > > much more cheaply, over Gigabit than over 100-base FiberChannel. > > I expect in the future (when and if FiberChannel prices come down, and > 1000-base, or 10,000-base FiberChannel is standard), it may become the > defacto standard, but, for now, SCSI is the limiting factor on moving > data, > not the media speed. > > Are there any experts out there who can shed some light on the subject? > > Will Harper, MCSE > > -----Original Message----- > From: tkaczma(a)gryf.net [SMTP:tkaczma@gryf.net] > Sent: Friday, March 26, 1999 1:30 AM > To: NetApp Toasters (E-mail) > Subject: Re: NDMP backup speeds > > > On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Jason D. Kelleher wrote: > > > That sounds slow. We're readying an F740 for production and our > > tests show ~3MB/s (~11GB/hr) over a 110mb full-duplex connection to > > a Sun "backup server" with a DLT4000 jukebox. > > Wow, I'm glad we back up to a locally attached tape library. I'd be even > more glad to attach a bigger library to a NAC SAN when we build one. > > Tom

1 0

RE: NDMP backup speeds
by Kelly Wyatt 27 Mar '99

27 Mar '99

The top comment was mine. That figure was the average speed we are getting backing up our filers (10 760's, 300-600Gb each. We are backing up each volume separately). So, the number I used (15, but I think we actually average around 17.5), was for one tape stream. So, since we have two tape streams, we actually achieve twice that per hour. Note that our times vary from 12gb/hour to 23gb/hour, depending on the filer. We believe this to be due to the nature of the data on the various filers. Looking forward to seeing what we can accomplish with two tape drives/four tape streams. By the way, we are using NetBackup with NDMP to a StorageTek 9710 with DLT7000 drives and are using the compressed tape devices. Kelly -- Kelly Wyatt Systems Programmer SAS Institute Inc. Kelly.Wyatt(a)SAS.com <mailto:Kelly.Wyatt@SAS.com> www.sas.com -----Original Message----- From: Will Harper [mailto:willh@infi.net] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 1999 9:16 AM To: NetApp Toasters (E-mail) Subject: NDMP backup speeds Can I have the users' opinions? The top statement was from an unnamed NetApp 740 filer user. The bottom part is NetApp's rebuttal. I see this as two questions. (1) can a 740 support two tape adapters? and (2) who is right(er) about NDMP backup speeds on a 740, with one tape drive adapter? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------- [USER] > With a (potentially) 1.4Tb filer, can it be backed up with two drives > reasonable amount of time???? At 15gb/hr (conservative with > NDMP), that's > lots of hours to back em up..." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ [NetApp] Two tape adapter support was certified (tested) only on the F760 and the F630. It was a matter of testing resources with our latest release. Dump speeds run at up to 25 GB/hr with 1 dump and up to 45 GB/hr with two dumps to two tape drives on a single tape adapter.

1 0

Used machines
by scw＠seas.ucla.edu 27 Mar '99

27 Mar '99

We currently have 2 machines (F220 W/14X4Gb, F330 W/21x4GB) that MAY become surplus to our requirements. Is there are market in used toasters (we'll sweep out the crumbs)? If so are there any guesses as to what we can expect to get for these machines? ----- Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASnet; 2567 Boelter hall; LA CA 90095; (310)-825-8614 Finger for public key scw(a)cirrus.seas.ucla.edu,Internet mail:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU

1 0

RE: MAC Name Volumes
by Benn, Paul 26 Mar '99

26 Mar '99

Yes, NT Server does ship with Services for Macintosh. The problem with it is, it does not support mapped ("mounted") drive letters. -----Original Message----- From: Will Harper [mailto:willh@infi.net] Sent: Friday, March 26, 1999 3:30 PM To: 'Jim Sanford' Cc: NetApp Toasters (E-mail) Subject: RE: MAC Name Volumes Can you use an NT server to provide file and print service for the Macs? NT sees Mac as a native client. The NetApp box should see the NT server's file area as just one more standard NTFS mount. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Sanford [SMTP:JSanford@rsinc.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 1999 5:21 PM To: 'Toasters' Subject: MAC Name Volumes Hello everyone, I am trying to setup MAC Naming Services on a NTFS volume on our NetApp. Not sure how this works and if it can be done. The objective is allow our MAC users access for file storage and retrieval on this volume. Anyone have any ideas ??? Thanks, ********************************* Jim Sanford IS Department Research Systems, Inc. *********************************

1 0

RE: MAC Name Volumes
by Will Harper 26 Mar '99

26 Mar '99

Can you use an NT server to provide file and print service for the Macs? NT sees Mac as a native client. The NetApp box should see the NT server's file area as just one more standard NTFS mount. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Sanford [SMTP:JSanford@rsinc.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 1999 5:21 PM To: 'Toasters' Subject: MAC Name Volumes Hello everyone, I am trying to setup MAC Naming Services on a NTFS volume on our NetApp. Not sure how this works and if it can be done. The objective is allow our MAC users access for file storage and retrieval on this volume. Anyone have any ideas ??? Thanks, ********************************* Jim Sanford IS Department Research Systems, Inc. *********************************

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