toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

NetApp CPU upgrade
by Dane Jasper 05 Feb '99

05 Feb '99

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

5 5

NetApp Customer Satisfaction Survey
by Wentz, Michael 05 Feb '99

05 Feb '99

All, On behalf of Network Appliance, I'd like to apologize for the multiple survey requests that were sent to many of our customers recently. We had a process breakdown that resulted in a large number of surveys being sent all at once, in some cases, as many as 5 or 6 to the same customer. The survey has been stopped while we correct the process problem and address feedback regarding the frequency of the survey. Customer feedback is important to NetApp as we seek to continually improve our products and services. The responses we've received through the survey have been instrumental in driving improvements throughout the entire company, but we've also heard that customers want to be surveyed less often. The original process was to survey for every closed case, but many customers have indicated that once a month is more preferable. For this reason, when the survey process starts again, we will insure that no customer is surveyed more than once in any 30 day period. Thank you for your understanding and patience, and my apologies for any inconvenience the survey has caused. Michael L. Wentz Director, Service Operations Network Appliance 408.367.3685

1 0

Re: Console server?
by Ketil Kirkerud Elgethun 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

Jim Davis <jdavis(a)CS.Arizona.EDU> writes: > We've been using some flaky old Wyse terminals for consoles on our > netapps; I'd rather hook them up to a terminal server of some sort. I > assume most any terminal server should work, but are there any favorites > people have? (Or ones that should be avoided?) What we use, and are very happy with, is a piece of software, combined with a lot of serial ports on a computer. The software (conserver/console, from Purdue), gives us things like - logging of all activity on all ports, - the possibility for operators to "hijack" console connections, in a controlled fashion. And lots of other cool stuff. Basically, we're extremely happy with it. We use conserver both with a linux box with multiport serial boards (Stallion), and with a Sun using terminal servers (we've had luck with Central Data Etherlite, there are probably oodles of others out there that work just as well.) If you want to use the conserver package, the only thing to keep in mind is that the server part of the software wants to see local devices, this might exclude some of the terminal servers out there. (The Etherlite comes with drivers that makes it appear as local devices on a Solaris box) -- ---Ketil Kirkerud Elgethun, SOL System

3 2

Obnoxious Satisfaction Survey
by Jason D. Kelleher 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

Anyone open a service call with NetApp within the last week? I opened two last week. After closing the first call, I received an email with the subject "Your Satisfaction with Network Appliance" that contained a survey to evaluate my satisfaction with the call. Since I was happy with the outcome I decided to fill out the survey and sing the proaises of NetApp tech support. (I can be a real bastard when I have a problem and need their help and I was hoping this would somehow make up for that in the cosmic scheme of things.) That done I deleted the email and went back to pretending to work. The next morning, after closing my second service call, I received another email survey from NetApp. (Actually, the email says NetApp "engaged CustomerCast, an independent research company, to conduct the following short email survey".) I decided that since I just sent out a glowing report I could ignore this surevey. ...But I was wrong!!! Every morning since I colsed the call I've received this survey. I even called NetApp yesterday to see if this could be stopped and this morning I received two copies of the survey! Does anyone know who I can call? Where to I send my first born to put and end to this? The email address we have listed with NetApp is an internal mailing list (so the other 6 people in my group can handle issues if I'm out) and I'm getting nasty grams... :( Getting spam'd by some weasely little con-artist trying to get me to take part in a "MAKE MONEY FAST" scheme is one thing, but I certainly don't expect this from a company I do business with. jason --- Jason D. Kelleher kelleher(a)susq.com Susquehanna Partners, G.P. 610.617.2721 (voice) 401 City Line Ave, Suite 220 610.617.2916 (fax) Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-1122

