toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13520 discussions

Re: 'quota resize' - any way around it ?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 22 Jun '98

22 Jun '98

On 06/22/98 13:44:18 you wrote: >- just accept the fact that NetApp doesn't consider this wish to very >important and turn the quotas on/off as often as is feasible. So long as once/day was acceptable, this is what I would do. But if not, then... >- preload the /etc/quotas file with entries for all possible UIDs, then >just change the quota as they request it. This way the /etc/quotas will >always be the same length and contain the same number of users. ... this is probably what I would do. Assuming that's not too many UIDs that it's computationally expensive. Depending on how many users I expect to reasonably have, I might start with a smaller number and then add new ones in blocks ahead of their actual use (and then do a quota off/on that night). Bruce

1 0

Re: ATM and Fore SPANS failover
by Barbara Naden 18 Jun '98

18 Jun '98

At 10:35 PM 6/17/98 -0400, David B. Ritch wrote: >Actually, etherchannel is supported by Sun, Auspex, and Cisco. There >may be others, but those are the one that I know of. > >David Ritch > EtherChannel support is in the DATAOntap 5.1 release and is currently in external test. Barbara Naden >Alexei Rodriguez wrote: >[...] >> Sounds like etherchannel... I think Alteon was trying this with their Gigabit >> stuff; unfortunately, no other vendor supports this feature. > >

1 0

Re: CIFS file locking
by Paul Albers 18 Jun '98

18 Jun '98

Michael, You can also use "cifs sessions *" to see all the files that are open/locked by all the users. One limitation of this command is that it is not available to 'rsh'. So, you would have to run this from a telnet session and weed through the output, or capture the console output to a file that you could then parse for the file. Regards, Paul Albers At 12:31 PM 6/18/98 +0100, you wrote: >I think the command "cifs cessions username" does what you want: > >toaster> cifs sessions >Server Registers as 'TOASTER' in group 'NETAPP' >UNIX compatible Access Control is being used >Using the UNIX password database for authentication >======================================== >PC (user) #shares #files >ANDREW (abond) 1 1 >toaster> cifs sessions andrew > >users > shares/files opened > >ANDREW (abond) > HOME > Read-denyN - \ajb.1 > >Also, from release 5.1 (due later this month) you can see this information >from the NT Server Manager (In Use button). > >Regards, >Andrew Bond, UK Systems Engineer > >At 11:29 am 17-06-98 -0700, you wrote: >>I know that spreedsheet applications opened from the PC create >>a lock on that file that prevents all other access. But is there some >>way to find out who has that particular file open? >> >>On the toaster, I can find who has files opened - but that doesn't >>help much. >> >>This spreedsheet data was migrated from Novel. On Novel, you >>have the ability to see who has what file opened. >> >>Any ideas? >> >> >>-- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Michael McBride CommQuest Technologies,Inc. >> >> Senior Unix Administrator 527 Encinitas Boulevard >> >> mcbride(a)CommQuest.com Encinitas, CA. 92024-3740 >> >> Voice: (760) 634-6239 Fax: (760) 634-6138 >> >> >> >> >> > >

1 0

CIFS file locking
by Mike McBride 18 Jun '98

18 Jun '98

I know that spreedsheet applications opened from the PC create a lock on that file that prevents all other access. But is there some way to find out who has that particular file open? On the toaster, I can find who has files opened - but that doesn't help much. This spreedsheet data was migrated from Novel. On Novel, you have the ability to see who has what file opened. Any ideas? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael McBride CommQuest Technologies,Inc. Senior Unix Administrator 527 Encinitas Boulevard mcbride(a)CommQuest.com Encinitas, CA. 92024-3740 Voice: (760) 634-6239 Fax: (760) 634-6138

2 1

Re: posting history - who's wordy and who's quiet?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 18 Jun '98

18 Jun '98

On 06/17/98 14:07:10 you wrote: > >i was looking for a reason to have fun with perl modules for chopping up >email addresses, so here's the prolixity summary for the lifetime of the >list. i've cut-off at ten posts. > > 99 Brian Tao > 86 sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com > 16 Bruce Sterling Woodcock Actually, if you combine mine, I managed to narrow out Brian for a minor (pyrrhic?) victory. Bruce

