toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13514 discussions

RE: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Mohler, Jeff 23 Mar '99

23 Mar '99

> It all boils down to the words "disaster" and "recovery" being > subjective.... > > And the "official" meanings change between the time you show > management a price tag and when the data center catches on fire. :) > > > jason --- *laugh* Good one!

1 0

RE: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Mohler, Jeff 23 Mar '99

23 Mar '99

In our carrier atmosphere, we'll purchase our way around the performance hit. Instant, constant mirroring is our only option for the various network operations we perform. > -----Original Message----- > From: tkaczma(a)gryf.net [SMTP:tkaczma@gryf.net] > Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 6:47 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: NetApp/Auspex killer? > > > > On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Mohler, Jeff wrote: > > > Your DR solution should PUSH data out constantly, not request it > > remotely every 60 seconds, then if a snapcopy fails for that period, it > gets > > thrown away on the remote side...two lost minutes of data. > > That's true for your application, but I don't want to mirror my disks > across the country even every 60 seconds. Once every couple of minutes > or hours is perfect for me. If you truly mirror your disks the latency > associated with data propagation will kill the performance. > > Tom

1 0

RE: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Mohler, Jeff 23 Mar '99

23 Mar '99

> -----Original Message----- > From: Thompson, Arnold [SMTP:arnold.thompson@netapp.com] > Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 1:04 PM > To: Mohler, Jeff; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: NetApp/Auspex killer? > > You're gonna *love* SnapMirror & SnapRestore! --- Already seen it, it does -not- match up to what EMC can do for us for remote DR service. A possible 2 minute outage in data-flow is a literal million dollar question for us. Your DR solution should PUSH data out constantly, not request it remotely every 60 seconds, then if a snapcopy fails for that period, it gets thrown away on the remote side...two lost minutes of data. Thats is at a minimum FOUR lost billing cycles on our ATM/IP/Voice network...and in our environment an incomplete billing cycle is non-billable. I belive the continuous real-time transfer of data from the main site to the remote site would be a solution that we could live with in the future.

3 2

RE: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Thompson, Arnold 22 Mar '99

22 Mar '99

Management says I can't tell you right now or they'll have to kill us both! We will be making an official announcement shortly, when it's available. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason D. Kelleher [mailto:kelleher@susq.com] > Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 12:18 PM > To: Thompson, Arnold > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: NetApp/Auspex killer? > > > In message > <7F608EC0BDE6D111B53A00805FA7F7DAF0C14A(a)TAHOE.netapp.com>, "Thomp > son, Arnold" writes: > >You're gonna *love* SnapMirror & SnapRestore! > > Hmmm... SnapRestore...? > > If this does what it sounds like it does, tell me more! If it > means no more waiting while several GBs are tar'd out of > a snapshot > and re-written to a "real directory" after a developer said > "Oops..", tell me how much! Actually, free would be > prefered... :) > > The only reference I could find to "SnapRestore" on NOW was on the > "Copyright Information" page, so let's hear it! > > jason > > >

1 0

Re: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Jason D. Kelleher 22 Mar '99

22 Mar '99

In message <7F608EC0BDE6D111B53A00805FA7F7DAF0C14A(a)TAHOE.netapp.com>, "Thomp son, Arnold" writes: >You're gonna *love* SnapMirror & SnapRestore! Hmmm... SnapRestore...? If this does what it sounds like it does, tell me more! If it means no more waiting while several GBs are tar'd out of a snapshot and re-written to a "real directory" after a developer said "Oops..", tell me how much! Actually, free would be prefered... :) The only reference I could find to "SnapRestore" on NOW was on the "Copyright Information" page, so let's hear it! jason

1 0

Re: Quad Ethernet
by Rob Windsor 22 Mar '99

22 Mar '99

On Fri, 19 Mar 1999 14:55:46 EST, Paul Taylor wrote: > I am installing quad fast ethernet cards in my F330 and F630 filers. > 1) What version of ON-TAP should the filers be running? > 2) What configurations issues should I be aware of, and how are > multipule default gateways configured? Assuming that you are running a quad card so that you can touch four different subnets... We ran with a quad card in our F520 with 4.something (I forget now, we're currently at 5.2.1) for a year w/o any problems with that. You only have one "default gateway". Let's see if I can sum up why without oversimplifying: The kernel maintains a list ("routing table") of 'what goes where' when a packet has to go out. It would be prohibitively expensive memorywise to know the exact path ("route") that each packet had to take for each arbitary machine in your machine's IP world (usually the internet so that your autosupport mail makes it to netapp.com). To simplify things (and allow failover routing to function), the routing table only keeps a list of immediate networks and destinations (and hand-entered routes), and one place to send "everything else" that it doesn't know directly. This is the "default gateway". ok, sorry for the "TCP/IP Networking 101" class, but I thought it would help. With that in mind, things are very simple. If you already have a "default gateway" set up because of your single card, you probably don't have to change it. Just assign ip addresses for each of the ports on the quad card that you're going to use, wire them up, and boot (OS rev issues aside). fwiw, we tried to 'load balance' two ports by giving them different ip addresses on the same subnet and letting solaris automounter on each of the client boxes "choose the shortest path". It didn't work out as well as we had hoped, we're not hitting near 25% capacity on either of the two ports (mmm, mrtg). -- Rob ---------------------------------------- Rob Windsor E-Mail - mailto:windsor@adc.com Senior Unix Systems Administrator Voice - phone:972-680-6919 Computer Services Fax - phone:972-680-0370 Business Broadband Group ADC Telecommunications Richardson, TX 75082

3 2

RE: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Thompson, Arnold 22 Mar '99

