toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

Start a nNew thread

None
by Frans van Aken 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

subscribe toasters

1 0

snapshot and df does not match?
by Madhu Chandra 17 Nov '98

17 Nov '98

Hi All, Eventhough my snap list shows less than 100%, Why my df command shows 130%? Is there any hidden files that I need to delete? How does this sanp list matches with df's capacity? Following is the snap list and df commands for my F520 version 5.1 snap list Volume vol0 working................. %/used %/total date name ---------- ---------- ------------ -------- 4% ( 4%) 3% ( 3%) Nov 17 00:00 nightly.0 4% ( 4%) 3% ( 3%) Nov 16 16:00 hourly.0 5% ( 4%) 3% ( 3%) Nov 16 08:00 hourly.1 5% ( 4%) 4% ( 3%) Nov 16 00:00 weekly.0 5% ( 4%) 4% ( 3%) Nov 15 00:00 nightly.1 9% ( 4%) 6% ( 3%) Nov 14 00:00 nightly.2 12% ( 5%) 9% ( 3%) Nov 13 00:00 nightly.3 28% (21%) 26% (17%) Nov 09 00:00 weekly.1 df Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on /vol/vol0/ 50603952 45514752 5089200 90% /vol/vol0/ /vol/vol0/.snapshot 12650988 16497100 0 130% /vol/vol0/.snapshot Thanks for the help Madhu

1 0

subscribe fva@oce.nl
by Frans van Aken 16 Nov '98

16 Nov '98

1 0

Re: DLT 4500's?
by Jim Ripley (49er Fan) 13 Nov '98

13 Nov '98

The DLT4500 is supported in multiple D patch releases. The latest D patch release for the 4.3.4 tree is 4.3.4D9 and can be obtained at: http://now.netapp.com/download/software/ontap/4.3.4D9/ Hope this helps. Jim -->>Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 22:39:04 -0800 (PST) -->>From: Brian Rice <brice(a)gnac.com> -->>To: toasters(a)mathworks.com -->>Subject: DLT 4500's? -->> -->>Looks like DLT 4500's are not supported, or at least not by 4.3.4 on F630's. -->>sysconfig -t says "non-qualified tape drive," and one gets no tape devices. -->> -->>Anyone had any experience to the contrary? I plan to call 888-4-NETAPP -->>and make nice in the morning, but I wanted to find out if anyone has had -->>other experiences, say with later revs of the OS. -->> -->>I'd rather not run permanently with a non-supported library, even if -->>NAC has a back-door patch for it. I think I need to bite the bullet -->>and buy a real tape drive. But this 4500 (which we found in the tomb -->>of Ramses II, believe it or not) would be a nice stopgap if that were -->>possible. -->> -->>Thanks, y'all. -->> -->>Brian Rice -->>brice(a)gnac.com

1 0

Re: DLT 4500's?
by Jason D. Kelleher 13 Nov '98

13 Nov '98

In message <199811130639.WAA15113(a)tweety.main.gnac.com>, Brian Rice writes: >Looks like DLT 4500's are not supported, or at least not by 4.3.4 on F630's >. >sysconfig -t says "non-qualified tape drive," and one gets no tape devices. > >Anyone had any experience to the contrary? I plan to call 888-4-NETAPP >and make nice in the morning, but I wanted to find out if anyone has had >other experiences, say with later revs of the OS. > >I'd rather not run permanently with a non-supported library, even if >NAC has a back-door patch for it. I think I need to bite the bullet >and buy a real tape drive. But this 4500 (which we found in the tomb >of Ramses II, believe it or not) would be a nice stopgap if that were >possible. The problem with the 4500's is that ONTAP looks at the SCSI ID string and barfs if it's not a value it expects. You have two options, get NetApp to give you a "D" release which supports 4500s or change the SCSI ID which your drive returns. I've tried both. Getting the "D" releases is annoying, they come out at a several week lag to the production release. I managed to get an app from our drive vendor, BoxHill, which allows me to change how the drive reports itself. Now my filer happily writes 40GB to an "Exabyte 8500". good luck, jason

1 0

DLT 4500's?
by Brian Rice 13 Nov '98

13 Nov '98

Looks like DLT 4500's are not supported, or at least not by 4.3.4 on F630's. sysconfig -t says "non-qualified tape drive," and one gets no tape devices. Anyone had any experience to the contrary? I plan to call 888-4-NETAPP and make nice in the morning, but I wanted to find out if anyone has had other experiences, say with later revs of the OS. I'd rather not run permanently with a non-supported library, even if NAC has a back-door patch for it. I think I need to bite the bullet and buy a real tape drive. But this 4500 (which we found in the tomb of Ramses II, believe it or not) would be a nice stopgap if that were possible. Thanks, y'all. Brian Rice brice(a)gnac.com

