toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13514 discussions

Legato Networker backups
by Gregory M. Paris 05 Mar '99

05 Mar '99

Dear Toasters, This is along the lines of the "Future Newbie" thread, though I'm not new to NetApp boxes. I am looking to get our first here at this company. We use Legato Networker to backup our Engineering systems, which I support. (We use HP's Omniback and a StorageTek tape library for our business systems, but that's another post....) The problem is, I'm not clear on how I'll backup an F740 (~180 GB) using Networker. I've read the "How to Integrate..." white paper on the NetApp site. I've read the ancient "Backing Up NetApp..." on the Legato site. Neither of those seem to address our situation: Networker server running on Solaris; NetApp server with NFS and CIFS. How do I? I can connect a Quantum DLT stacker to the NetApp, but can I make Legato use it? If not, how do I backup over the network, given that I want to preserve NT ACLs? The "How to Integrate..." document shows how to do this when Networker runs on an NT machine, but we have it on UNIX. I'm looking for a definitive answer, on the order of, "We do it here and it works great!" (along with the how-to, of course). I'm bucking the prevailing winds in trying to bring in a NetApp. Tiny issues like, "No proven way to back it up," could result in me supporting a new HP or Sun server. (Not that I don't use their equipment already, but the combination of RAID and NFS+CIFS is too much complexity on UNIX servers, IMHO.) All help is appreciated. Greg -- Gregory M. Paris CIS Engineering Systems Bose Corporation Email: paris(a)bose.com The Mountain Phone: +1 508 766-6080 Framingham, MA 01701-9168 FAX: +1 508 820-0173

1 0

Re: Future Newbie Needs Advice
by rbutler＠pdc.com 05 Mar '99

05 Mar '99

> From kelleher(a)susq.com Fri Mar 5 10:24:36 1999 > To: Jonah Yokubaitis <barron(a)staff.texas.net> > cc: Tom Limoncelli <tal(a)research.bell-labs.com>, toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Future Newbie Needs Advice > Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 11:00:17 -0500 > From: "Jason D. Kelleher" <kelleher(a)susq.com> > Sender: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com > Content-Length: 4312 > > > >Mmmm....if only a native legato client :-) > > Yuch. Native dump format is so much friendlier to work with than > proprietary dump formats. That plus NDMP is why we went with > BudTool. I won't be an issue for the filers once there's a native > client, but wouldn't backup all my other hosts with it. Anyone > know what's going to happen with this issue once BudTool is > absorbed by Legato? I heard a rumor that BudTool v5.0 has already > been scrapped. (Is there an Intelliguard mailing list?) If Legato > and their tape format is our only upgrade path, we'll start looking > at other products. > > jason > > --- > Jason D. Kelleher kelleher(a)susq.com > Susquehanna Partners, G.P. 610.617.2721 (voice) > 401 City Line Ave, Suite 220 610.617.2916 (fax) > Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-1122 > > Intelliguard now has OSA agents available for all supported BudTool media server platforms (SunOS, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, IRIX) that are clients making the platform NDMP compliant. This means that you can backup these architectures to NetApp direct attached tape drives, for example. The OSA agents are a new product and have been available since the middle of January 1999. I have installed and used them. When everything is NDMP compliant, you can backup up any NDMP compliant platform to any NDMP attached tape drive. They come in 10 packs and are pretty cheap to purchase. Randy Butler System Engineering Supervisor - Western Region PDC Solutions, Inc. E-mail: rbutler(a)pdc.com

2 1

Future Newbie Needs Advice
by Russ Amidon 05 Mar '99

05 Mar '99

Hello Everyone, I am about to purchase two F760's w/ Cluster Failover Software and Hardware because we need a system that is 100% available and rock solid. I was convinced after talking to other Net App users that this was the way to go. After a week of reading this mailing list, I am no longer convinced. Does anyone out there have the system I described? Are you happy with it? I am particularly concerned about the fiber channel problems and all of the OS upgrades and patches. We are also considering the new Auspex NS2000. Does anyone know of an Auspex mailing list like this one? Thank you in advance for any advise you can offer to the "future newbie". Russ Amidon UNIX Sys Admin

