toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

RE: Dell Deal
by Bulfer, David 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

No, chrome was never really considered. It was supposed to look slightly unrefined, somewhat brash, totally in your face. Aluminum was selected because of the tooling budget that NetApp could afford at the time and because of the expected volume of the F540. Had we known that we'd sell as many F540s as we did, thing may have turned out differently. David -----Original Message----- From: kls(a)netapp.com [mailto:kls@netapp.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 12:20 PM To: hitz(a)netapp.com Cc: jeff.mohler(a)wilcom.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Dell Deal > > Is there any way we can get some -real- faces on the F760s? > > > > Seriously, my management was quite unhappy to see four non-matching purple > > plastic faces on our 760s after the sweet Stainless on the demo 630 we had > > *grin* Polished aluminum, actually. It was really supposed to be chrome, but the story I heard was that chrome would have been *really* expensive. > The most consistent complaint that we've had about the > 700 series is that the bezel isn't "cool" enough. > > I've done some serious rabble rousing, and I've gotten > a strong commitment that the bezel on our next high > end system will be cool. A refrigerated bezel? :-) I guess a refrigerated toaster wouldn't make much sense. -- Karl

1 0

RE: Dell Deal
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

On 03/03/99 08:57:44 you wrote: > >A faux-tigerskin bezel, a fireplace, a scantily-clad young lady stroking said >bezel while purring appreciatively. Has anyone contacted our advertising agency? Does the scantily-clad young lady included with the bezel? I bet they could sell a lot of filers that way.... Bruce PS - This would make a great ad campaign. Show a picture like the above, the woman stroking the bezel and the words, "Is your file server... sexy?" Then you could have a little asterisk and at the bottom of the advert the words: *Scantily-clad young lady not included. Bruce

1 0

Re: 5.2.1 blues (salient points for exploiting NetApp support facilities, a worked example ;)
by mds＠gbnet.net 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

On Tue 2 Mar, 1999, Graham Knight <grahamk(a)ast.lmco.com> wrote: > Our encounter (albiet brief) with 5.2.1 was pretty disasterous too. I'm > camped at 5.1.2P2 and have no reason to move. Except for the occasional > 5.2.1 floppy boot for the fiber channel diagnostics. ;-) I've a long story about 5.1.2...are we sitting comfortably? I shall begin: Well, we'd decided to move to 5.1.2 as a Y2K compliance upgrade. I fished around on the NOW site to check whether there were any patch releases available. You see we've been bitten several times by the following scenario: o upgrade to recommended release. o get hit by *known* bug. o get told that we should have gone straight to the latest official patch release (now apaprently the x.y.zPa releases, but once x.y.z.Da ..) which, bizarrely is invisible in the NOW site, unless you go fishing. o upgrade *again* So I fished around the un-linked-to parts of the Software Library and found 5.1.2P1, P2, D1, D2, and which now has D5, D6, and god-(and NetApp)-only knows what else. I never touch X releases. If any other letters are in use, I wouldn't know. I read over the descriptions and decided that 5.1.2P2 was the latest and greatest and officially sanctioned with a 'P' release moniker and that that was what we should go for. My colleagues, gaining experience with the filers, while I went off to upgrade our DNS/etc. infrastructure, undertook to upgrade our remaining 4 F330's, F520, 3 F630's and F540. They'd carefully tested the upgrade on another F330 a week earlier. All was apparently go-for-launch. After the upgrade there was a problem with the quotas one one filer - we couldn't turn them on because the filer would crash. Because we'd upgraded from 4.3.1 they could back-out without going to 5.0 first, which they didn't have, and didn't know how to find in NOW (I'm the only angler). I proposed they get NetApp support on the case and progress the issue - as the filer was still running and serving. For extra entertainment value 2 filers threw 3 disks between them (1 threw 2 in quick, but not lethal, succession - scary!) and another started misbehaving doing restores in the next day. Then another machine threw a disk, and *crashed* as a result. We logged calls for some failures and a call was automagically logged for the last one, from the autosupport mail (even though they're _all_ configured for autosupport), and cores were ftp'd for analysis. We were told that we needed to use wackz (not wackq, not wacky.. wackz *sigh* the Great UnDocumented, what a confidence builder) from, get this, 5.1.2P2D7. to fix the quotas problem on our one limping filer. 5. 1. 2. P2 _D7_ ferchrissakes!!! Dutifully my colleague did so. Now I, in my greater experience would then have booted from the 5.1.2.P2D7 floppies, and installed the 5.1.2P2D7 sysfiles, downloaded and then rebooted avoiding at all costs the known-to-be-buggy 5.1.2P2 code that still lurked on the filer. Sadly my colleagues just ran the wackz and rebooted...back to the known buggy 5.1.2 install. *sigh* I was very convincing, and somewhat impassioned and the upgrade was done, belatedly, but hopefully without any damage during the brief 5.1.2P2 run-time. I'm probablyoverstating the danger, but _D7_! Sheesh! Anyway. Long story, doubt many of you are still with me, but the moral I draw is this: NetApp have now achieved an overly baroque and divaricated release tree and have obscured it behind a screen of cgi's and HTML. They've developed wonderful support mechanisms that don't seem to be applied 100%, which means they can't be relied upon. These issues need to be addressed before they get worse. Being more forthright about all the patchings at each release, and making clear statements about which one the developers and support folk think customers should be running, rather than hiding all but the first release in the Software library would be very good. Patches being made for one specific customer site should perhaps be furnished only to that site, not placed into the public software library. Now I love NetApp kit and software for their evident virtues and I consistently champion them in my company, but I'm getting somewhat disenchanted, even annoyed by the increasingly less-than-polished releases of DOT and the support structure backing us up. The dismal state of backup-and-restore technology is also causing me to worry about the long-term ability of NetApp boxes to fulfill our needs. Maybe I'll change my opinion about that when we get Veritas Netbackup working...*if* we get it working. But that's another story, for another day. 8) I rather hope someone in NetApp takes up these points, seeing as so many of the fine folks on this list are NetApp stalwarts. This is the sort of feedback that I hesitate to give to front-line support folk lest they take it personally, or just bury it. This list at least hits doers at all levels in the NetApp organisation! There, that's off my chest... And everyone lived happily ever after. > > One day, i'd really like to see NetApp move to a user patchable OS. Anyone > else? Well, the patches may be big, but NetApp boxes are user patchable. We don't need our NetApp SE's to do everything for us. 8) > > Graham > >-- End of excerpt from Graham Knight