11 10

Re: Obnoxious Satisfaction Survey
by Mike Smith 03 Feb '99

03 Feb '99

Having read the submissions to mathworks I'm putting them all into one email and sending them to the appropriate people. Hmmm, maybe if we don't turn them off nobody will open any more cases... :) just kidding. Seriously I am sending the comments to the right folks to see if something can be done about it right away. Regards, Mike Smith Technical Support Engineer Network Appliance. ------- Forwarded Message Return-Path: E.Samsonova(a)wxs.nl Received: (from majordom@localhost) by herra.corp.netapp.com (8.8.7/8.8.7/GNAC-GW-2.1) id JAA19528 for dl-toasters-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:25:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx01-ext.netapp.com (mx01-ext.netapp.com [198.95.224.34]) by herra.corp.netapp.com (8.8.7/8.8.7/GNAC-GW-2.1) with SMTP id JAA19480 for <toasters(a)netapp.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:25:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 8319 invoked from network); 3 Feb 1999 17:56:13 -0000 Received: from turing.mathworks.com (144.212.100.12) by mx01-ext.netapp.com with SMTP; 3 Feb 1999 17:56:13 -0000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by turing.mathworks.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA03276 for toasters-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:15:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp05.wxs.nl (smtp05.wxs.nl [195.121.6.57]) by turing.mathworks.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA03262 for <toasters(a)mathworks.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:15:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from amf04060.office.wxs.nl ([195.121.4.60]) by smtp05.wxs.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.61) with ESMTP id AAA59DE for <toasters(a)mathworks.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 18:15:39 +0100 Received: from localhost (esamsono@localhost) by amf04060.office.wxs.nl (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA07108 for <toasters(a)mathworks.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 18:15:53 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: amf04060.office.wxs.nl: esamsono owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 18:15:53 +0100 (MET) From: Elena Samsonova <E.Samsonova(a)wxs.nl> X-Sender: esamsono(a)amf04060.office.wxs.nl To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Obnoxious Satisfaction Survey In-Reply-To: <199902031534.KAA09196(a)jagular.dev.susq.com> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.93.990203180955.5361R-100000(a)amf04060.office.wxs.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dl-toasters(a)netapp.com Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1176 Oh, I can relate!! I am also completely overwhelmed by those surveys! I filled in one and ignored all the others. > this morning I received two copies of the survey! Does anyone know > who I can call? Where to I send my first born to put and end to > this? Oh, this is too bad. Actually, I never received any *repeated* surveys after I deleted the ones I wanted to ignore. Perhaps you should open a service call for this problem? :) (Sorry, just could not resist. :) Or may be someone from NetApp is actually reading it here? The worst thing about those surveys is that besides the questions about this particular call, they *always* include tons of questions about tech. support in general, and really, I think we should not be asked to fill in those over and over again! Regards Elena - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elena Samsonova e-mail: E.Samsonova(a)wxs.nl World Access / Planet Internet phone: +31 33 45 40 417 PO Box 2529, 3800 GB Amersfoort fax: +31 33 45 40 401 The Netherlands - ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Re: Obnoxious Satisfaction Survey
by Jason D. Kelleher 03 Feb '99

03 Feb '99

In message <7F608EC0BDE6D111B53A00805FA7F7DA02BE9004(a)TAHOE.netapp.com>, "Sul livan, Shelly" writes: >Jason, > >I'm looking into this now. I don't know at this point if this is a >problem with our mail server, CustomerCast's or some other glitch. Are >you getting spammed for the same exact case, or have different cases >been closed over the last few days? > >We're certainly not in the business of trying to spam anyone, especially >after they had nice things to say about us :) > >I'm investigating now and will get back to you with the outcome. > >Thanks, > >Shelly Sullivan >Technical Support Shift Manager >Network Appliance, Inc. >2770 San Tomas Expressway >Santa Clara, CA 95051 >408-367-3531, 408-367-3450 Fax All the email concerns the same case number. Thanks for you help with this, it's greatly appreciated. BTW, I the email stated that surveys will be sent out after every closed case. Was sampling considered at all? It might be better received than email after every case. Then again, I wonder how many people actually have to open cases more than every couple of months. jason