4 3

Re: Future Newbie Needs Advice
by Jason D. Kelleher 05 Mar '99

05 Mar '99

In message <Pine.BSF.4.00.9903042345180.26075-100000(a)staff2.texas.net>, Jona h Yokubaitis writes: > >On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, Tom Limoncelli wrote: > >|If you monitor this mailing list you will get the impression that the >|NetApp products have nothing but problems. That's because people >|without problems don't need to post. It's sort of like going to an AA >|meeting and complaining, "Gosh, you're all alcoholics! Doesn't anyone >|here NOT have a drinking problem?" > >I agree with this as well. We have run into many bugs with our >netapps, but never have had an outage longer than 5minutes, and NEVER >have lost any data. That IMO is a strong statement for network >attached storage. We've had an F330 running since 10/95. In all cases except one, downtime was limited to a ~5 minute outage. In 8/98 we had a major problem that brought us down for ~1.5 hours and left us crippled for the remainder of the day. During an outage we have always been able to get ahold of very helpful and knowledgable support via the 800 number. After the major outage, alot of questions we asked by management about the server. (It also provided us with the final argument to get our cluster.) I came up with these numbers: System in use: ~1034 days == 24816 hours Total Downtime: ~10 hours (being harsh and counting "crippled" as down) Percent Downtime: 10 / 24816 == 0.000352 Percent Uptime: 99.999648 I know it's not very scientific, but being able to work out an approximate uptime that matches the numbers NetApp's marketing guys hand out gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. >We also are running NetApp Release 4.3.5D2 and refuse to upgrade. >"If it aint broke, don't break it" That was my feeling until 8/98. Then we experienced bugs 4157... Bug ID 4157 Title Removes of very large files can cause the filer to deadlock Problem Description Simultaneous removes of files that together take up more than 1GB of space (i.e. a few large files or thousands of smaller ones) may cause a filer to deadlock and not provide file service. Multiple reboots may be required to clear the deadlock condition. Release Fixed 5.0 Unpleasant doesn't begin do describe this beast. Not only did we need to reboot the filer, but the also the system which issued the delete. Our filer has ~200 clients any one of which could have done so... not a pretty picture. It was a known bug at the time, my only saving grace was telling management that the release it was fixed in was still in "Early Access". I'd seriously consider moving up to a 5.x release. >|I used to be a big Auspex fan. Now I'm a big NetApp fan. (actually, I'm >|a fan of big NetApps :-) ). The CIFS/NFS integration is so tight its a >|thing of beauty. The RAID, wafl, and other features make it difficult >|to even evaluate any other box. Now re-evaluating BudTool on the other >|hand... Bug 4157 was my worst experience with our filer. It occurred while we were still fighting to get an HA file server (F630 cluster) approved for purchase. And I still like 'em. We got an F740 cluster last month and going to be retiring our F330 in several months. And the support is great (well, some issues with bad/wrong parts being sent recently -- but never couldn't get a hold of knowledgable personel in an emergency). >Mmmm....if only a native legato client :-) Yuch. Native dump format is so much friendlier to work with than proprietary dump formats. That plus NDMP is why we went with BudTool. I won't be an issue for the filers once there's a native client, but wouldn't backup all my other hosts with it. Anyone know what's going to happen with this issue once BudTool is absorbed by Legato? I heard a rumor that BudTool v5.0 has already been scrapped. (Is there an Intelliguard mailing list?) If Legato and their tape format is our only upgrade path, we'll start looking at other products. jason --- Jason D. Kelleher kelleher(a)susq.com Susquehanna Partners, G.P. 610.617.2721 (voice) 401 City Line Ave, Suite 220 610.617.2916 (fax) Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-1122

1 0

RE: Gb-ether and Extreme: closure! :-)
by Garrett Burke 05 Mar '99

05 Mar '99

Hi, Both the filer and switch are set to 100-FD. I'm not seeing any collisions, only CRC errors. Cabling has been replaced to see if they went away, but to no avail. GB > ---------- > From: Devi Nagaraj[SMTP:devi@netapp.com] > Sent: 05 March 1999 08:47 > To: Dane Jasper > Cc: Garrett Burke; 'bmw(a)visgen.com'; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Gb-ether and Extreme: closure! :-) > > At 10:38 AM 3/4/99 -0800, Dane Jasper wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 09:19:36AM -0000, Garrett Burke wrote: > >> As an aside, have you run a filer into a 100Mb/s port on a S48? I'm > seeing > >> CRC errors on the port that my F230 is on. Netapp are investigating, > just > >> wondering if anyone else is seeing/has seen this. > > > >We've got a F230 running 100-FD with a Summit 48. We found that we had > >better results if we hard set both devices to 100-FD and turned off > >negotiation. > > > The F200/F300 series on-board ethernet doesnot autonegotiate. So if you > had > the filer's > ethernet interface set to operate in 100BaseTx-FD, the corresponding > switch port > should also be set to operate in 100BaseTX-FD. > > When speed/duplex mismatches occur, depending on the switch to which > the filer's interface is connected, you will see CRC errors and > collisions. > You will definitely see poor network throughput. > >