22 Mar '99

You're gonna *love* SnapMirror & SnapRestore! > -----Original Message----- > From: Mohler, Jeff [mailto:jeff.mohler@wilcom.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 1999 10:36 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: NetApp/Auspex killer? > > > You forgot "you cant touch that without an expensive service call". > You forgot "How many millions for a 1TB array??" > > A year ago I demanded a MIB for the EMC, our local EMC guy waffled for > months..never got it. > A year ago I demanded an NFS solution from EMC, our regional > guy waffled for > months..eventually EMC officially backed out. > > The -only- reason we still uses -some- EMC, is that EMC does > have a better > DR concept than NetApp does. When NetApp can deliver a Telco-Reliable > remote DR data solution, we'll be replacing EMC there too. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com [SMTP:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] > > Sent: Friday, March 19, 1999 10:18 PM > > To: Adams_Christian(a)emc.com; askaquestion(a)iname.com; > > toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Cc: watson(a)netapp.com > > Subject: RE: NetApp/Auspex killer? > > > > On 03/19/99 19:26:02 you wrote: > > > > > >Hey Toasters - > > > > > >How about: > > >[List of things snipped] > > > > > >Please excuse the plug, but I couldn't resist. > > > > > >/Christian Adams > > >Systems Engineer > > >South San Francisco, CA > > >EMC Corporation > > > > Er, I assume this means your claiming EMC can do these things > > and Netapp can't? > > > > Netapp can do just about all of the things you mention that > > anyone would *want* to do. > > > > They don't do RAID in hardware, but that's because they do > > RAID-4 which is better than RAID-5. And they still beat you > > on performance. Why would you want them to beat you even > > easier? > > > > When EMC can provide both NFS and CIFS support in a NAS box, on > > the same filesystem, same files, with coherent locking, which > > full support of all NT permissions, with a RAID level as easily > > expandable as RAID-4, with your own OS (not on the back end > > of a UNIX server), with better throughput *and* response time > > than Netapp (with published SFS results), for a *lower* price, > > email me. > > > > Until then, go pick on Sun. > > > > Bruce >

1 0

RE: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Adams, Christian 22 Mar '99

22 Mar '99

Hey Sir Bruce - Thanks for the invitation. What is your contact information so that I can put together the sales call? /Christian Adams > -----Original Message----- > From: sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com [SMTP:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Friday, March 19, 1999 8:18 PM > To: Adams_Christian(a)emc.com; askaquestion(a)iname.com; > toasters(a)mathworks.com > Cc: watson(a)netapp.com > Subject: RE: NetApp/Auspex killer? > > On 03/19/99 19:26:02 you wrote: > > > >Hey Toasters - > > > >How about: > >[List of things snipped] > > > >Please excuse the plug, but I couldn't resist. > > > >/Christian Adams > >Systems Engineer > >South San Francisco, CA > >EMC Corporation > > Er, I assume this means your claiming EMC can do these things > and Netapp can't? > > Netapp can do just about all of the things you mention that > anyone would *want* to do. > > They don't do RAID in hardware, but that's because they do > RAID-4 which is better than RAID-5. And they still beat you > on performance. Why would you want them to beat you even > easier? > > When EMC can provide both NFS and CIFS support in a NAS box, on > the same filesystem, same files, with coherent locking, which > full support of all NT permissions, with a RAID level as easily > expandable as RAID-4, with your own OS (not on the back end > of a UNIX server), with better throughput *and* response time > than Netapp (with published SFS results), for a *lower* price, > email me. > > Until then, go pick on Sun. > > Bruce >

2 1

Legatto Backup
by Jay Querusio 21 Mar '99

21 Mar '99

Does anyone have any experience using Legatto server on an AIX machine with an NT agent to back up there netapp. If so, could you share how this is working for you and any tricks or techniques needed to make it work Thanks in advance, Jay Querusio

2 1

RE: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Mohler, Jeff 20 Mar '99

20 Mar '99

You forgot "you cant touch that without an expensive service call". You forgot "How many millions for a 1TB array??" A year ago I demanded a MIB for the EMC, our local EMC guy waffled for months..never got it. A year ago I demanded an NFS solution from EMC, our regional guy waffled for months..eventually EMC officially backed out. The -only- reason we still uses -some- EMC, is that EMC does have a better DR concept than NetApp does. When NetApp can deliver a Telco-Reliable remote DR data solution, we'll be replacing EMC there too. > -----Original Message----- > From: sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com [SMTP:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Friday, March 19, 1999 10:18 PM > To: Adams_Christian(a)emc.com; askaquestion(a)iname.com; > toasters(a)mathworks.com > Cc: watson(a)netapp.com > Subject: RE: NetApp/Auspex killer? > > On 03/19/99 19:26:02 you wrote: > > > >Hey Toasters - > > > >How about: > >[List of things snipped] > > > >Please excuse the plug, but I couldn't resist. > > > >/Christian Adams > >Systems Engineer > >South San Francisco, CA > >EMC Corporation > > Er, I assume this means your claiming EMC can do these things > and Netapp can't? > > Netapp can do just about all of the things you mention that > anyone would *want* to do. > > They don't do RAID in hardware, but that's because they do > RAID-4 which is better than RAID-5. And they still beat you > on performance. Why would you want them to beat you even > easier? > > When EMC can provide both NFS and CIFS support in a NAS box, on > the same filesystem, same files, with coherent locking, which > full support of all NT permissions, with a RAID level as easily > expandable as RAID-4, with your own OS (not on the back end > of a UNIX server), with better throughput *and* response time > than Netapp (with published SFS results), for a *lower* price, > email me. > > Until then, go pick on Sun. > > Bruce

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