toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13515 discussions

5.x Restore cannot read 4.x dumps
by grdodson＠lexmark.com 18 Dec '98

18 Dec '98

Anyone having problems restoring their dump tapes? We pulled a couple of old archive tapes (6 mo. old level 0 dumps) to restore some files and were unable to read them. Kept getting buffer size or buffer allocation errors. Placed a call to Tech. Sup. waiting for a callback (and waiting, and waiting, and waiting...). While waiting we tried some experiments. The tapes were written on an F330 running 4.x NFS & CIFS enabled (so we cannot use a sun to restore them). We discovered that we could read recent tapes written by either an F630 or F330 on a F630 running 5.1.2P1 with NFS & CIFS. I strongly suspect that a filer running 5.1.2P1 cannot read tapes written with 4.x. This has a less than pleasant affect on our backup & archive strategy. Can anyone confirm this? Thanks. Graydon Dodson grdodson(a)lexmark.com Lexmark International Inc.

3 2

ClearCase VOBs on NetApp
by Nick Thompson 18 Dec '98

18 Dec '98

Hi, We are just starting to deploy ClearCase... I have been speaking to engineers at Network Applications who assured me that it is possible to create the WHOLE of a ClearCase VOB (including the db) on a NetApp filer (and any other NFS filer for that matter). Since Rational told me this was not possible, I got curious and tried it anyway. It worked! Has anybody else here tried this configuration? Had any problems? According to the ClearCase docs, if you can snapshot a complete VOB (as on a Toaster) then it is not necessary to lock it prior to backup (though some disk may be lost to empty containers if you restore from it). Anybody tried/trust this or would you advise against it? Potentially this could make our backup scheme MUCH simpler. Thanks, -- _ _______ __ __ Nick Thompson | Lucent Technologies / \/ / / __\/ // /\ Lucent Technologies | (Bell Labs Innovations) / / / /__/ _ / / Microelectronics House | nickthompson(a)lucent.com /_/\_/_/____/_/\\_\/ Kings Ride, Ascot | Tel: +44 1344 865951 \_\/\\_\____\_\/ \_\ Berkshire SL5 8AD | Fax: +44 1344 865959

1 0

Routing Anomaly..
by Jeff Mohler 17 Dec '98

17 Dec '98

I have a newbie question about my 760. I have a FDDI interface, and a quad Ethernet interface. FDDI Interface is 10.16.2.25/24 with a default route on the box to 10.16.2.1 e1a Interface is 151.142.223.30/24 plugged into a 10/100 switch, the switch holds three Sun servers on the same network, and a Cisco router at .1. Problem is, that I cannot ping any 151.142.223 address from the Filer, and the Sun servers also cannot ping the Filer. Im assuming that the default route on the filer is being used to send out traffic destined for 151.142.223.0/24. I have routed off in the filer config. What should I do to make the e1a interface active to the 151.142.223.0/24 network? Thanks in advance.

1 0

Re: NT and UID
by Mark Muhlestein 14 Dec '98

14 Dec '98

Good point. And in that case you should definitely keep the UIDs consistent. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Allison, Bridget <bridget.allison(a)netapp.com> To: Muhlestein, Mark <mmm(a)netapp.com>; Patrick.Day.B(a)bayer.com <Patrick.Day.B(a)bayer.com> Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 10:00 AM Subject: RE: NT and UID >>If you are only using NT clients it doesn't matter too much what you use >>for UIDs. > >... unless you're using user level quotas when you still need a unique >UID for each user, right? I think Patrick is only using SSAM because >he's using quotas. >

1 0

RE: NT and UID
by Allison, Bridget 14 Dec '98

14 Dec '98

>If you are only using NT clients it doesn't matter too much what you use >for UIDs. ... unless you're using user level quotas when you still need a unique UID for each user, right? I think Patrick is only using SSAM because he's using quotas.

1 0

Re: NT and UID
by Mark Muhlestein 14 Dec '98

14 Dec '98

If you are only using NT clients it doesn't matter too much what you use for UIDs. If you want, you can just map all NT users to the same UID, since the files will all have NT security and what matters is the ACL. However, if you do have UNIX users accessing the data you will want to have a consistent mapping for the UIDs. I agree that is how SSAM should work. We'll look into fixing it. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Patrick.Day.B(a)bayer.com <Patrick.Day.B(a)bayer.com> To: - (052)toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 8:54 AM Subject: NT and UID >I have a question about the use of UID entries in the passwd and group files in >regards to an NT environment. We are installing a NetFiler 740 with Ontap >5.1.2 and only use NTFS (no mixed or NFS) permissions. We also have enable >quotas. I am using the Secure Share AccountMigrator to pull in and merge two >separate NT domains. The SSAM arbitrarily/sequentially assigns UID's on the >initial merge. However, i was wanting to use the SSAM as an accont update >utility as well. When we make changes to the account database on a daily >basis, we can simply merge and save using the SSAM. When i have experimented, >i found that a user's UID may change from update to update. I can't find >anything wrong with this, but wanted to know if anyone else is doing the same >and whether or not they have encountered any problems. > >Thanx! >W. Patrick Day >System Adminstrator >Bayer Corporation >Clayton, NC >

1 0

NT and UID
by Patrick.Day.B＠bayer.com 14 Dec '98

14 Dec '98

I have a question about the use of UID entries in the passwd and group files in regards to an NT environment. We are installing a NetFiler 740 with Ontap 5.1.2 and only use NTFS (no mixed or NFS) permissions. We also have enable quotas. I am using the Secure Share AccountMigrator to pull in and merge two separate NT domains. The SSAM arbitrarily/sequentially assigns UID's on the initial merge. However, i was wanting to use the SSAM as an accont update utility as well. When we make changes to the account database on a daily basis, we can simply merge and save using the SSAM. When i have experimented, i found that a user's UID may change from update to update. I can't find anything wrong with this, but wanted to know if anyone else is doing the same and whether or not they have encountered any problems. Thanx! W. Patrick Day System Adminstrator Bayer Corporation Clayton, NC

1 0

None
by Michael Massee 11 Dec '98

11 Dec '98

1 0

Re: Proposed List - Cache Toasters
by jrg＠acm.org 08 Dec '98

08 Dec '98

On Tue 8 Dec, 1998, mds(a)ns.gbnet.net (Mark D Simmons) wrote: >A very worthy idea! However, one that's already been addressed: > >netcache-users(a)gbnet.net indeed, usual stuff - email netcache-users-request(a)gbnet.net with 'subscribe' in the message body to join (it's run using Majordomo). There's also a rudimentary archive at <URL:http://www.gbnet.net/lists/netcache-users/> James.

1 0

Re: Proposed List - Cache Toasters
by mds＠ns.gbnet.net 08 Dec '98

08 Dec '98

A very worthy idea! However, one that's already been addressed: netcache-users(a)gbnet.net netcache-users Discussion list for NetCache users I'm sure the administrator of the list will be along shortly to explain how to join it and what it's all about. It's been running for a while and receives the patronage of Peter Danzig no less! *drumroll fades*

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