toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

RE: Potential user has questions
by Sam Schorr 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

Stephen, Actually, that is not quite true even in the case of the filer, unless I have not understood some things about how Network Appliance builds their devices. The ethernet, fddi, gigabit, etc network interfaces are not made by NetApp. It does not seem farfetched to expect Network Appliance to use the same model that has led to open sourcing in other areas. If they have chosen to integrate the drivers directly into ONTap instead of calling the drivers as needed, and if they have not adhered to whatever standards exist for those interfaces, then NetApp has self-created a monopoly. It will go the way of all monopolies - competition will force them out of business or into supporting more flexible configurations. -----Original Message----- From: Stephen C. Losen [mailto:scl@sasha.acc.virginia.edu] Sent: Monday, November 09, 1998 2:53 PM To: Sam Schorr Cc: toasters(a)magic.metawire.com Subject: Re: Potential user has questions > 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. There is one BIG difference as far as interface cards go. Any driver code is part of ONTap. If ONTap does not have code to support a particular card, there's absolutely no way the card will work in a filer (unless it is a perfect clone of a card that netapp does support). And there is no way for a card vendor to supply you with a "driver" that will work on a netapp filer. They would have to provide you with a custom version of ONTap. Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 804-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

3 2

RE: Potential user has questions
by Sam Schorr 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

Okay, I get your point and it is well taken. The flip side is that there is only competition at the product level, so that there is less incentive for NetApp (or any other vendor in a similar position) to drive costs down. Yes, I know that there are many vendors with competing products (Auspex, EMC, DataDirect, etc), so I guess I'll exit gracefully from this thread with a the admonition "buyer beware". -----Original Message----- From: Rob Windsor [mailto:windsor@adc.com] Sent: Monday, November 09, 1998 4:17 PM To: Sam Schorr Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Potential user has questions On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 13:25:57 PST, Sam Schorr 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. But Compaq doesn't make software, they didn't write the OS that you are trying to get to talk to that 3-Com ethernet card. Who's responsibility is it to ensure that there are drivers for your OS on that Compaq? 3Com will happily help you out with Microsoft products since the time spent writing/fixing those drivers have a tangible effect on hardware sales. I bet they aren't so quick with others, particularly if you are not on an Intel-based mainboard. Imagine calling 3Com up and asking if they have drivers for their 3c905 running "Network Appliances Data OnTapp v5.x" for the Alpha CPU. So, NetApp should write the driver, you say? The more wizbang cards from Fry's that people want to put in their filers, the more development work that NetApp has to put into "nonstandard" (not OEM'd by them) hardware, and the more expensive the filers get. Afterall, they need to bill the development time back to the customers somehow. That is not what we call a "win win" situation. -- 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

RE: Potential user has questions
by Sam Schorr 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

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. Sam Schorr Homestead Technologies (650) 549-3152 New Phone Number!! fax: (650) 364-7329 sschorr(a)homestead.com Don't just build a home page...build a Homestead!! http://www.homestead.com -----Original Message----- From: marc_merlin(a)magic.metawire.com [mailto:marc_merlin@magic.metawire.com] Sent: Monday, November 09, 1998 9:32 AM To: toasters(a)magic.metawire.com Subject: Re: Potential user has questions On 6 Nov 1998 17:44:48 -0800, Brian Atkins <brian(a)posthuman.com> wrote: >> > Can we use third party drives/shelves/canisters/mem? >> >> They would not be supported. > >Need some clarification: so if we had a problem with our >filer, would we still be able to get support/warranty >service? I understand that if the problem was traced to >third party parts we would be on our own at that point- >but before that determination would we still get help? Note that this is not an official answer, but just a guess using common sense. Picture one of your systems showing random failures. You call netapp, you spend a long time with their tech support engineers, they start guessing at what the failure is, they ship you replacement parts, etc, etc... In the end, you guys figure out that all your problems came from the substandard memory you bought yourself. Of course, you handle the memory part yourself. However, does this make sense for Netapp? They spent time and money trying to help you when in fact your failures where not due to their hardware... So I'm almost certain that no, just like other companies, Netapp won't support your hardware if you put in some parts that don't come from them. Marc -- "Microsoft is to software what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking" Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ (friendly to non IE browsers) Finger marc(a)merlins.org for PGP key and other contact information

3 2

Re: Potential user has questions
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 09 Nov '98

09 Nov '98

> You could put some cheesse-ball 10/100 ethernet card in your filer. > But do you really expect to be able to get decent performance out of it? > Tell me there is no difference between a $30 Netgear 10/100 card and the > $200 Zynx that NetApp uses (or used to use). As long as they both use the same Digital 21140 Ethernet controller, I expect basically the same performance. My ttcp measurements seem to bear this out. I'm not saying that the controller is the only interesting part of an Ethernet card - just saying that even inexpensive Ethernet cards can have excellent performance. (Btw, Netgear has recently changed to a different Ethernet controller.) Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

