toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

Re: Recovered error messages no longer logged in 5.1.2R3
by John Tatar 18 Feb '99

18 Feb '99

Would someone from netapp let us know if that there is a facility and a level that we can set in the etc/syslog.conf file which would produce the Read sector error messages. Also is there a way you can kill -HUP the syslogd process so it will re-read the configuration file? 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 ===================================================================

2 1

Re: Recovered error messages no longer logged in 5.1.2R3
by George Kahler 18 Feb '99

18 Feb '99

Greetings... Elena Samsonova <E.Samsonova(a)wxs.nl> writes: > > Does anyone else have an interest in having the flexibility of including > > soft error messages in the log files or is there a general consensus > > that they are unnecessary. We're trying to get support from other users > > for making the toggle available. > > Yes, I would like to have the toggle as well. In the first place, I would > like those messages to remain in the log file (I have not upgraded to 5.1 > yet but plan to do so next month). We have prevented disk crashes by > monitoring them. Ditto! I'm still on 4.3.5D4 on both of our F520 and F330. The F330 is using the old 4 GB Seagate drives which number of them were replaced due to crashes. I find the messages very important in judging and predicting the state of the drives. George ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- George Kahler e-mail: george(a)yorku.ca UNIX Systems Administrator humans: (416) 736-5257 x.22699 Computing Services, York University machines: (416) 736-5830 Ontario, Canada, M3J-1P3

2 1

wierd NFS (Solaris) behavior
by Jay Soffian 18 Feb '99

18 Feb '99

We've been having a problem with Solaris NFS clients not seeing file updates occuring on our NetApps for a matter of minutes. This appears to be more than just an attribute caching issue. All our Suns are running 2.5.1 and a recently patched (Generic_103640-24). We are using NFS v3 over udp. This behavior is difficult to reproduce reliably. I managed to catch a particularly egregious example one time. A file had been updated from one of our clients, and another client didn't see the update. Out of curiousty, I mounted the NetApp partition containing the file at a differnt mountpoint on the same client that wasn't seeing the update. The client saw two copies of the same file. Here is the _same_ file on the NetApp from two different mount points on one client: root@presidio:~/ # ls -l {/studios,/mnt}/atlanta/accessatlanta/docs/pacman/includes/partners/rotation/namhoward.html -rw-r--r-- 1 20006 accatl 722 Dec 1 14:45 /mnt/atlanta/accessatlanta/docs/pacman/includes/partners/rotation/namhoward.html -rw-r--r-- 1 20006 accatl 49 Nov 12 10:22 /studios/atlanta/accessatlanta/docs/pacman/includes/partners/rotation/namhoward.html root@presidio:~/ # mount | grep '/export/studio' /studios on whirlpool:/export/studio proto=udp/remote on Tue Oct 13 04:02:54 1998 /mnt on whirlpool:/export/studio proto=udp/remote on Tue Dec 1 14:48:21 1998 Note that presidio is able to concurrently access two different copies of this file. It has cached not just the file attributes, but the data as well: root@presidio:~/ # wc {/studios,/mnt}/atlanta/accessatlanta/docs/pacman/includes/partners/rotation/namhoward.html 1 3 49 /studios/atlanta/accessatlanta/docs/pacman/includes/partners/rotation/namhoward.html 25 72 722 /mnt/atlanta/accessatlanta/docs/pacman/includes/partners/rotation/namhoward.html Gets wierder still: root@presidio:~/ # touch {/studios,/mnt}/atlanta/accessatlanta/docs/pacman/includes/partners/rotation/namhoward.html root@presidio:~/ # !ls ls -l {/studios,/mnt}/atlanta/accessatlanta/docs/pacman/includes/partners/rotation/namhoward.html -rw-r--r-- 1 20006 accatl 722 Dec 1 15:00 /mnt/atlanta/accessatlanta/docs/pacman/includes/partners/rotatio n/namhoward.html -rw-r--r-- 1 20006 accatl 49 Dec 1 15:00 /studios/atlanta/accessatlanta/docs/pacman/includes/partners/rot ation/namhoward.html Times updated, sizes did not. no_atime_update is off on the filer. Couldn't find anything at Sunsolve that seemed to be related to this problem. Any ideas? j. -- Jay Soffian <jay(a)cimedia.com> UNIX Systems Administrator 404.572.1941 Cox Interactive Media

2 1

Recovered error messages no longer logged in 5.1.2R3
by grdodson＠lexmark.com 18 Feb '99

18 Feb '99

I agree, I want to see these messages. I understand why NetApp is interested in suppressing them, (they cause unncessary support calls), but I want the heads up that a disk may be going south. An option to turn the messages on or a change to syslog.conf to re-enable the messages is needed. Graydon Dodson (606) 232-6483 grdodson(a)lexmark.com Lexmark International Inc. ----- Begin Included Message -----

