toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

fcal and the 760
by alexei＠cimedia.com 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

Supposedly the 760 can have up to 24 fcal shelves. Now, that is a whole lot of disk shelves (3 racks worth, give or take). How far can the fcal cable be and what sort of performace hit do you take on that 3rd loop (since each loop can only consist of 8 shelves)? You figure, the last shelf in the 3rd loop is going to be more than a few meters away from the filer... Does that make sense? Alex

1 0

Re: Logging CIFS logins
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

On 10/13/98 15:09:38 you wrote: >If "cifs sessions" can print the active CIFS sessions, then how difficult >could it possibly be to log when these sessions begin and end? No more difficult that logging each NFS mount or unmount, or PC-NFS authentication. >I'm picking on CIFS because each user has an individual session, with an >identifiable beginning and end. Not exactly, as has been identified. Furthermore, you can access a "Microsoft Network" without establishing any session with the filer. You claimed you wanted this not for security, but for knowing if an account is active or not... if I log in, but never access the filer, then you don't have a very good indicator. >NFS works totally differently, but we can >at least get the info we need from unix logs. No. As I pointed out, I could access it via PC-NFS, or straight NFS unless you restrict every host. Furthermore, under unix, I could be accessing other people's files - you might not care about this, but I was just pointing out there's another scenario. >A lot of our students have >their own PCs in their dorm rooms, so we have no access to these PCs. NT >security is not an option for use because we have almost 20,000 accounts >now and will eventually have almost 30,000. I haven't calculated what the >license fee is for 30,000 users on a NT server. At this point, I might suggest that support PCs in dorm rooms isn't an option, unless they use PC-NFS. But that's just me. I view the mapping of CIFS access the UNIX ids and files like the filer does to be something of a hack (not the code, but the concept) - I mean, if you don't like the way Microsoft expects you to use CIFS, don't use it. :) >We are using the same NIS >maps for our unix servers as for CIFS logins on the netapp. It's real >handy for account administration and users have the same password (and >same home directory) for both services. I agree here, but I more universal directory service appears to be in order. LDAP anyone? Bruce

1 0

Re: Logging CIFS logins
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

On 10/12/98 11:11:44 you wrote: >In our environment, any logging that netapp can provide is probably useful >to us in some way or another. For CIFS, the timestamp, loginid, and >hostname or IP address of the login would be invaluable. All of your resonings are fine, but as I pointed out, you don't really have this information for NFS access either, except to the extent that a UNIX server records a login (but wouldn't if from a PC). So I don't think you should be picking on CIFS on the filer! As I said, running NT security with a PDC would track this information for you. However, having the filer log CIFS and PC-NFS authentications would be useful. Bruce

4 3

Gigabit and Extreme Networks
by Roderic Taft 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

I understand that 1000Base-SX is fairly interoperable between vendors these days, but does anybody have any real world experience with a NetApp and an Extreme Networks Summit switch connected with Gigabit? Thanks Rod Taft

3 2

Re: 4.x to 5.x upgrade
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

On 10/12/98 21:53:10 you wrote: >I produced some interesting phrases the first time my manual changes >to cifsconfig.txt were lost after a reboot. Well, at least said person won't do it twice. :) I know that I pointed out at some point that behavior should be documented, and I believe it was. Assuming it was, and you didn't read the documentation, then you have a conflict of cultures - one person will assume it behaves one way by default and another will assume the other. Whichever is chosen isn't nearly as important as documenting the behavior and making sure people read the documentation! Bruce

1 0

RE: (small?) feature request
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

On 10/12/98 15:47:32 you wrote: >For commands that can be done via rsh from the admin server, you only need to >use >a shell like bash or tcsh. I'm sure you know that, I only mention it because I >have a related question: > > What is the reasoning behind which commands will work via rsh and which > won't? They are made rsh-able "as needed", because since the filer uses all the same memory space, making a piece of code rsh-safe requires extra effort (think multiple simultaneous executions). Virtually every release, we see a few more commands made rsh-able, but it seems other new features are always more important than cleaning up old code. Bruce

1 0

RE: 4.x to 5.x upgrade
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

On 10/12/98 11:53:19 you wrote: >A question. Given the choice between: > > - Having a command tell you "there's a conflicting > command already in /etc/rc, you should change it there as well > (or just remove it)" >vs. > - Having the command automatically update /etc/rc with the change, > if it contains a conflicting command. > >Which do you think would be a better approach? The former. I do not trust the software to automatically place the new command in the right place in the /etc/rc file - I've very particular about the order. If there is an automatic change to the /etc/rc file, I want an option to turn it off! :) Bruce

1 0

Re: upgrade problem 4.1 to 5.1
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

On 10/12/98 10:15:37 you wrote: >The upgrade did fine and the NFS protocol was still working properly. I >could not get CIFS to authenticate with the Primary Domain Controller. >I was getting watchdog reboots most of the time and other times CIFS >would not start. I had to downgrade in order to CIFS back up again. > >Do you think this will happen again if I upgrade to 5.1.2. What do I >need to do to upgrade and get CIFS working correctly. You should report the problem the Netapp support and I'm sure they'll be able to help you figure out what the problem is and what the solution is. Bruce

1 0

Re: 4.x to 5.x upgrade
by Jason D. Kelleher 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

In message <7F608EC0BDE6D111B53A00805FA7F7DA010458B9(a)tahoe.netapp.com>, "Tho mpson, Tim" writes: >> So let's suppose my filer dies, double disk failure perhaps. How >> do I get back all these "automatically persistent" configuration >> options? Will things save state with something like the >> undocumented "cifsconfig.cfg" file? > >Yes, it's a single file, which can be backed up and restored. I wasn't refering to the /etc/rc file. I was asking how I get back all my "persistent" configuration changes after a complete failure if they haven't been placed in the /etc/rc...? >> Please don't go and update my rc file. > >Looks like that's a common feeling, thanks! ...Tim... Good to know. So what about NTP...? jason

1 0

Re: 4.x to 5.x upgrade
by Daniel Quinlan 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

"Jason D. Kelleher" <kelleher(a)susq.com> writes: > So let's suppose my filer dies, double disk failure perhaps. How do > I get back all these "automatically persistent" configuration > options? Will things save state with something like the > undocumented "cifsconfig.cfg" file? Yuch. One way to look at it is: it should be possible to backup and restore your filer configuration using a line printer and a scanner. > Please don't go and update my rc file. The cifsconfig.cfg file is > bad enough. When I don't want to know what's going on under the > hood (and be forced to re-add a bunch of configs by hand as a result > of my ignorance), I'll transfer over to the NT support group... The way cifsconfig.txt works -- it must be designed for Windows NT admins by Windows NT developers. I wish there was a "behave normal" for Unix admins mode for cifsconfig.txt. I produced some interesting phrases the first time my manual changes to cifsconfig.txt were lost after a reboot. > P.S. I bit my tongue this morning about NTP, but I might as well say > something now... About three years ago I asked about possible NTP > support and got nothing. Six months ago someone on this list > practically begged for at least SNTP support. Well...? I think NTP must be the most common request on toasters. Dan

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