1 0

Re: Potential user has questions
by Tom Reingold 09 Nov '98

09 Nov '98

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. -- Tom Reingold tommy(a)bell-labs.com http://www.bell-labs.com/~tommy Bell Labs, the Research and Development unit of Lucent Technologies Murray Hill, NJ, 07974-0636 US

1 0

Re: Potential user has questions
by Brian Atkins 09 Nov '98

09 Nov '98

Shannon Madison wrote: > > > Can you add drives to a file without shutting down? > > yes. Our filers feature "hot swap" capabilities which allow the file system(s) > to grow dynamically while online. > There may be some useful links @ Network Appliance - Architecture > > > How would you add shelves/adapters? > > the same way you'd add them to any other system. Often, shutting down is > _recommended_ but not necessarily required. Interesting.. other posters have claimed a shutdown is required. Can anyone clarify? > > > Is the filer OS considered secure? > > At least as secure as an NT server when running CIFS, and/or a UNIX server > running NFS, and quite often a bit more so (since the filer isn't running a > lot of superfluous processes). > > > Y2K compliant? > > As of v5.1.2 of the Data ONTAP OS, yes. Look at: Network Appliance - Year > 2000 > > > Would you feel safe running your filer attached to potentially > > hostile web servers running user-uploaded CGI programs? > > Absolutely, as we won't run CGI processes on our filer. I think you misunderstood... I mean if the nfs client machines have CGI running on them; CGI that could potentially do just about anything... Basically would you say it is safe or not safe to have a filer attached to the public Internet, or do you recommend that they be firewalled? > > > Can we use third party drives/shelves/canisters/mem? > > They would not be supported. Need some clarification: so if we had a problem with our filer, would we still be able to get support/warranty service? I understand that if the problem was traced to third party parts we would be on our own at that point- but before that determination would we still get help? > > > Will 18GB and larger drives work ok? (Seagate just announced > > 36GB half-height drives...) > > We will soon be supporting 18gb drives. 36gb are in qualification. (I'm not > sure if I'm really allowed to say that ;) > > > What kind of real-world bandwidth can it put out (F740) ? I > > see the transaction specs, but what about sustained mbits > > in a web-type environment (3x more reads than writes)? > > Brian Palowski (beepy(a)netapp.com) would be your best source for that (or some > of the more frequent contributors on Toasters). I have cc:ed him, hope that is ok. Brian, can you provide some rough estimates of how much bandwidth a F740 is capable of outputting? More than 100mbit easily? > > > If you use Cisco Fast EtherChannel, does it failover to the > > lower bandwidth if you are using multiple network links ? > > (assume a CF environment) ? > > > > If yes, and assuming you are using CF with two filers, wouldn't > > that be a system with no single point of failure, or is there > > anything else we should worry about? > > (I'll pass on the CFO questions without more exact research) If anyone can provide more details here, that would be greatly appreciated. > > > Works with these systems over nfs: http(apache), news(inn and dnews), > > dns(bind), > > mail(qmail), ftp(NcFTPd), Frontpage ? > > Our filer supports NFS, CIFS (SMB), and HTTP "get" and "head" transaction > protocols, and SNMP, DNS, NIS, WINS, RIP, RMT, telnet, and rsh administration > protocols. What I am trying to get at with that question is whether those services (and particular software packages) have been shown to run over nfs. For instance, going through the mailing list archives I can see that you guys have done research on running Exchange on a filer, and I'm sure you have tested other software too. > > > Does the CF cost extra? (for the software.. I know it takes a > > second filer :-) > > yes :-) It also has added hardware. > > > Does Netapp charge for OS upgrades beyond a certain time period? > > "Software Subscription" is available (at an additional cost) after the expired > warranty period. > > > Finally, do you feel there are any serious contenders to Netapp > > that we should check out? Anyone tried the EMC Symmetrix stuff > > or Artecon LnyxNSS systems? > > I'll leave that one to customers to answer. I'm sure there are a couple viable > competitors (Sun, Cisco?) but do make sure you compare apples-to-apples. I've > seen Sun benchmarks that blow us out of the water, but it turns out they're > using what would have to be a non-real-world $2million system against our $60k > system. > > hope that helps. I'm sure you'll get lots of other responses as well. Let me > know if you need more follow-up on the CFO stuff. > > -Shannon Thanks for the responses I've gotten so far! > > -- > Shannon Madison <shannon(a)netapp.com> > > Network Appliance, Inc. > 2770 San Tomas Expressway > Santa Clara, CA 95051 > USA > > Work: (408) 367-3574 > Fax: (408) 367-2151 > > The usual disclaimers apply. > -- The future has arrived; it's just not evenly distributed. -William Gibson ______________________________________________________________________ Visit Hypermart at http://www.hypermart.net for free business hosting!

