toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13515 discussions

Macintosh Access
by Graham C. Knight 15 Oct '98

15 Oct '98

Help! Does anyone know of a piece of software that will run on Unix or NT that will allow a NAC file system to be used by a Macintosh? Or any tricks that will allow NT to re-export a CIFS share via appletalk? I've had it with CAP - after finding yet another bug. Our usage of Filers depends on being able to access the filers from macintosh (with no client software on the mac!). If anyone has any suggestions i'd really like to hear them. Thanks, Graham

7 8

Re: file system size limit
by mds＠ns.gbnet.net 15 Oct '98

15 Oct '98

> I know that the argument will be that I should break up the single filesystem into > multiple volumes, since then I can fine tune the options (snapshots, snap schedules, > etc) per volume. That is all good, but when you start getting 100's of GB of data, > sometimes it does not split cleanly (and updating the vfstab N clients becomes a chore, > no matter how automated you have it (well, save for NIS, but who does that?)). We do. It works. We're happy.

1 0

Re: Macintosh Access
by mds＠ns.gbnet.net 15 Oct '98

15 Oct '98

Xinet. Comes free with SGI IRIX ASE, also available as a separate product last time I looked. Works very well.

1 0

ONTAP 5.2
by alexei＠cimedia.com 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

now that the manuals are up on NOW, when is 5.2 going out the door? thanks. Alex

2 1

Large files
by Jason Middlebrooks 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

I was wondering how Filers handle large files compared to small files. I am talking about storing music files to be accessed via the internet. Is the performance very good? I will be using a 700 series filer. Thanks Jason Middlebrooks Systems Engineer Direct Connect Systems Phone: 770-933-9327x270 2264 Northwest Parkway, Suite I Pager: 888-502-1625 Marietta, GA 30067 Fax: 770-933-9272

3 2

Re: snapcopy -> volcopy?
by Keith Brown 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

Hi Alexei... >Is volcopy the same as what snap copy was being touted as? Yes. >If volcopy >requires a separate license, why not make it part of the basic >OS instead? Volume copy did initially ship as a component that required a separate licence, but it is now free. Contact customer service or your sales rep if you have a version of ONTAP that requires a license code to enable it. I believe you will find that our latest GA release, 5.1.2, does not though. >That is, why does it require another license key? Because initially it was supposed to cost money, but now it is a base OS feature. Keith

3 4

snapcopy -> volcopy?
by alexei＠cimedia.com 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

This is probably a question better answered by my sales rep, but it is late and I doubt she would appreciate a page right now :) Is volcopy the same as what snap copy was being touted as? If volcopy requires a separate license, why not make it part of the basic OS instead? That is, why does it require another license key? Just curious. Thanks. Alex

3 2

Re: Macintosh Access
by Keith Brown 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

>Does anyone know of a piece of software that will >run on Unix or NT that will allow a NAC file system >to be used by a Macintosh? I can't give you the names of any packages that are "officially certified" to work with NFS mounted file systems and our filers, but I can give you some alternatives to the Columbia AppleTalk Package if this is proving unsatisfactory for what you are trying to accomplish. First, there is another free alternative to CAP called Netatalk. This one is from the University of Michigan and I am led to understand that it is a "better" implementation. For details, see: http://www.umich.edu/~rsug/netatalk Then there are some commercial alternatives. One comes from a company called IPT Technology and is called uShare. See: http://www.iptech.com Another comes from a company called Helios and is called EtherShare. See: http://www.helios.com >Or any tricks >that will allow NT to re-export a CIFS share >via appletalk? Unfortunately this is not possible today. >Our usage of Filers depends on being able to access >the filers from macintosh (with no client software >on the mac!). If anyone has any suggestions i'd >really like to hear them. Are you aware of the way that does involve a little client software on the Macs? A company called Thursby make a CIFS client for the Macintosh called DAVE. Thursby are at: http://www.thursby.com Keith

2 1

fcal and clustered failover
by alexei＠cimedia.com 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

According to the white paper http://www.netapp.com/technology/level3/1004.html, in a clustered failover (CF) setup 2 filers would be attached to the same fc loop, 1 filer to the A port and 1 to the B port (to determine who is "master" for that set of disks). Now, I take this to mean that on any given loop, only 1 filer can be master for that loop. Based on this assumption, how does this alter the max shelves per filer? That is, on a f740 I can have 2 loops (based on the 8 shelves per loop guideline and 16 shelves per filer on a 740). If this f740 and another f740 were part of the same CF setup and both filers were "active", would I be limited to a single loop of active shelves on each filer? Or would I be able to have 4 loops, 2 active and 2 in standby (ie: my partners shelves)? Or does the 8 shelves per loop guideline not apply to the CF setup? I just looked through the f700 hardware guide as well as the ONTAP 5.2 sys admin guide (thanks for having that up). The chapter on CF is good. Definitely. Ok, so the hardware guide says that a f740 and an f760 can both only have 112 fcal drives, 2 fcal loops max. How does the 760 then do 1.4TB of storage and the 740 960GB? Seems there are 56 or so drives missing.... another loop? So, my bottom line question is: in a CF setup with 2 f740's, what is the maximum *useable* storage space I will have (combined)? Also, why does a f630 get to have 3 fcal loops? Boy, I am just full of questions tonight... Thanks. Alexei

2 1

Re: fcal and clustered failover
by Keith Brown 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

Alexei... I'm going to leave your shelves-per-loop and loops-per-filer in the cluster scenario questions for our clustering product manager to address. He will have the latest information on exactly what configurations we have tested and are supporting on which filer. However, I will take a shot at the obvious question... >Ok, >so the hardware guide says that a f740 and an f760 can both only have 112 >fcal drives, 2 fcal loops max. > >How does the 760 then do 1.4TB of storage and the 740 960GB? Seems there are >56 or so drives missing.... another loop? This was/is just a quality assurance and testing lag. The F760 should be going to the full three FCAL loop configuration in the near term (if it hasn't happened already?). Our latest GA release, 5.1.2, just officially gave the full 3 FCAL loop / 168 drive capability to our former high end unit, the F630, so hopefully the new F760 isn't too far behind! :-) >So, my bottom line question is: in a CF setup with 2 f740's, what is the maximum >*useable* storage space I will have (combined)? Don't take it as gospel, but I *think* you'll probably be looking at a couple of FCAL loops-worth. In other words, ~960 GB combined (~480 GB per filer). The actual *useable* space is dependent on some other configuration specifics. >Also, why does a f630 get to have 3 fcal loops? Because it's been tested, certified and stamped as "approved" in a 3 FCAL loop configuration by our quality people. >Boy, I am just full of questions tonight... Tell me about it! :-) Keith

3 2

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