4 3

RE: VIF command
by Mohler, Jeff 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

> The filer is quite busy at the moment: > > CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache > in out read write read write > age > 75% 2695 1322 0 1554 2930 769 0 0 0 > 3 > 86% 2596 1150 0 2668 6273 4564 1953 0 0 > 2 > 94% 2515 1125 0 4332 6292 6295 3998 0 0 > 2 > 92% 2447 1197 0 3581 6829 6164 3836 0 0 > 2 > 87% 2257 1017 0 3251 6568 7332 3976 0 0 > 2 > 78% 2683 1028 0 1482 7961 5595 0 0 0 > 1 > 90% 2796 1057 0 743 10365 5145 3399 0 0 > 1 > 88% 2525 1262 0 2772 9479 5426 0 0 0 > 1 --- This is what I see on averate..and right now: CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 41% 831 0 0 754 5852 7311 8801 0 0 1 62% 897 0 0 322 7038 16440 11499 0 0 1 42% 673 0 0 823 4661 14210 2550 0 0 1 50% 1122 0 0 1175 8226 14409 1054 0 0 1 44% 855 0 0 480 6941 18302 1889 0 0 1 62% 1674 0 0 758 13759 15735 768 0 0 1 71% 1857 0 0 1004 15127 16968 896 0 0 1 84% 1663 0 0 1015 13346 19151 2810 0 0 1 77% 1616 0 0 1002 12960 16984 8008 0 0 1 76% 1351 0 0 610 11101 16928 11891 0 0 1 65% 1633 0 0 928 13222 16540 912 0 0 1 57% 1416 0 0 438 11811 15956 920 0 0 1 66% 1591 0 0 1676 12067 16540 864 0 0 1 59% 1433 0 0 1316 11089 16616 1249 0 0 1 48% 1109 0 0 677 8873 14048 864 0 0 1 50% 1147 0 0 1311 8566 16660 1601 0 0 1 58% 1385 0 0 2106 9911 14210 1089 0 0 1 53% 1197 0 0 2193 8149 14192 1184 0 0 1 64% 1465 0 0 3085 9515 15295 1025 0 0 1 And I only see traffic on two interfaces, although I can unplug working ones, and it fails over to idle ones.

1 0

RE: VIF command
by Mohler, Jeff 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

> Here's our output, for comparison. Seems to be a little > more evenly distributed than yours, but e3a takes the lead by far. > > bat> netstat -i > Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Collis > Queue > e0* 1500 none none 0 0 0 0 0 0 > > e3a 1500 144.212 bat 935492178 17 1070359540 268973 0 > 0 > e3b 1500 144.212 bat 712967233 17 800877896 233521 0 > 0 > e3c 1500 144.212 bat 527507321 2 669191765 212388 0 > 0 > e3d 1500 144.212 bat 522712811 89 672437298 201463 0 > 0 > lo 1536 127 localhost 30198 0 30198 0 0 0 > --- How much bandwidth are you using there, I am only barely using 110-130Mbits average. Im thinking it hasnt reached a 'threshold' to fire up more links.

2 1

VIF command
by Mohler, Jeff 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

I created me a vif interface made up of four 100Mb Ethernet interfaces. Seems to kick butt..again, too easy. I see, that only the first two interfaces really do anything, the second two show no errors, but dont DO anything. --- ratbert> netstat -i Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Collis Queue f2 4352 10.16.2/24 ratbert.wil 4106473 0 3683613 0 0 0 e1a 1500 151.142.223 tulsnae0.wc 15529776 0 48689576 5 0 0 e1b 1500 151.142.223 tulsnae0.wc 19535884 0 57094960 5 0 0 e1c 1500 151.142.223 tulsnae0.wc 92 0 19 0 0 0 e1d 1500 151.142.223 tulsnae0.wc 1534 0 13 0 0 0 lo 1536 127 localhost.w 0 0 0 0 0 0 ratbert> --- Is this normal? Thanks.

