toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

Re: fcal and the 760
by Daniel Quinlan 15 Oct '98

15 Oct '98

Scott Schoenthal <sas(a)netapp.com> writes: > Support for the SNTP subset of NTP is currently scheduled to ship in > the next major release of ONTAP which is targeted for Feb/Mar '99. That's good news. Will it work against the standard xntpd server as well as against SNTP servers? - Dan

2 1

Backing up data
by Jason Middlebrooks 15 Oct '98

15 Oct '98

Since the 700 series filers only allow one SCSI backup device to be attached to a Filer how is it possible to back up 1TB of data in timely manner. I am talking about backing up in a 8 to 12 hour time frame. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Jason 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

None
by jason 15 Oct '98

15 Oct '98

toasters unsubscribe

1 0

Re: fcal and the 760
by Keith Brown 15 Oct '98

15 Oct '98

>| As far as performance goes, the three FCAL loops are peers in the system. > >Is this true in a clustered failover environment as well Sure. >or can I tag >the failover loops as having a lower priority than the "local" loops? What exactly do you mean by "local loops"? If by "local loops" you mean FCAL loops that are private to an individual filer within the cluster, then I'm not entirely sure that we support that type of configuration anyway. In a cluster configuration, each filer requires at least two FCAL adapters, one to connect it to its primary disk array, and another to connect it to its secondary disk array which it takes over in the event of a failure (which is the primary of the other filer in the cluster) . It is "normal" for that to be the beginning and end of the story, except in the case of a large capacity cluster that requires two pairs of FCAL adapters per filer (see below). Just from the quantity perspective, the only filers that can or will be able to receive a third FCAL loop are the F630 and F760 units, so this discussion is somewhat moot in the context of an F740. As a point of information though, the Data ONTAP 5.2 release only supports F630 filer clustering. It does include support for the "large capacity" cluster I mentioned above (4 FCAL adapters per system, but topping out at 168 drives across the 4 loops, not 224, so an "obvious" sample configuration would involve implementing 42 drives per loop, giving each *individual* system a capacity of 84 drives or ~722 GB gross, adding up to the ~144 GB gross in the whole cluster), but F700 series clustering for the F740 and F760 systems is not yet shipping. Patience... :-) >| Well yes, but distance-from-the-controller is not a significant influencer >| of device performance on an FCAL loop. This type of fibre channel > >There must be some guidelines though. I would think that you would not >want to keep all the loops within some reasonable distance. I don't think so. That's kinda like worrying about communications between the nodes at the opposite ends of an Ethernet segment being slower because the bits have further to walk! :-) >That is, I >would probably want to put my filer in the middle of the rack so all >loops are semi-equal as opposed to at the end of the rack (thinking that >a filer that takes up 3 racks with 3 fully populated loops). Yes, there may be some physical "can it reach" issues on a three FCAL loop system. At the moment, I know that our standard issue FCAL cable that takes an FCAL adapter output plug on a filer to the input of the first shelf is just one meter long. That's no problem on a two loop system, as you can just go taking off in opposite directions to go along the shelf chain for each loop (one chain heads off up the rack, the other down, that kind of thing...) but I guess it does get kinda interesting when you've got three loops to worry about. I'll have to leave this one to someone at NetApp who knows exactly how we recommend this work physically. >Indeed. fcal is quite spiffy. It is a thing of beauty. :-) >Actually, why the decision to use copper instead of fiber? I think the reasons were plentyfold. Affordabality was certainly in the mix. Keith

4 5

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

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