toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13514 discussions

NetCaches and IP representations
by Alex French 18 Mar '99

18 Mar '99

Here's one for the obscurities wishlist: our NetCaches don't recognise integer representations of IPs. Instead of interpreting 3263497985 as 194.133.7.1, for example, they look for www.3263497985.com. Although nobody in their right mind would want to do this, people do use it when they want to obscure the tru source of a URL (yes, mainly in dodgy newsgroups, I know). Later, Alex.

5 4

RE: NetApp/Auspex killer?
by Weeks, Thomas 18 Mar '99

18 Mar '99

I would probably go with a multi-x86 box (low cost) running Linux (kernel 2.2), SAMBA, hardware RAID, etc. I have seen some very good comparative SMB numbers on these boxes. And now that the processor archetecture is scalable with Linux's kernel, the sky's the limit and the cost is VERY low! Tom Weeks -----Original Message----- From: askaquestion(a)iname.com [mailto:askaquestion@iname.com] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 1999 4:36 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: NetApp/Auspex killer? Yes, NetApps are fine boxes but... If you started a company to build a NAS box, what would you build that would be better than what NetApp, Auspex, etc. has? I'm looking for serious responses here - to improve the market with competition! I don't view the kind of very-low $ suggestions on this list recently as the kind of thing that most of us are interested in. Don't let my anonymous query lead you into thinking that I'm not 100% serious. If anything it should illustrate just how serious I am. --------------------------------------------------- Get free personalized email at http://www.iname.com

4 7

Re: NetCaches and IP representations
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 18 Mar '99

18 Mar '99

On 03/17/99 20:57:20 you wrote: > >On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Alex French wrote: > >> Here's one for the obscurities wishlist: our NetCaches don't recognise >> integer representations of IPs. Instead of interpreting 3263497985 as >> 194.133.7.1, for example, they look for www.3263497985.com. > >Hmmm... > >That's kinda interesting seeing as I'm sure NetApp claim to be using a BSD >TCP/IP stack... 1. When did they claim that? 2. I suspect they meant *compatible* stack... there are surely some changes. 3. The translation of decimals to octets isn't really the "stack" IMHO. Bruce

1 0

Re: NetCaches and IP representations
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 18 Mar '99

18 Mar '99

On 03/18/99 01:34:50 you wrote: > >Here's one for the obscurities wishlist: our NetCaches don't recognise >integer representations of IPs. Instead of interpreting 3263497985 as >194.133.7.1, for example, they look for www.3263497985.com. > >Although nobody in their right mind would want to do this, people do use it >when they want to obscure the tru source of a URL (yes, mainly in dodgy >newsgroups, I know). Argh!!! I would just like to say I think this is really, really dumb. I've seen more and more people using this "trick" in the past 2 years and it's just annoying as hell. It's just a side-effect of a particular lookup routine! If you check the specs for just about anything (especially URLs) you will see this is *not* guaranteed behavior. If people want and expect this, put it in the standard. Until then, if you find out people have trouble getting the that URL, then that's what you get for using it! The problem is enough lookup routines handle it anyway that the ones that don't look like they are the "non-standard" ones, so now they are forced to adopt this inane behavior. Bruce

1 0

Re: Any comments on emergin SANS technology...
by mds＠gbnet.net 18 Mar '99

18 Mar '99

To an extent filer clusters are SAN's. I personally think NAS is superior to SANs architecturally, even if NAS's use SAN's. One day we'll have a network for network traffic, another for disk traffic, another for backup traffic, another for montoring/maintenance traffic, and some bright spark will come along and say 'We could do all this with one proper network!' and I'll just shake my head and cry. 8)

2 1

Re: Any comments on emergin SANS technology...
by jrg＠acm.org 17 Mar '99

17 Mar '99

On Tue 16 Mar, 1999, mds(a)gbnet.net (mark) wrote: >To an extent filer clusters are SAN's. I personally think NAS is superior >to SANs architecturally, even if NAS's use SAN's. indeedy - the big problem all the plain SAN kit seems to suffer from is that a filesystem belongs to only one of the hosts, can only be intepreted by a subset anyway (eg only NT boxes grok NTFS, only SGI's grok XFS) and doesn't expect to be shared or be sharing with anyone else ('Hey! The link-count on that directory in that local read-only filesystem just changed. Oops.' *BANG*). Enter NFS (or AFS, DFS, Coda..) and systems that are designed to share their filesystems with others. >One day we'll have a network for network traffic, another for disk >traffic, another for backup traffic, another for montoring/maintenance >traffic, and some bright spark will come along and say 'We could do all >this with one proper network!' and I'll just shake my head and cry. > >8) I still say that I don't want to have to worry about lots of different networks! :-p (Or was I arguing to keep them seperate last time? I forget...) James.