2 1

RE: UNCORR PROC MCHK 98
by Peter Pross 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

Hi, I believe this may be memory errors. I think you aloud 1 in a blue moon, if more replace mem. Check with netapps. Cheers, Peter __^__ ( ___ )--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ | / | Peter Pross Title: Unix Systems Administrator | / | Nortel Networks Montreal Email: pross(a)nortel.ca | / | 16 Place du Commerce Voice: 514-765-7973 | / | Nun's Island, Quebec, Fax : 514-761-8710 | / | Canada H3E 1H6 ESN : 852-7973 |___| (_____)--------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Ball [SMTP:mball@rtp.opensystems.com] > Sent: March 3, 1999 2:06 PM > To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: UNCORR PROC MCHK 98 > > Does anyone have an idea of what the below error is pointing to on my F630 > running 5.21? > > "Wed Mar 3 09:26:49 EST [rc]: relog syslog UNCORR PROC MCHK 98 > pc:fffffc0000482260 cia:0 mm:4090 eia:1820f550 fs:ff00 eis:945000000 isr: > 0 pci0:3010106 pci1:4000" > > I discovered my system was locked up this morning when I came in. After > rebooting i discovered the following error in my messages file. > >

2 1

cifs reconfiguration (workgroup -> domain)
by Todd C. Merrill 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

In the docs I see: file:/..../5_2_1-cd/ontap/5_2_1/doc/html/first/prp_cifs.htm#1149815 Deciding on a domain or workgroup configuration About this section You can install the filer into a Windows NT domain or Windows workgroup. Use the information in this section to help you decide which to choose. Caution: It is difficult to change this decision after you run setup. <gulp> Okay, I do want to change (from a workgroup to a domain). How difficult is "difficult"? If we're talking about gunning/modifying a few files from the filer etc directory, this is not difficult, coming from the CLI UNIX world. I hope this warning was just placed there for NT folks who use the GUI's. This FAQ doesn't quite expound on the "difficult" part above. http://now.netapp.com./knowledge/contents/FAQ/FAQ_309.shtml How does changing the authentication method from NIS to a domain controller affect the UNIX boxes accessing the filer via NFS? This FAQ seems a bit ambiguous: http://now.netapp.com./knowledge/contents/FAQ/FAQ_459.shtml 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: Dell Deal
by Mohler, Jeff 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

Charlie: Is there any way we can get some -real- faces on the F760s? Seriously, my management was quite unhappy to see four non-matching purple plastic faces on our 760s after the sweet Stainless on the demo 630 we had *grin* > -----Original Message----- > From: Simmons, Charlie [SMTP:charlie.simmons@netapp.com] > Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 12:08 PM > To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Cc: 'thomas(a)act.sps.mot.com' > Subject: Dell Deal > > In response to Philip Thomas's question below: > > Dell plans to resell some of NetApp's filers. The products will be offered > under > the Dell brand and therefore will have new bezels. They plan to use their > own > disk subsystem with the filers instead of NetApp's, but this doesn't > change the > function of the product at all. It's still "Network Attached." Dell will > continue to offer their own server attached products as well. > > All of NetApp's functionality, including Snapshot, should be available on > the > filers from Dell. Dell's focus for the filer product line is the Windows > market > and thus the CIFS protocol. We'll have to wait until they formally > announce > their products to see if they also offer the NFS protocol as an option. > > Charlie Simmons > VP Marketing > Network Appliance > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Philip Thomas [mailto:thomas@act.sps.mot.com] > Sent: Friday, February 26, 1999 8:38 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: DELL<->NetApp deal? > > > Can NetApp provide some more details on this DELL <->NetApp announcement? > http://www.dell.com/corporate/media/newsreleases/98/9811/04.htm > http://www.netapp.com/news/level3b/news_rel_981104.html > (a) Are they going to take say, a 740 stick Dell label on it and sell? > (b) Is this going to replace Dell's disk subsystem? In which case > the NetApp/disks are no longer a "network attached" system. Am I right? > (c) Will this NetApp disk system from Dell loose any of NetApp's features, > namely '.snapshot'.? > (d) I would assume Dell system; no speak NFS?? > > Philip Thomas > Motorola - PEL, M/S M350 > 2200 W. Broadway M350 > Mesa, AZ 85202 > rxjs80(a)email.sps.mot.com > (602) 655-3678 > (602) 655-2285 (fax) >

4 3

UNCORR PROC MCHK 98
by Mike Ball 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

Does anyone have an idea of what the below error is pointing to on my F630 running 5.21? "Wed Mar 3 09:26:49 EST [rc]: relog syslog UNCORR PROC MCHK 98 pc:fffffc0000482260 cia:0 mm:4090 eia:1820f550 fs:ff00 eis:945000000 isr: 0 pci0:3010106 pci1:4000" I discovered my system was locked up this morning when I came in. After rebooting i discovered the following error in my messages file.

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