toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13522 discussions

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

bezels (was RE: Dell Deal)
by Thompson, Arnold 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

> > > 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. > > > > Dave "Color Me Cool" Hitz > > I suspect Dave still yearns for the studded leather, though I wouldn't > put faux-leopardskin beyond him. I hear that he gets the studded leather bezel influence from hanging around with Beepy. I also heard they were considering a pull-chain reboot mechanism.

1 0

RE: Dell Deal
by Polard, Henry 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

A faux-tigerskin bezel, a fireplace, a scantily-clad young lady stroking said bezel while purring appreciatively. Has anyone contacted our advertising agency? Henry "CLICHES R US" Polard > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Geiger [mailto:rmg@netapp.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 8:45 AM > To: Dave Hitz > Cc: jeff.mohler(a)wilcom.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Dell Deal > > > > > 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. > > > > Dave "Color Me Cool" Hitz > > I suspect Dave still yearns for the studded leather, though I wouldn't > put faux-leopardskin beyond him. > >

2 1

Re: 5.2.1 blues
by mds＠gbnet.net 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

On Wed 3 Mar, 1999, "Graham C. Knight" <grahamk(a)ast.lmco.com> wrote: > sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > > > > What do you mean by this? Simply smaller patches to the binary you can > > install faster, or do you want to tinker with the source code? > > > > Bruce > > > I mean, instead of running 5.1.2P1, P2, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, or D7 > (deep breath) > I'd like to run 5.1.2 with the patches i feel i'd like to have. Nice idea, in principle. The problem is that the infrastructure that would have to be put into the embedded OS, and the system files, or into additional user-tools across admin-host platforms, would be a heck of a stumbling block. And we, the customers, would likely see reduced reliability and responsiveness from NetApp as a result of the extra work and the extra complexity needed to achieve this. I, for one, am happier with the scheme that pertained about a year-and-a- ago where a release was tested very thoroughly before release and was current for more than 7 days before breakfix patching was desperately required! And where I got told by my SE's that we should be going with a specific patched release because they knew of problems with the main one. Having capabilities that you don't require along with ones you do is hardly a problem, so long as they're tested and don't contribute problems into the capabilities you DO want. </rant> 8) > > Graham >-- End of excerpt from "Graham C. Knight"

1 0

RE: 5.2.1 blues
by Mohler, Jeff 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

I kinda prefer the "here it is, this ALL works" approach rather than having to diagnose what base level+patches a user would be using. Both types of upgrades have good and bad points. > -----Original Message----- > From: John Tatar [SMTP:tatar@dis.anl.gov] > Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 8:40 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com; grahamk(a)ast.lmco.com > Subject: Re: 5.2.1 blues > > > > >One day, i'd really like to see NetApp move to a user patchable OS. > Anyone > >else? > > I agree. We have a F540. Why do I need an new OS that patches Fiber > Channel problems? Just give me the patches that I need for my system. > > I have had to go through an OS downgrade. I don't want to go through > that again. > > JT > -- > =================================================================== > John J. Tatar > Systems & Network Engineering Section > Advanced Computer Applications Group > Decision & Information Sciences Division > Argonne National Laboratory > > mailto:tatar@dis.anl.gov or john(a)tatar.com > Office: 630-252-3242 > Fax: 630-252-5128 > Pager: 630-266-1063 > ===================================================================

1 0

Re: 5.2.1 blues
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

On 03/02/99 15:39:05 you wrote: > >> >> If you are thinking of moving to 5.2.1, I encourage you to think carefully. >> > >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. ;-) > >One day, i'd really like to see NetApp move to a user patchable OS. Anyone >else? What do you mean by this? Simply smaller patches to the binary you can install faster, or do you want to tinker with the source code? Bruce

3 2

Clustered partner produces shelf error?
by Mike Ball 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

We have two F740 running 5.2.1 and the latest system and fiber drive firmware revisions. The two filers are clustered together. I will call the two filers A and B. Last Monday we added two 18GB drives to filer A. The drives came up fine in filer A and sysconfig shows the drives. After adding the drives to filer A, filer B now has a error in its messages log file which comes up every hour stating "[micv3a: stated]: *** NOTICE *** Configuration error on disk storage shelf attached to slot 1. Please check drive placement." We tried the following to eliminate the error: 1) confirmed the firmware was correct on the new fiber drives installed. 2) disabled and reenabled clustering. 3) rebooted filer B 4) verified all fiber connections were secure 5) ran "disk swap" and reswapped out and back in the two 18GB drives 6) since the two drives where installed into a empty 18GB fiber shelf, made sure the drives were in slots 3 and 4. Unfortunately the error on Filer B still keeps producing the above error every hour! Has anyone seen this error before or does anyone have any ideas about how to eliminate the error. Thank you, Mike Ball

1 0

Re: 5.2.1 blues
by John Tatar 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

> >One day, i'd really like to see NetApp move to a user patchable OS. Anyone >else? I agree. We have a F540. Why do I need an new OS that patches Fiber Channel problems? Just give me the patches that I need for my system. I have had to go through an OS downgrade. I don't want to go through that again. JT -- =================================================================== John J. Tatar Systems & Network Engineering Section Advanced Computer Applications Group Decision & Information Sciences Division Argonne National Laboratory mailto:tatar@dis.anl.gov or john(a)tatar.com Office: 630-252-3242 Fax: 630-252-5128 Pager: 630-266-1063 ===================================================================

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