1 0

syslog
by Todd C. Merrill 17 Mar '99

17 Mar '99

Is there any way to get syslog to log not only a telnet connection (default): Sun Mar 14 11:45:35 EST [tn_login_0]: Login from host: hostname but also rsh connections and the command that was executed? file:/..../5_2_1-cd/ontap/5_2_1/doc/html/sag/routin12.htm file:/..../5_2_1-cd/ontap/5_2_1/doc/html/man/index.htm Out of the box, there isn't an etc/syslog.conf file, only a sample one. It appears to be logging: *.info /etc/messages at least. What else? I think what I want is: daemon.* /etc/messages But if I create a new syslog.conf file with just those two, what other "default" selectors will I be missing? How do I "kick" ONTAP to start using a new syslog.conf file? "Reboot the filer" is not an acceptable answer. ;) Until next time... Todd C. Merrill The Mathworks, Inc. 508-647-7792 24 Prime Park Way, Natick, MA 01760-1500 508-647-7012 FAX tmerrill(a)mathworks.com http://www.mathworks.com ---

3 3

Fwd: Fw: CIFS directory conversion of NFS created files
by Joan Pearson 17 Mar '99

17 Mar '99

Todd, Directories are converted to CIFS format the first time they are accessed from CIFS. There is no real need to preconvert any directory, but it doesn't hurt. Since snapshots are read-only, directories in snapshots cannot be converted. Access from CIFS to an unconverted directory in a snapshot will get an access denied error, as you have noticed. If NFS creates a directory and it is not accessed by CIFS before the nightly snapshot, that directory is unconverted in the snapshot and will not be accessible from CIFS. The is no "inheritance" of directory type. Directories are always created in non-CIFS format, independent of the type the parent directory. In current releases there is no way force creation of CIFS format directories. In 5.3, there will be an option to force creation of CIFS format directories. There will also be an option to convert a directory to CIFS format even when accessed by NFS. Joan Pearson >From: "Mark Muhlestein" <mmm(a)netapp.com> >To: "Joan Pearson" <jpearson(a)netapp.com> >Subject: Fw: CIFS directory conversion of NFS created files >Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:32:20 -0800 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Todd C. Merrill <tmerrill(a)mathworks.com> >To: toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> >Date: Wednesday, March 17, 1999 10:26 AM >Subject: CIFS directory conversion of NFS created files > > >> >>This from the docs for ontap 5.2.1: >> >>file://....5_2_1-cd/ontap/5_2_1/doc/html/sag/multi5.htm#1180418 >> >>Timing of directory conversion for CIFS access to NFS-created files >> >>[...] >> >>One-time access conversion >> >>If you add CIFS access to files that were created by NFS clients, the >>first time a directory is accessed through CIFS, the filer >>automatically converts it to the format required to support CIFS >>clients. "Accessed" here includes listing the contents of a directory; >>for example, with the File Manager, Explorer, or DOS dir command, or by >>accessing any files or directories contained in that directory. >> >>Under some circumstances, the CIFS client might automatically look at >>the directory's subdirectories, thereby triggering conversion of the >>subdirectories as well. (For example, this happens if the user has set >>the Expand All option under the File Manager Tree menu.) >> >>After a directory is converted, it does not have to be converted >>again. >> >> >> >>Here's my question(s): >> >>I have a directory on the filer root (at the level of etc) called "devel." >>Under that is a tree called "tree." A CIFS share is defined on "tree." >>Under "tree" is a bunch of other directories: >> >>devel/tree/{dir1,dir2,dir3,...dirN} >> >>When I first got the filer, I did a right-click:properties from an NT >>box on all directories dir1,dir2,...dirN in order to force the >>conversion process recursively. Things have been running smoothly. >> >>Until yesterday. The darn "access is denied" error message on the NT >>box is showing up again under the nightly snapshot for this tree on some >>directories. I suspect the directories are new, but have been renamed >>to previously named directories. (I.e., `mkdir new; mv dir old; mv new >>dir; rm -rf old` might have happened from an NFS mount). >> >>Question1: If I create a new directory devel/tree/dirnew and put some >>stuff in it, and no NT box access it before the nightly snapshot, this >>directory will give an "access denied" message to any NT box trying to >>access this directory from the snapshot, right? (I believe the answer >>is "yes" since this seems to jive with empirical data.) >> >>Question2: If I define a share at "devel" and then convert the entire >>*tree* directory, instead of dir1,dir2,...dirN, will any subsequent >>directory created under that tree (at the level devel/tree/dirnew) already >>automatically be converted, since its parent was? (This is kinda like the >>old SunOS subdirectories inheriting the group (?) owner of the parent.) >>(I think the answer is no, from FAQ#486). >> >>Question3: If the answer to #2 is no, is there another way to make this >>happen automagically? It seems reasonable, especially if a share is >>defined on any directory higher in the tree. >> >> Until next time... >> >>Todd C. Merrill >>The Mathworks, Inc. 508-647-7792 >>24 Prime Park Way, Natick, MA 01760-1500 508-647-7012 FAX >>tmerrill(a)mathworks.com http://www.mathworks.com >>--- >> >> >> >

1 0

Re: syslog
by mds＠gbnet.net 17 Mar '99

17 Mar '99

That's a good one, and one I've thought of asking about myself before now. On Wed 17 Mar, 1999, "Todd C. Merrill" <tmerrill(a)mathworks.com> wrote: > > Is there any way to get syslog to log not only a telnet connection (default): <stuff> > > but also rsh connections and the command that was executed? <morestuff>

1 0

RE: syslog
by Hackworth, Brian 17 Mar '99

17 Mar '99

: Is there any way to get syslog to log not only a telnet : connection (default) but also rsh connections and the : command that was executed? The ONTAP rshd does not log successful logins, nor does it log the command that was executed. We're considering this feature for a future release. : Out of the box, there isn't an etc/syslog.conf file, : only a sample one. It appears to be logging: If there's no syslog.conf file, ONTAP uses the equivalent of *.info /dev/console *.info /etc/messages : How do I "kick" ONTAP to start using a new syslog.conf file? : "Reboot the filer" is not an acceptable answer. ;) No action is necessary. ONTAP notices the change and incorporates it automatically. - Brian Hackworth

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