toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13514 discussions

Re: volumes and RAID groups
by Daniel Quinlan 05 Sep '98

05 Sep '98

Mike Horwath <drechsau(a)tiny.net> writes: > So, with 2 raid groups...it is all still one filesystem? It can be with either one filesystem or two (each one with a single RAID group). There is a nice picture and explanation at: http://www.netapp.com/technology/level3/3027.html To avoid fragmentation problems (as in "I have 50 GB free on one filesystem and 50 GB free on another, but I need 100 GB in one place"), all of our filers are single volume (filesystem). Using multiple … [View More]

1 0

Re: volumes and RAID groups
by Brian Rice 05 Sep '98

05 Sep '98

Actually, I thought of another way to get one RAID group: wipe the filer, install 4.x on it, and then uprev it... B-) I am a big fan of having only one configuration, where possible. My other filers are at 4.3.4 right now, and when I upgrade those to 5.1Dx, they will have only one RAID group. I see no reason for this one to be special. My F630's have among them thousands 'n' thousands of hours of run time. I have yet to see a single disk failure, let alone a double-disk failure (knock … [View More]

2 1

Re: volumes and RAID groups
by Daniel Quinlan 05 Sep '98

05 Sep '98

hitz(a)netapp.com (Dave Hitz) writes: > But in addition, RAID reconstruction is much faster. When you > reconstruct a failed drive, you have to read all the data on all the > other drives, so if your RAID groups are half as big, then the > reconstruction goes twice as fast. My experience is that reconstruction is more than twice as fast. More like quadruple, depending on server load and size of the RAID group. Does NetApp have recent numbers on reconstruct time? Especially … [View More]

1 0

Re: volumes and RAID groups
by Daniel Quinlan 05 Sep '98

05 Sep '98

Dave Hitz wrote: >> So at one parity disk per 14 the overhead is 1/14 = 7%, and at one >> parity disk per 26 the overhead is 3.8%. Brian Rice <brice(a)gnac.com> writes: > The cost per usable gigabyte of my F630's has received *considerable* > executive scrutiny recently. So I'm just a leeeetle sensitive about this > kind of thing. You *really* want to use one RAID group per 14 disks. Trust me. Right now, we have 3 F630 systems (40 disk SCSI, 40 disk SCSI, and … [View More]

1 0

Re: volumes and RAID groups
by Brian Rice 05 Sep '98

05 Sep '98

Dave Hitz wrote: > So at one parity disk per 14 the overhead is 1/14 = 7%, and at one > parity disk per 26 the overhead is 3.8%. The cost per usable gigabyte of my F630's has received *considerable* executive scrutiny recently. So I'm just a leeeetle sensitive about this kind of thing. > So are you dead-set on living dangerously? Maybe, maybe not. My experience with my existing (identical) F630's suggests I can get away with it. On the other hand, it's bad karma to turn away a … [View More]

1 0

Re: Support for Network Time Protocol?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 04 Sep '98

04 Sep '98

On 09/04/98 00:12:22 you wrote: > >I thought this follow-up (to a thread from several months ago) might be >interesting for people at sites that stress time synchronization. > >Daniel Quinlan <quinlan(a)transmeta.com> wrote: > >> To prevent it from happening again, we're remotely monitoring the >> system time of the adminhost (using "mon") to make sure it doesn't >> drift off again. Incidentally, there seems to be no way to remotely >> query the … [View More]

4 3

Re: Support for Network Time Protocol?
by Daniel Quinlan 04 Sep '98

04 Sep '98

Daniel Quinlan <quinlan(a)transmeta.com> writes: > I'm also interesting in NTP support, but I think I'd like to see the > current software become a lot more reliable (and complete) before > adding another new feature. All I need is more NetApp crashes because > of NTP bugs. I should add that this happened to us just a few days ago: - xntpd died on our adminhost (that ran the cron job to set the NetApp dates) - time drifted by 8 minutes on the adminhost and the filers … [View More]

1 1

Calling all F630/FC-AL users
by just me. 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

If you are a NetApp F630/FC-AL user and have encountered any (especially recurring) glitches with interactions between the Fibre Channel host adapter and OnTAP, or recurring FC hardware failures I'd appreciate hearing from you. On the flip side, if you are a NetApp F630/FC-AL user and have seen perfect performance from your filer, I'd love to hear about it too. We have had the first F630/FC-AL in Japan in our machine room for the last month or so, and have been through some interesting … [View More]

2 1

Re: Seeing quad 10/100 ethernet ports from NT
by Matt Day 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

Cliff Johnson <yrsuser(a)televar.com> wrote: >We have a new F230 installed here (5.1R1, 1.9i firmware), >with a Quad 10/100 card in it. I've configured the 4 ports, >and have no problems talking to (or mounting NFS from) any >of them from the Unix side of the house. > >Unfortunately, the only network connection that shows up >on the NT side of the house is the one on the F230 mother- >board (e0), which is not the one I want the users accessing. > >I can … [View More]

1 0

Seeing quad 10/100 ethernet ports from NT
by yrsuser 01 Sep '98

01 Sep '98

Hello, We have a new F230 installed here (5.1R1, 1.9i firmware), with a Quad 10/100 card in it. I've configured the 4 ports, and have no problems talking to (or mounting NFS from) any of them from the Unix side of the house. Unfortunately, the only network connection that shows up on the NT side of the house is the one on the F230 mother- board (e0), which is not the one I want the users accessing. I can map a network drive using the 4 "other names", (only if I attach as "nobody", but … [View More]

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