2 1

RE: Obnoxious Satisfaction Survey
by Sullivan, Shelly 03 Feb '99

03 Feb '99

Jason, I'm looking into this now. I don't know at this point if this is a problem with our mail server, CustomerCast's or some other glitch. Are you getting spammed for the same exact case, or have different cases been closed over the last few days? We're certainly not in the business of trying to spam anyone, especially after they had nice things to say about us :) I'm investigating now and will get back to you with the outcome. Thanks, Shelly Sullivan Technical Support Shift Manager Network Appliance, Inc. 2770 San Tomas Expressway Santa Clara, CA 95051 408-367-3531, 408-367-3450 Fax > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason D. Kelleher [mailto:kelleher@susq.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 1999 7:34 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Obnoxious Satisfaction Survey > > > > Anyone open a service call with NetApp within the last week? I > opened two last week. After closing the first call, I received an > email with the subject "Your Satisfaction with Network Appliance" > that contained a survey to evaluate my satisfaction with the call. > Since I was happy with the outcome I decided to fill out > the survey > and sing the proaises of NetApp tech support. (I can be a real > bastard when I have a problem and need their help and I was hoping > this would somehow make up for that in the cosmic scheme of > things.) That done I deleted the email and went back to pretending > to work. > > The next morning, after closing my second service call, I received > another email survey from NetApp. (Actually, the email > says NetApp > "engaged CustomerCast, an independent research company, to conduct > the following short email survey".) I decided that since I just > sent out a glowing report I could ignore this surevey. ...But I > was wrong!!! > > Every morning since I colsed the call I've received this > survey. I > even called NetApp yesterday to see if this could be stopped and > this morning I received two copies of the survey! Does > anyone know > who I can call? Where to I send my first born to put and end to > this? The email address we have listed with NetApp is an internal > mailing list (so the other 6 people in my group can handle issues > if I'm out) and I'm getting nasty grams... :( > > Getting spam'd by some weasely little con-artist trying to get me > to take part in a "MAKE MONEY FAST" scheme is one thing, but I > certainly don't expect this from a company I do business with. > > jason > > --- > Jason D. Kelleher kelleher(a)susq.com > Susquehanna Partners, G.P. 610.617.2721 (voice) > 401 City Line Ave, Suite 220 610.617.2916 (fax) > Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-1122 >

1 0

Re: A tale of two domains...
by Keith Brown 03 Feb '99

03 Feb '99

>The problem: I need to be able for clients of Dom1 to place data onto the filer >so that members of Dom2 can access the data and vice versa. Ordinarily, users in one domain are not permitted to access resources in another domain unless there is a trust relationship betwixt the domains. This holds for any Windows NT resident resource (shares, printers etc...) as well as filer based resources. If you can not put the needed trust relationship in place (for whatever reason), your only option is to enable and use the so-called "anonymous access" provision which is provided within the Windows NT security model. On a filer, this is quite simple (as ever! :-)). You just need to set the "cifs.guest_account" option to a valid user identity that is defined within the filer's /etc/passwd file (or the NIS passwd.byname equivalent thereof). So, for example, if you... options cifs.guest_account dom2usrs ... then the CIFS users defined in Dom2 will be able to access the filer anonymously, and they will be mapped to the UNIX "dom2usrs" account (which in turn maps to a UNIX UID) for the puproses of assessing what they can and cannot do to the file system. More specifically, their "dom2usrs" identity will be used to assess what they can and cannot do to a UNIX-Style file system. On an NTFS-Style file system, they will be controlled by NTFS permissions, and their identity will, I believe, be defined as the Windows NT "AnonymousLogon" well known SID (S-1-5-7, if you care! :-)). The shares that the users in Dom2 want to connect to, as well as the areas of the file system they wish to access will have to be somehow accessible to these accounts. This will usually mean manipulating file system permissions and share level ACLs to provide these users with the level of access they need. Unfortunately you do not have the option to control these users access individually. Keith

1 0

A tale of two domains...
by Patrick.Day.B＠bayer.com 02 Feb '99

02 Feb '99

I am in need of some help. Here is the background... I have two NT domains, Dom1 and Dom2. The domains are NOT trusted and Dom2 is essentially a closed network, making no connections whatsoever to Dom1. I have one netfiler (740 with Ontap 5.1.2r3) who (through CIFS) is a member of Dom1. One NIC port is connected to Dom1's Subnet and another NIC port is connected to Dom2. Whew, thanks for staying with me so far. The problem: I need to be able for clients of Dom1 to place data onto the filer so that members of Dom2 can access the data and vice versa. Has anyone attempted this or does anyone have any suggestions? Any constructive input would be appreciated. I thank you ahead of time. Patrick Day Sys Admin Bayer Corporation patrick.day.b(a)bayer.com

1 0

ndmpcopy license
by Daniel Quinlan 30 Jan '99

30 Jan '99

Maybe someone at NetApp can answer this question... What are the copying/license terms for ndmpcopy? The source code is copyright Network Appliance and PDC, contains a few disclaimers, but no terms for source modification and copying. Maybe an Open Source license would be in order. - Dan

4 3

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