2 1

Re: copying a snapshot file back over a recently-edited file
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 13 Nov '98

13 Nov '98

Yes, it's perfectly normal, and I think it's even documented in the manual. cp and other programs make the assumption that if it's the same inode, the files are identical, and due to the way snapshots work, it's the same inode. Copying it from what looks like another filesystem to the client is the easiest way to get around it. If you don't want people accessing the snapshot directories that way, just mv or remove the old file first. Bruce

1 0

copying a snapshot file back over a recently-edited file
by Rob Windsor 12 Nov '98

12 Nov '98

I was dinking with my .mime.types and decided to restore the original file back into place. I received some real odd behavior, and was curious if this was "normal", or if things were screwey. I'll just cut'n'paste what came out of the xterm, it will explain itself. (Solaris/sparc v2.6 and OnTapp v4.3.5 on a F520, if you must know..) : wst103:~; cp .snapshot/hourly.0/.mime.types . cp: .snapshot/hourly.0/.mime.types and ./.mime.types are identical : wst103:~; /usr/bin/cp .snapshot/hourly.0/.mime.types . cp: .snapshot/hourly.0/.mime.types and ./.mime.types are identical : wst103:~; ll -i .snapshot/hourly.0/.mime.types ./.mime.types 591121 -rw-r--r-- 1 windsor staff 328 Nov 12 17:05 ./.mime.types 591121 -rw-r--r-- 1 windsor staff 589 Aug 4 17:22 .snapshot/hourly.0/.mime.types : wst103:~; cp /nac/.snapshot/hourly.0/userdata/windsor/.mime.types . : wst103:~; /nac and ~ are two different mountpoints (two different filesystems as far as cp(1) knows), as you may have already figured out. I haven't had any users query me about this yet, fortunately. Am I to remove the file completely before copying back in from the snapshot? -- Rob ---------------------------------------- Rob Windsor E-Mail - mailto:windsor@adc.com Senior Unix Systems Administrator Voice - phone:972-680-6919 Computer Services Fax - phone:972-680-0370 Business Broadband Group ADC Telecommunications Richardson, TX 75082

1 0

Max Number of drives
by Jason Middlebrooks 12 Nov '98

12 Nov '98

What is the max number of 4 Gig drives a F210 can have? What is the max number of 4 Gig drives a F330 can have? Jason Middlebrooks Systems Engineer Direct Connect Systems Phone: 770-933-9327x260 2264 Northwest Parkway, Suite I Pager: 888-502-1625 Marietta, GA 30067 Fax: 770-933-9272

4 3

Re: Potential user has questions
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 12 Nov '98

12 Nov '98

On 11/09/98 18:40:33 you wrote: > > >On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 13:25:57 PST, > Sam Schorr <sschorr(a)homestead.com> wrote: > >> I think the reasoning here is not quite thorough enough. If I buy a Compaq >> server and then I install a 3-Com ethernet card, I still expect, and get, >> full support from Compaq. This has been the case in the clone, or Intel >> world for quite awhile. I know that it is less true the more proprietary >> you get, but still is essentially the case, even in the IBM mainframe world >> and in the UNIX world. I am now in the middle of an issue between Network >> Appliance and Microsoft and I would NEVER buy another filer if NetApp tried >> to deflect response to the fact that I use Microsoft products and therefore >> I should debug the Microsoft side first. Whether I like it or not, and >> whether NetApp likes it or not, multi-vendor environments MUST be supported >> - there is no option. > > >I agree, in general. > >I think netapp's position is somewhat justified, because they can >claim -- and I take it on face value -- that they stress disks more >than other vendors. Therefore, they claim, they have to test each >model disk and even each firmware revision before quality assuring >it. In theory, any generic disk should work, but there's enough >"practice" out there to show that different disks stand up to various >stresses differently. > >I can accept this, but I'm not sure why this also applies to memory. >And I guess I can accept it with scsi boards and ethernet boards, but >I'm not entirely happy about it. It seems to me they could QA more >add-ons than the ones they sell. Actually, my impression (I have no data to back this up) is that the memory failures are roughly as likely as the disk failures, and they weed out a lot of memory in their testing as well. This is because they stress the memory as much as the disk (for the most part a lot of the memory acts as one big RAM disk), and memory timing issues need to be very, very tight. SCSI and ethernet boards similarly have to be qualified. I agree more could be done, but there would be a tangible performance loss for running a 3com card in your filer instead. And Netapp would have to develop a driver for it and it's multiple incarnations. There isn't a nice driver interface layer you can use to make the driver standard across different platforms that you can also use for Netapp, because then you'd lose even more performance. On a final note, you're not the only one I've seen doubt Netapp's "claim" of testing. I don't know why people doubt this. Trust me, I've seen it. You can probably call them up and ask to see it, too. There's a lot of QA that goes on. 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