1 0

RE: Future Newbie Needs Advice
by Mohler, Jeff 05 Mar '99

05 Mar '99

I have two F760 Cluster systems (Four total heads). It's been extremely stable, and I did have to perform one OS upgrade, and replace one MB due to a FC 'oddness'. Ive always had hardware when I needed it, and tech support has been so solid for me too. Your BEST tech support is with your SE if avialable, it seems that sometimes I can get better OS advice from my SE than from the 800#, but thats common with the guy in the field having the up-to-the-minute advice ahead of a database somewhere else. You'll enjoy your system! > -----Original Message----- > From: Russ Amidon [SMTP:amidon@pico.sps.mot.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 3:56 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Future Newbie Needs Advice > > Hello Everyone, > > I am about to purchase two F760's w/ Cluster Failover Software and > Hardware > because we need a system that is 100% available and rock solid. I was > convinced > after talking to other Net App users that this was the way to go. After a > week > of reading this mailing list, I am no longer convinced. Does anyone out > there > have the system I described? Are you happy with it? I am particularly > concerned > about the fiber channel problems and all of the OS upgrades and patches. > > We are also considering the new Auspex NS2000. Does anyone know of an > Auspex > mailing list like this one? > > Thank you in advance for any advise you can offer to the "future newbie". > > Russ Amidon > UNIX Sys Admin

4 3

RE: Future Newbie Needs Advice
by Clarke, Bruce 05 Mar '99

05 Mar '99

One clarification: NFS and CIFS behave quite differently. We commonly demo Oracle/Unix (NFS) running against a cluster and routinely do "unexpected" things to the target filer making it fail (pulling both plugs is my favorite). It seamlessly fails over to the second node and Oracle, after a hesitation for a minute or so, takes off where it left off. The giveback is equally transparent. Thank Sun (circa 1983) for the statelessness of NFS. You are right; NT connections are not quite so robust. Bruce Clarke - Database Marketing Director Network Appliance, Inc. 2770 San Tomas Expressway Santa Clara, CA 95051 Phone: 1-408-367-3156 Fax: 1-408-367-3670 Email: bruce.clarke(a)netapp.com

1 0

RE: Future Newbie Needs Advice
by Sam Schorr 04 Mar '99

04 Mar '99

Russ, We have just installed clustering using 2 F740s. We had one F740, bought a second with clustering, and it was installed Monday night. A couple of things have happened: 1. We had to replace the disk array shelves onthe existing filer last night because the cluster partner (the new F740) could not see all of the disks on the "older" F740. Also, we had to upgrade the disk firmware on the "older" F740. 2. The existing filer has now started to crash. We had one crash Tuesday before correcting the disk problem above, so the cluster partner did not take over. We had a second one today on the "older" filer, and this time clustering worked fine. 3. However, it is not seemless. The failover breaks file shares (we are a CIFS-only environment, but I understand it would do the same to NFS mounts). So, users/application may get file errors if they are in the middle of performing a file operation. When you do a "giveback", you either have to manually break file shares again, or do a "cf giveback -f" which forces the share break. Only then, after the shares have been broken, does the filer you are do the "giveback" to reboot. This means, once again, file errors to clients. 4. Netapp believes the crashes may be the result of a bad ServerNet card (the card that connects the two filers together for clustering). If true, that means that we will have suffered 3 bad/faulty parts in one install/purchase. If you want, I'll let you know the end of this soap opera. Sam Schorr -----Original Message----- From: Russ Amidon [mailto:amidon@pico.sps.mot.com] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 1:56 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Future Newbie Needs Advice Hello Everyone, I am about to purchase two F760's w/ Cluster Failover Software and Hardware because we need a system that is 100% available and rock solid. I was convinced after talking to other Net App users that this was the way to go. After a week of reading this mailing list, I am no longer convinced. Does anyone out there have the system I described? Are you happy with it? I am particularly concerned about the fiber channel problems and all of the OS upgrades and patches. We are also considering the new Auspex NS2000. Does anyone know of an Auspex mailing list like this one? Thank you in advance for any advise you can offer to the "future newbie". Russ Amidon UNIX Sys Admin