2 1

Dell (was Re: Potential user has questions)
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 08 Nov '98

08 Nov '98

On 11/07/98 22:07:04 you wrote: > >I agree with Sir Bruce. If you buy a netapp, only use approved >add-on products, i.e. their ethernet controllers, disks, scsi >controllers, etc. This is expensive, and a legitimate reason not to >by a netapp. If you are on a tight budget or can tolerate living >without netapp's features (performance, reliability, snapshots, etc.) >then build a file server out of a linux box. If you need the >advantages, poney up the money. And this neatly transitions to another topic - the Dell OEM agreement. While at first they are just going to be selling Netapp's servers, my understanding is that eventually Dell would be using Netapp's software on servers with it's own hardware label. Now, I presume that Netapp will continue to sell it's own servers, so the two will be dividing up the market segments in some way. Will Dell be attacking that low-end (i.e. $10,000) price point? Presumably accomplishing this will mean cheaper components, which means they will have to work together to ensure the software supports it, the performance is acceptable, and so on. If Netapp is still going to make the hardware and Dell just puts their name on it, that's fine, but that still begs the question of whether or not this will be the vehicle in which Netapp can provide servers for the low-end of the market. Another question: Would it make sense for Netapp to invest in the design and development of a RAID-4 hardware controller? Bruce

1 0

Re: Potential user has questions
by Tom Reingold 08 Nov '98

08 Nov '98

I agree with Sir Bruce. If you buy a netapp, only use approved add-on products, i.e. their ethernet controllers, disks, scsi controllers, etc. This is expensive, and a legitimate reason not to by a netapp. If you are on a tight budget or can tolerate living without netapp's features (performance, reliability, snapshots, etc.) then build a file server out of a linux box. If you need the advantages, poney up the money.

1 0

Re: Potential user has questions
by Brian Atkins 07 Nov '98

07 Nov '98

"Stephen C. Losen" wrote: > > > > Is the filer OS considered secure? Y2K compliant? > > Would you feel safe running your filer attached to potentially > > hostile web servers running user-uploaded CGI programs? > > One of the latest versions purports to be y2k. The filer software and > filesystem should not have trouble with "potentially hostile web servers". > That is, the filer should stay running and serving files without trouble. > However, the files themselves have the usual unix protections. So it's > still up to you to configure the filer properly (to restrict access to > certain hosts) and set proper file permissions (to restrict access to > certain users on those hosts). And there are insecurities inherent > to NFS, so you don't want to export filesystems to hosts that you > don't have some control over. Right, of course if you misconfig something you open yourself to mischief. What I want to get at is whether it is safe to have a filer attached to the net-at-large, or whether it needs to be firewalled or otherwise protected. Can you elaborate on the nfs insecurities you mention? > > > > > What kind of real-world bandwidth can it put out (F740) ? I > > see the transaction specs, but what about sustained mbits > > in a web-type environment (3x more reads than writes)? > > Netapp prefers to measure "response time" vs. "transactions/sec". > In other words, a filer might be showing tremendous throughput > for one party, while starving out the others (delayed responses). > In the real world, you want average response time to be as fast as > possible because that is what people notice. Netapp has very > impressive throughput and average response time does not degrade > dramatically at high loads. Excellent, but is the filer capable of overloading 100mbit ethernet? If so, just how much bandwidth should we spec out for it so that it can perform to its max abilities? -- The future has arrived; it's just not evenly distributed. -William Gibson ______________________________________________________________________ Visit Hypermart at http://www.hypermart.net for free business hosting!

2 1

Re: Potential user has questions
by Tom Reingold 07 Nov '98

07 Nov '98

On Fri, 06 Nov 1998 19:41:46 EST, Brian Atkins <brian(a)posthuman.com> wrote: > Right, of course if you misconfig something you open yourself > to mischief. What I want to get at is whether it is safe to > have a filer attached to the net-at-large, or whether it needs > to be firewalled or otherwise protected. Can you elaborate on > the nfs insecurities you mention? > [...] A friend of mine does this, and it seems like a very good design. The toaster has an interface on each side of the firewall. It exports read-only to a web server on the outside, and read-write to a server on the inside. He doesn't run http on the toaster, only NFS. But I don't see any vulnerability in this elegant design.

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