toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

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

5.2.1 blues
by Brian Rice 03 Mar '99

03 Mar '99

My client has a computing environment that includes six F630's, an F540, and an F330, all doing CIFS, NFS, and quotas. In January, we decided to get them all running the same OS revision, and based on the bug list we chose 5.2.1 as a target. So we upgraded one of the F630's to 5.2.1 in mid-January to see how it'd do. It did great, so Friday before last we upgraded the remainder of the filers from various 5.1.x flavors to 5.2.1. At midnight on Saturday night/Sunday morning, all but one of the filers panicked. The F630 that had been up for a month on 5.2.1 joined the group in panicking, but an identical F630, just upgraded the previous day with the rest of the group, did not. The next day, NAC technical support told us, even before they saw the dump, that this was bug 12363 ("Terminated DC connection causes crash in stub code") which is new to 5.2.1 and occurs when a CIFS-enabled filer loses contact with its domain controller. This bug is fixed in 5.2.1P1. We were skeptical of this diagnosis at first, since we hadn't had any known network events or DC events at that time, but conveniently a filer panicked again on Monday when we tried to delete a share. That data point plus NAC's report on Sunday's dumps, which confirmed their diagnosis of bug 12363, convinced us to begin a careful yet urgent move to 5.2.1P1. We installed 5.2.1P1 on one of the F630's that had panicked. No problems for the rest of the week. So Sunday we installed 5.2.1P1 on the rest of them. Two filers (one F630 and the F330) panicked Monday after we did a "quota on" on them. The panics occurred on the same failed assertion: "../common/wafl/quota.c:926: Assertion failure." (Because the "quota on" is part of a script that various folks run frequently, it took two panics before we drew a straight line between the "quota on" and the panic.) The panics recurred on attempt to reboot. We had to boot off floppy, leaving quotas off. So now we are running without quotas on the filers that panicked on 5.2.1P1. And we can't do a "quota on" on any of the others; I personally am even afraid of "quota resize". And we are faced with the difficult decision between regressing to 5.1.x (which wasn't a rose garden either) or waiting for a new 5.2.1Px. Either way, we've submitted the most recent dumps to NAC tech support, and we're waiting on a response. If you are thinking of moving to 5.2.1, I encourage you to think carefully. Brian

4 3

Jump to page:

2026

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