1 0

Re: Future Newbie Needs Advice
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 04 Mar '99

04 Mar '99

On 03/04/99 13:56:29 you wrote: > >Hello Everyone, > >I am about to purchase two F760's w/ Cluster Failover Software and Hardware >because we need a system that is 100% available and rock solid. I was convinced >after talking to other Net App users that this was the way to go. After a week >of reading this mailing list, I am no longer convinced. Does anyone out there >have the system I described? Are you happy with it? I am particularly concerned >about the fiber channel problems and all of the OS upgrades and patches. > >We are also considering the new Auspex NS2000. Does anyone know of an Auspex >mailing list like this one? Data seems to suggest that despite the problems described, your Netapp is going to be far more reliable than an Auspex or virtually any other system. *Nothing* is going to be 100% available. Clustered filers are close; for more reliability you're going to have to pay a LOT more for really big iron which may not have the software capabilities you want. The other important thing is that the filer, when it does crash, generally results in a minimal outage. Other serves may take a half-hour or more to recover. Bruce

1 0

Re: Gb-ether and Extreme: closure! :-)
by Devi Nagaraj 04 Mar '99

04 Mar '99

At 10:38 AM 3/4/99 -0800, Dane Jasper wrote: >On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 09:19:36AM -0000, Garrett Burke wrote: >> As an aside, have you run a filer into a 100Mb/s port on a S48? I'm seeing >> CRC errors on the port that my F230 is on. Netapp are investigating, just >> wondering if anyone else is seeing/has seen this. > >We've got a F230 running 100-FD with a Summit 48. We found that we had >better results if we hard set both devices to 100-FD and turned off >negotiation. The F200/F300 series on-board ethernet doesnot autonegotiate. So if you had the filer's ethernet interface set to operate in 100BaseTx-FD, the corresponding switch port should also be set to operate in 100BaseTX-FD. When speed/duplex mismatches occur, depending on the switch to which the filer's interface is connected, you will see CRC errors and collisions. You will definitely see poor network throughput. Here is a table that gives info on the board types and the supported speed and duplex (mediatype) Interface Sysconfig name Mkt P/N Mediatype --------- -------------- ------- --------- Single 10/100 - ZX342 - X1001 - 10BaseT(half/full), 100BaseTx(half/full) Quad 10 BaseT - ZX314 - X1002 - 10BaseT(half/full) Quad 10 BaseT - ZX314 - X1003 - 10BaseT(half/full) Quad 10/100 - ZX346 - X1012 - 10BaseT(half/full), 100BaseTx(half/full), auto Single 10/100 - ZX345Q - X1001B - 10BaseT(half/full), 100BaseTx(half/full), auto Quad 10/100 - ZX346Q - X1012B - 10BaseT(half/full), 100BaseTx(half/full), auto F200/300 series onboard - 10BaseT(half/full), 100BaseTx(half/full) F700 series onboard - 10BaseT(half/full), 100BaseTx(half/full), auto Here is a small note on autonegotiation in the ethernet world: Q. What is Auto-negotiation? A. Auto-negotiation is an optional function of the IEEE 802.3u Fast Ethernet standard that enables devices to automatically exchange information over a link about their speed and duplex abilities. This allows devices to perform automatic configuration to achieve the maximum common level of operation over a link. Q. How does Auto-Negotiation work at Both Ends? A. When two auto-negotiation devices with multiple capabilities are linked together, they find their maximum common mode of operation based on a priority table. The following table lists priorities from the highest (1) to the lowest (5). The full-duplex mode of operation is given higher priority over half-duplex because, at the same speed, more data can traverse the full-duplex link. ------------------------------------------------------- Priority Capabilities ------------------------------------------------------- 1 100BaseT4 (not supported on NetApp filers) 2 100BaseTX Full Duplex 3 100BaseTX 4 10BaseT Full Duplex 5 10BaseT -------------------------------------------------------- Q. How does Auto-Negotiation work at One End? A. If one link partner is set to auto-negotiate and the other link partner is manually set, the manually set partner must always be half-duplex.The IEEE spec does not allow the auto-negotiating partner to detect full-duplex on a manually set link partner. auto ----X--> 100BaseT-FD auto -------> 100BaseT-HD If one end is configured to operate in 100BaseTx fullduplex make sure that the other end is also manually configured to operate in the same mode. If there is a speed/duplex mismatch, you might see CRC errors and poor network throughput. Hope this helps. -Devi Network Appliance

4 3

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