toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13513 discussions

Netscape Enterprise Server 3.0 application failover?
by gsmith＠netapp.com 09 Feb '99

09 Feb '99

Hi, Curious as to whether any of our filer(cluster) customers are doing application failover for Netscape Enterprise server 3.0 with the data stored on filer? If so what is the solution you used and would you be willing to share it with another customer. Please respond to me directly and thanks in advance. Regards, Gil

1 0

18 gig drives and Drive shelf
by Jason Middlebrooks 09 Feb '99

09 Feb '99

Is there anything tricky about adding one of the new fibre channel FC-AL 8 shelves that is full of 18 gig drives to a F760 that currently has 2 FC-AL 7 shelves? Thanks for any comments or advice. Jason Middlebrooks Systems Engineer Datalink Phone: 888-933-9327x260 2264 Northwest Parkway, Suite I Pager: 888-502-1625 Marietta, GA 30067 Fax: 770-933-9272

1 0

RE: Where can I get a rack???
by Sam Schorr 09 Feb '99

09 Feb '99

Your Best Buys Are at Frys! Guaranteed! -----Original Message----- From: Jim Davis [mailto:jdavis@CS.Arizona.EDU] Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 3:31 PM To: Charles Homan [ext 422] Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Where can I get a rack??? On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Charles Homan [ext 422] wrote: > Does anyone know of a good source for sturdy racks? If you want a slightly offbeat alternative to the usual boring 19" racks, check with your local restaurant supply stores for "baker's racks". We found some very sturdy racks with adjustable shelves that way. Plenty of room for our 520s and their disk shelves and tape drives, though they do have a significantly bigger footprint than the 19" stuff.

2 1

Re: FW: EtherChannel trunking
by msmith＠netapp.com 09 Feb '99

09 Feb '99

> > If I've already nearly got it pegged in this peak operation (sustained > is about 30-50%...so far), and the theoretical limit of the 100 Mb/s fd > link is ~12,200 kB/s in and out, do I really need this quad 100 card? > Will spreading the network load reduce the CPU load? Spreading the network load will not reduce the cpu load. Given the output of sysstat in your mail, it probably won't help to add bandwidth, however, if you were to experience a different workload, more cached reads for example, you could easily exceed the capacity of a single 100Mb ethernet.

1 0

EtherChannel trunking
by Todd C. Merrill 09 Feb '99

09 Feb '99

Greetings. Has anyone configured a quad 100 ethernet card with EtherChannel trunking? I searched the archives for this lists and didn't find any subject heading with "EtherChannel" or "trunk." My proposed plan is (I hope it is this simple): o create a virtual interface with `vif create` o replace the ifconfig line in the rc file: ifconfig e0 mediatype 100tx-fd `hostname`-e0 with ifconfig vif1 mediatype ??? `hostname`-vif0 o reboot the filer There is probably a more elegant way to do this live and online, by downing e0 and then upping vif0, but I'll be doing this off hours anyway, so a reboot is not a problem. I've got a brand new F740 running ONTAP 5.2.1, and I'm new to NetApp filers, so please be gentle with a newbie to this technology. What a nice machine, though. Had it running at: CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 91% 1785 876 0 9346 1783 787 9056 0 0 8 91% 1858 722 0 9796 1100 182 10326 0 0 7 87% 2147 562 0 8924 1369 209 9138 0 0 8 83% 2007 934 0 7491 1330 147 8642 0 0 8 85% 2051 990 0 7703 1596 592 7265 0 0 8 for a while today; at this level, our previous file server (not a NetApp) would have long since fell over and died. If I've already nearly got it pegged in this peak operation (sustained is about 30-50%...so far), and the theoretical limit of the 100 Mb/s fd link is ~12,200 kB/s in and out, do I really need this quad 100 card? Will spreading the network load reduce the CPU load? 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 ---

2 1

RE: NetApp CPU upgrade
by Benn, Paul 08 Feb '99

08 Feb '99

I can't vouch for whether or not a Filer's CPU can be upgraded but I can point something else out.... A 90MHz Pentium has an internal clock speed of 60MHz and a multiplier of 1.5 (60x1.5=90). On motherboards that allow configuration changes there are usually (at least) two jumpers, one for clock speed and another for the multiplier. A Pentium 133 has an internal speed of 66 and a multiplier of 2 (66x2=132 or 133). So, as you can see, a simple chip swap won't work (actually, it might work but without proper mother board support you'd still have a Pentium 90). Regards, Paul -----Original Message----- From: Dane Jasper [mailto:dane@sonic.net] Sent: Thursday, February 04, 1999 5:09 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: NetApp CPU upgrade Has anyone considered upgrading the CPU on their NetApp product? It's a closed product, so NetApp won't talk about it, but it seems to me that the Pentium 90 in my F230 (66mhz external speed, 90mhz core?) could be replaced with a Pentium 133 with the same 66mhz external speed without any need for jumpers, etc. My NetApp is in heavy service, so I'm a bit hesitant. Has anyone tried this, or does anyone have a NetApp in light service that they'd like to try this with? I've searched the listserve archive and don't see any subjects that would seem to have previously addressed this. Somewhat busy CPU: CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 24% 431 0 0 74 672 573 0 0 0 2 36% 639 0 0 149 1035 768 0 0 0 2 30% 524 0 0 129 708 639 0 0 0 2 44% 868 0 0 158 925 868 0 0 0 2 42% 857 0 0 179 734 560 0 0 0 2 37% 658 0 0 133 735 1069 0 0 0 2 29% 494 0 0 100 737 752 0 0 0 2 27% 459 0 0 80 834 724 0 0 0 2 44% 886 0 0 189 1078 668 0 0 0 2 53% 717 0 0 151 923 2249 35 0 0 2 86% 589 0 0 104 1050 2678 3423 0 0 2 28% 535 0 0 101 563 212 0 0 0 2 36% 712 0 0 133 654 244 0 0 0 2 Regarding cache age, this unit already has the full 256M of RAM, so we can't address that issue in the conventional way either. -- Dane Jasper Sonic (707)522-1001 (33.6kbps) (707)522-1000 (Voice) mailto:support@sonic.net http://www.sonic.net Key fingerprint = A5 D6 6E 16 D8 81 BA E9 CB BD A9 77 B3 AF 45 53

