toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13522 discussions

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

Proposed List - Cache Toasters
by Nigel Metheringham 08 Dec '98

08 Dec '98

Since the toasters list appears successful and has been very useful to us, I would like to propose a new list for discussion of NetApp Caches. In a very similar way to the current toasters list, the new list would be independent of NetApp. Hopefully it would similarly attract some participation from NetApp people and be the basis for users to self support one another, gripe where needed, and bounce ideas off walls to see how they look. Planet uses a number of NetApp caches here at our Leeds UK site. We run a couple of mailing lists already and I am happy to add this one to our set. Alternatively if there are good reasons to host elsewhere then I'm willing to listen. I'd also be proposing that the list be mirrored into an web archiving service such as findmail.com. I'd like an expression of support or otherwise to see if its worth starting up the list. If any comments can be sent to the address cache-toasters(a)theplanet.net then I will collect these together in a few days and summarise to the lists. The reply address on this mail is set to the above address. Please note that this is not the list address and should it come into being it probably won't have that address. Comments, flames, praise etc back to me at the cache-toasters address. One last thing.... we really would need a cool name! Any puns on make-cache-fast will not be entertained :-) Nigel. -- [ Nigel.Metheringham(a)theplanet.net - Systems Software Engineer ] [ Tel : +44 113 207 6112 Fax : +44 113 234 6065 ] [ Real life is but a pale imitation of a Dilbert strip ] [ We're recruiting http://www.theplanet.net/profile/recruit.htm ]

2 1

Re: dump 'ignore dir' option?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 08 Dec '98

08 Dec '98

On 12/07/98 21:30:17 you wrote: > >Is there any easy way of telling 'dump' to ignore one or more >directories? It seems like every filer I archive has at least one >HUGE directory full of unvital compressed files that causes the dump >to span tapes. Simple solution would be to move that directory to it's own toplevel directory and/or quota tree (/logs is a good name). In fact, you could do that for all your filers, or put the all the logs on the same filer. Point the old directories to the new one via symlink if need be. Bruce

1 0

dump 'ignore dir' option?
by Dave Cole 08 Dec '98

08 Dec '98

Is there any easy way of telling 'dump' to ignore one or more directories? It seems like every filer I archive has at least one HUGE directory full of unvital compressed files that causes the dump to span tapes. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Cole (DC1110) | dacole(a)netcom.ca Systems Administrator |* dacole(a)rik.net * | office/~dacole/ Netcom Canada |* www.rik.net/~dacole/ * 905 King Street West, Toronto, M6K 3G9 | phone - 416.341.5801 Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Earth, Sol | fax - 416.341.5725

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