1 0

Recovered error messages no longer logged in 5.1.2R3
by Greg Kitch 18 Feb '99

18 Feb '99

We recently upgraded our operating system version on an F220, F330 and F540 to 5.1.2R3. After a few days we noticed that we had stopped receiving recovered error messages on our SCSI disks. Following is an example of one such message: Sun Jan 17 02:19:16 PST [isp_main]: Disk 4a.4(0x4e55d0): READ sector 6200854 recovered error (1 17, 1) We sent a request to support inquiring about the status of these error messages and have been told that beginning with 5.1.2R3 they are no longer being logged. It is the case that the occasional and infrequent occurrence of these messages on a very active filer is not an indication of a problem, it is also our understanding that if these messages start increasing (1 an hour or 10-20 per day) on a specific disk for different blocks, then you should be paying very close attention to that disk and we would notify support. This seems to have been the case with several disk failures that we have experienced on our filers. An RFE (12820) has been filed at our request to supply a toggle for these messages to enable the customer to selectively include or exclude them from the messages file. We believe messages of this nature can be very helpful although one must understand their significance (or insignificance) when they occur. We have read some of the discussion concerning these messages on toasters but are not aware of anyone else that has noticed their disappearance and would like to see them made available again. Have I missed them? Does anyone else have an interest in having the flexibility of including soft error messages in the log files or is there a general consensus that they are unnecessary. We're trying to get support from other users for making the toggle available. One step further, we would like to see a list of all such error messages potentially logged by the system and what they mean. We have seen such lists on other systems and think that they could be helpful for the filers as well. Thanks. Greg Kitch UCLA SEASnet Computing Facility 2567 Boelter Hall Los Angeles, CA 90095

4 3

Netapp nfs over tcp
by Dave Heiland 18 Feb '99

18 Feb '99

I've currently got my filers with 'options nfs.tcp.enable off' from when I first set them up due to a perception that this would cause problems. Has anyone got tcp enabled? Have they seen any problems/benefits, or are there any known issues with this? We use mainly Solaris 2.5.1/2.7 machines and HPUX 10.20 machines, now with NFS v3 support added, doing compiles and standard (but heavy) file access (no news server, proxy, etc.) Dave

4 3

Recovered error messages no longer logged in 5.1.2R3
by Greg Kitch 18 Feb '99

18 Feb '99

1 0

Re: Poor small file CIFS performance in 5.2.1
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 18 Feb '99

18 Feb '99

On 02/18/99 09:29:26 you wrote: > >Hi All, > >Any other CIFS users seeing very poor CIFS performance when accessing large >numbers of small files? > >The specific problem is with across network backups using ARCServe. We were >seeing 70MB/min to a DLT3 drive when running OnTap 5.1D3, but upgrding to >5.2.1 has dropped that back to 20MB/min. > >When I backup large files (256MB core files for example) I'm seeing backup >throughput of ~130MB/min which is pushing the DLT drive close to its limit >(150MB/min with 2:1 compression). > >In general the performance for large files is better in 5.2.1, but Netapp >seem to have broken the small file throughput. By large numbers of small files, do you mean a bunch of small files in one directory? If so, are you sure this collection of small files actually existed when you did the backup before on the previous OS version? I guess what I'm getting at is the possible explanation that nothing broke between 5.1D3 and 5.2.1. Obviously, if something did, you'll have to wait to hear back from Netapp. It's also possible there was a fix in your D3 patch that did not make it into 5.2.1. People running patched versions to address a particular problem should always check to see if the patch made it into a subsequent release. Bruce

1 0

Poor small file CIFS performance in 5.2.1
by Garrett Burke 18 Feb '99

18 Feb '99

Hi All, Any other CIFS users seeing very poor CIFS performance when accessing large numbers of small files? The specific problem is with across network backups using ARCServe. We were seeing 70MB/min to a DLT3 drive when running OnTap 5.1D3, but upgrding to 5.2.1 has dropped that back to 20MB/min. When I backup large files (256MB core files for example) I'm seeing backup throughput of ~130MB/min which is pushing the DLT drive close to its limit (150MB/min with 2:1 compression). In general the performance for large files is better in 5.2.1, but Netapp seem to have broken the small file throughput. I've been through the usual tests: check duplex, swap network cables, even moved both backup host and the filer to another switch. Given the throughput on large files, I can't see it being a network problem. Neither the switch nor the filer interface are showing large number of errors. Backup performance from other NT servers hasn't dropped off. We backup from a snapshot. The small files (source files mainly, we're a SW house) are in quota trees using mixed security. There's quite a complex ACL system in place and some files may have 6-8 NT groups as part of the ACL. cifs.oplocks.enable is on and cifs.lvl2_oplocks_cap is off, which hasn't changed since the upgrade. I have a support call open with Netapp (Log ID: 52724.00000) and have provided them with a 60s network trace of the traffic between the filer and backup host when the backup throughput has gone way down and there's not much other filer usage, but they have yet to get back to me. Can anyone think of anything I should check for? Thanks, GB

1 0

Re: Sharing files between NT and Unix
by Mark Muhlestein 17 Feb '99

17 Feb '99

Actually it depends on the application. If the Windows application has the file open exclusively, then you won't be able access it from NFS. But if it is open in a mode that allows readers, it will work. And some applications open a file, copy it to a temporary file, close the original file, operate on the copy, then rename it to the original name when you do a save. And byte range locking also comes into play with some applications. All these types of lock are supported in a multi-protocol manner on the filer. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Tom Limoncelli <tal(a)research.bell-labs.com> To: Schepers, Jan <Jan.Schepers(a)nl.origin-it.com> Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Date: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 7:32 PM Subject: Re: Sharing files between NT and Unix >"Schepers, Jan" wrote: >> "NetApps Filers can't share files between NT and Unix *simultaneously*." > >I do it every day! > >It should be noted that the exact same file can't be opened at the exact >same time (ie. you can't "cat" a file in unix at the exact moment >MS-Word is reading the file). This is because MS-Word locks the file! >So, if you find a product that WILl "cat" the file while MS-Word is >using it, it sounds like they aren't implementing any locking! Ouch! > >--tal >

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