3 2

RE: Gigabit Ethernet Card
by Naden, Barbara 06 Feb '99

06 Feb '99

The 1000-fx designation on the filer is just a string and has no effect on the encoding on the wire. Unfortunately, it is also wrong. It should read 1000-sx. You should have no problems connecting to your switch. Barbara Naden -----Original Message----- From: Jason Middlebrooks [mailto:jason@directconnect.com] Sent: Friday, February 05, 1999 4:22 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Gigabit Ethernet Card Can anybody tell me why I have a Gigabit Ethernet card from Network Appliance that says 1000-base-sx on the card yet Netapp does not support the SX encoding. My only choice when I configure the card is 1000-fx. My switch is set for 1000-base-sx. What can I do??? Changing my switch is not an option.... Thanks for any advice. Jason Jason Middlebrooks Systems Engineer Datalink Phone: 888-933-9327x260 2264 Northwest Parkway, Suite I Pager: 888-502-1625 Marietta, GA 30067 Fax: 770-933-9272

1 0

Gigabit Ethernet Card
by Jason Middlebrooks 06 Feb '99

06 Feb '99

Can anybody tell me why I have a Gigabit Ethernet card from Network Appliance that says 1000-base-sx on the card yet Netapp does not support the SX encoding. My only choice when I configure the card is 1000-fx. My switch is set for 1000-base-sx. What can I do??? Changing my switch is not an option.... Thanks for any advice. Jason Jason Middlebrooks Systems Engineer Datalink Phone: 888-933-9327x260 2264 Northwest Parkway, Suite I Pager: 888-502-1625 Marietta, GA 30067 Fax: 770-933-9272

1 0

RE: NetApp CPU upgrade
by Bulfer, David 05 Feb '99

05 Feb '99

The F230's performance is not limited by CPU clock rate. It is limited by the performance of the host bridge (a.k.a. north bridge). The host bridge defines memory bandwidth and PCI bandwidth. Overclocking the F230 won't solve a heavily loaded filer. David -----Original Message----- From: Dane Jasper [mailto:dane@sonic.net] Sent: Thursday, February 04, 1999 5:09 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: NetApp CPU upgrade Has anyone considered upgrading the CPU on their NetApp product? It's a closed product, so NetApp won't talk about it, but it seems to me that the Pentium 90 in my F230 (66mhz external speed, 90mhz core?) could be replaced with a Pentium 133 with the same 66mhz external speed without any need for jumpers, etc. My NetApp is in heavy service, so I'm a bit hesitant. Has anyone tried this, or does anyone have a NetApp in light service that they'd like to try this with? I've searched the listserve archive and don't see any subjects that would seem to have previously addressed this. Somewhat busy CPU: CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 24% 431 0 0 74 672 573 0 0 0 2 36% 639 0 0 149 1035 768 0 0 0 2 30% 524 0 0 129 708 639 0 0 0 2 44% 868 0 0 158 925 868 0 0 0 2 42% 857 0 0 179 734 560 0 0 0 2 37% 658 0 0 133 735 1069 0 0 0 2 29% 494 0 0 100 737 752 0 0 0 2 27% 459 0 0 80 834 724 0 0 0 2 44% 886 0 0 189 1078 668 0 0 0 2 53% 717 0 0 151 923 2249 35 0 0 2 86% 589 0 0 104 1050 2678 3423 0 0 2 28% 535 0 0 101 563 212 0 0 0 2 36% 712 0 0 133 654 244 0 0 0 2 Regarding cache age, this unit already has the full 256M of RAM, so we can't address that issue in the conventional way either. -- Dane Jasper Sonic (707)522-1001 (33.6kbps) (707)522-1000 (Voice) mailto:support@sonic.net http://www.sonic.net Key fingerprint = A5 D6 6E 16 D8 81 BA E9 CB BD A9 77 B3 AF 45 53

2 1

Re: Console server?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 05 Feb '99

05 Feb '99

On 02/03/99 20:54:15 you wrote: >I know someone was able to get conserver to work on a Sun (Solaris) >and using a portmaster for the physical connections. I do know he had >to work on it for quite a while to get it work... > >We use Portmasters for console access. It's a pretty basic setup and >the things just plain work... can't really argue against >reliability... :) Thanks, Craig. I had a lot of fun setting it up. :) And actually, I didn't even do the method without the port number, although I always wanted to go back and change that once I figured out how to do it on the Portmaster. That being said, if you don't like Livingston, er, Lucent, you can probably get Xylogics, er, Bay Networks, to work just as well. And as a former Purdue student, I have nothing against conserver at all, but I've yet to see it in full implementation across an entire machine room to know if it's truly worth the effort or not. Bruce

2 1

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