1 0

ATM and Fore SPANS failover
by Scott Miller 18 Jun '98

18 Jun '98

This is actually a request/question for netapp, but I'm hoping to generate a few "me too"'s from the list. We're a large (1200 systems) ATM shop. For various reasons, we're using Fore SPANS signalling, and will be for awhile. The move to standards-based ATM is going to be ugly, and we (and the standards) aren't quite ready yet. NetApp supports SPANS ATM, using Fore's PCI card and a port of the SPANS protocol engine in their ATM drivers. This is good. But, there are two features of Fore SPANS that NetApp doesn't support, that we rely on. This message is a request to NetApp to consider adding support for these two features: 1. load balancing. Fore SPANS on other platforms (IRIX, Solaris) provides interface aggregation such that multiple ATM interfaces on the same host are used equally. This is connection-based load balancing, in that new connections are assigned round-robin to all the interfaces in a given load balance group, on a given machine. On some platforms, all interfaces in a given system can have the same IP address, which simplifies management, and means there is one "view" of a multi-interface machine from the outside. Routing gets simpler, too. We can get some balancing using static routing configuations that spreads the load over all the interfaces in a system, but it's not quite the same. Plus, support for load balancing may help provide support for: 2. fail over. If an interface, or switch fabric, or other component fails, Fore SPANS will fail an interface, and all the connections will be re-established on the other available interfaces. Our core switch architecture is such that each server has multiple ATM "feet", in different switches and backplanes, so we've got fault tolerance with automatic failover when somthing in the network path croaks. It's the failover that we're most interested in, for the fault tolerance and redundancy reasons. load balancing makes administration easier, and helps us better utilize the switch architecture we have in place. So, NetApp, what are the chances of getting SPANS fail over and load balancing in your ATM implementation? -Skottie -- ----- Scott Miller | Walt Disney Feature Animation skottie(a)fa.disney.com | Digital Studio Technology

3 2

NetApp Gigabit Ethernet
by Daniel Quinlan 18 Jun '98

18 Jun '98

I have some questions about the NetApp Gigabit implementation, perhaps someone from NetApp could answer. 1. Throughput numbers for various filers and releases? 2. Total bandwidth using one gigabit vs. multiple fast ethernet (subnets) (we have filers with up to 8 fast ethernet interfaces) 3. Bonding channels - fast ethernet, gigabit ethernet 4. Jumbo frames? 5. Tested with which switches? 6. Anything else I should ask? This is off the top of my head, so I probably will have some more questions later. :-) Thanks. - Dan

1 0

Re: ATM and Fore SPANS failover
by Scott Miller 18 Jun '98

18 Jun '98

On Jun 17, 4:14pm, Alexei Rodriguez wrote: > Subject: Re: ATM and Fore SPANS failover > +--- In a previous state of mind, Scott Miller <skottie(a)fa.disney.com> wrote: > | > | On some platforms, all interfaces in a given system can have the same IP > | address, which simplifies management, and means there is one "view" > | of a multi-interface machine from the outside. Routing gets simpler, too. > > Sounds like etherchannel... I think Alteon was trying this with their Gigabit > stuff; unfortunately, no other vendor supports this feature. SGI is working on interface aggregation for 100baseT, but nothing is released yet. SGI's SPANS implementation does this, but it is connection-based load balancing, not traffic based. We've also talked with SGI about doing this for TCP/IP over HIPPI, but we haven't heard anything back. For Solaris systems, the ATM interfaces have seperate IP addresses, and the device driver re-directs VC's across both interfaces, independent of the IP layer routing. it's kind of funky, but it does provide load balancing and failover. > I had always wondered if anybody was using (packet-slicing) ATM for their > filers. What sort of performance are you getting? We're not using packet slicing, just two interfaces, each on a different subnet. I can get 11 MB/sec per interface sustained read, using two interfaces in a fibrechannel F630. For sustained writes, the F630 pegs the CPU at 100% at 12 MB/sec across both interfaces. -Skottie -- ----- Scott Miller | Walt Disney Feature Animation skottie(a)fa.disney.com | Digital Studio Technology

1 0

Re: Solaris ACLs
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 17 Jun '98

17 Jun '98

On 06/16/98 15:24:59 you wrote: > >i asked netapp if Solaris ACLs were either implemented or planned in >ONTAP, and got a fast, polite, unqualified no. > >does anyone else out there have any interest in ACLs of any flavour other >than NT? (i'd like Solaris ACLs, in case that's unclear). I'd like to see them support all the different ACL types, Solaris, NT, Digital Unix, Irix, etc. (at least, I think the latter two have them) and have them all interoperate reasonably well. But that's no doubt a big undertaking for Netapp with very little return. It might make more sense is to wait on a standard ACL protocol (maybe as part of NFS v4) and then implement that and everyone will talk the same language. Bruce

2 1

Solaris ACLs
by Tom Yates 16 Jun '98

16 Jun '98

i asked netapp if Solaris ACLs were either implemented or planned in ONTAP, and got a fast, polite, unqualified no. does anyone else out there have any interest in ACLs of any flavour other than NT? (i'd like Solaris ACLs, in case that's unclear). Tom Yates - Unix Chap - The Mathworks, Inc. - +1 (508) 647 7561 MAG#65061 DoD#0135 AMA#461546 1024/CFDFDE39 0C E7 46 60 BB 96 87 05 04 BD FB F8 BB 20 C1 8C

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