toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

subscribe toasters
by Madhu Chandra 09 Jun '98

09 Jun '98

subscripe toasters: can you subscribe me. Also can you tell me how to access and use it Madhu Chandra Sys Admin. Numeric Investors

1 0

5.0.1 or later?
by Daniel Quinlan 09 Jun '98

09 Jun '98

Anyone out there using 5.0.1 (or later, especially 5.0.1D1) with NDMP to directly attached SCSI tape drives? If you are, I'd like to hear whether or not you've had problems, or if any problems from earlier releases were resolved for you. Thanks.a - Dan

1 0

RE: Quota's, Qtrees, Old_WAFL, NewWAFL, etc...
by Weeks, Thomas 08 Jun '98

08 Jun '98

Yes... this sounds nice, but we do not use the filers tape drives (at this time) for backups... we are using NFS based Networker (Sun based Legatto product). I imagine after we get away from NFS and go to pure CIFS, we'll be moving our backups to full NT based (to keep any/all CIFS ACLs' intact with out files). Also, I imagine that your implimentation of dump does not allow for single file (or single directory) restorations does it? I realize that there are a couple products out there to that handle ACLS/UFS permissions backup & restoration via NPDM, but we are already running three backup variants right now and adding yet another is just not feasible. Thanx anyway... Thomas Weeks GTE SYSTEMS ENGINEER Testing-Integration Center "The Pit" Brooks AFB, DSN 240-5444 > -----Original Message----- > From: grant(a)netapp.com [SMTP:grant@netapp.com] > Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 7:06 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Quota's, Qtrees, Old_WAFL, NewWAFL, etc... > > > Hi Thomas, > > Since you mention quota trees, I'd like to jump in and > discuss the benefits of quota trees within 5.1 (shipping > soon) and backup: > > My recommendation is that you should arrange your data in > quota trees whenever possible when running 5.1 for these > reasons: > > 1. You can have different security models running on a per > quota tree basis (ntfs, mixed (multi-protocol) or unix). > > 2. Pass I & II of dump has been optimized for full quota > tree (as well as full volume) backups. > > 3. dump has a new Q option that allows all non-quota tree > data to be backed up. This allows you to frequently > backup quota trees, but perhaps backup /etc and other > miscellaneous data on an infrequent basis and you don't > need to backup the whole volume to do so. > > Cheers, > Grant

2 1

Re: Quota's, Qtrees, Old_WAFL, NewWAFL, etc...
by grant＠netapp.com 06 Jun '98

06 Jun '98

Hi Thomas, Since you mention quota trees, I'd like to jump in and discuss the benefits of quota trees within 5.1 (shipping soon) and backup: My recommendation is that you should arrange your data in quota trees whenever possible when running 5.1 for these reasons: 1. You can have different security models running on a per quota tree basis (ntfs, mixed (multi-protocol) or unix). 2. Pass I & II of dump has been optimized for full quota tree (as well as full volume) backups. 3. dump has a new Q option that allows all non-quota tree data to be backed up. This allows you to frequently backup quota trees, but perhaps backup /etc and other miscellaneous data on an infrequent basis and you don't need to backup the whole volume to do so. Cheers, Grant

1 0

Re: Quota's, Qtrees, Old_WAFL, NewWAFL, etc...
by Keith Brown 05 Jun '98

05 Jun '98

> >I see that you can only use qtree's in the root... >??? - What is the real difference between quotas and qtrees? Filer qtrees are the entities on which you can slap tree quota restrictions in the /etc/quotas file. There are three types of quotas supported; User, group and tree. The former two are largely independent of qtree's, although they can be used in conjunction with them. The three can combine in relatively complicated ways and I'd recommend reading chapter 10 of the Systems Administration Guide for a full explanation. >??? - with 4.3.4 I can do non-root quota's for pure CIFS users right? If you mean quotas on individual Windows/CIFS users that are not associated with qtrees, then yes. Effectively, you would just define a regular user quota for each client. You could use group quotas and default quotas too (default quotas are just special cases of user quotas). >example: > >/cifs_home/<NT_username1> user 100M 20k >/cifs_home/<NT_username2> user 100M 20k >/cifs_home/<NT_username3> user 50M 10k Right. This would be fine. Just remember that the first field, the quota target field for a user quota is ultimately there to specify the UID of the user you are putting a quota on. If you are going to use a directory pathname in this field, the UID for the user quota comes from the owner of that directory. For this to work, the directory /cifs_home/<NT_username1> would have to have an ownership of whatever UID <NT_username1> was equated to via <NT_username1>'s entry in /etc/passwd (or NIS). >??? - These are just quotas on user directories right? No. User quotas are *not* specifically associated with the users home directory. User quotas expressed this way limit the users consumption of file and space resources on the root volume by default. If you want to limit the users space on another volume, you'd use the: /cifs_home/<NT_username1> user@/vol/foo 100M 20K syntax. >??? - I don't need quota trees for this type of individual CIFS user >quotas do I? Not if the above description is what you were looking for. > >The manual says that the user must have an entry in /etc/passwd. >??? - Is this true in a pure NT/CIFS file space? Yes. >??? - If so, Why? (no UID/GID?!) Because the user and group quota mechanism needs the files and directories created on the file systems to be owned by the UID's and GID's it's trying to impose its limits on for things to work. >??? - Will this change with 5.x? Not initially in 5.1 no. Sorry... >Lastly... >??? - Should I wait to impliment quotas until AFTER I go with 5.x or >will my 4.3.4 quotas and qtrees transition over ok to 5.x? Whatever system you come up with in 4.3.4 will transition just fine to 5.X as long as you keep doing things largely the same way. If you start creating multiple volumes in 5.X, then obviously some quota configurations may be effected by that. If you stop routinely mapping Windows/CIFS clients to valid UID's and GID's through /etc/passwd (which becomes perfectly feasible if you are using the NTFS compatible file system security in 5.1), then you will lose user and group quota-ing capability for those users, at least until we sort out some quota enhancements that will let you place quotas on users who are entirely defined by a Windows NT SID. However, tree quotas should keep on truckin' quite nicely, limiting even these kinds of users (the unmapped kind). Keith

1 0

Quota's, Qtrees, Old_WAFL, NewWAFL, etc...
by Weeks, Thomas 05 Jun '98

05 Jun '98

Hi all! Just some basic Q's... We're at OnTap 4.3.4 right now using the old WALF file system... I have implimented quota's yet and was wondering: I am planning on going to 5.x here soon (as soon as I can see how you all fair with it) along with it's full ACL's and implimentation of WALF... I am not currently using qtree's or quotas... I see that you can only use qtree's in the root... ??? - What is the real difference between quotas and qtrees? ??? - with 4.3.4 I can do non-root quota's for pure CIFS users right? example: /cifs_home/<NT_username1> user 100M 20k /cifs_home/<NT_username2> user 100M 20k /cifs_home/<NT_username3> user 50M 10k <etc...> (using PDC/BDC NT authentication for usernames) ??? - These are just quotas on user directories right? ??? - I don't need quota trees for this type of individual CIFS user quotas do I? The manual says that the user must have an entry in /etc/passwd. ??? - Is this true in a pure NT/CIFS file space? ??? - If so, Why? (no UID/GID?!) ??? - Will this change with 5.x? Lastly... ??? - Should I wait to impliment quotas until AFTER I go with 5.x or will my 4.3.4 quotas and qtrees transition over ok to 5.x? Please reply ASAP.. Thanx.. Thomas Weeks GTE SYSTEMS ENGINEER Testing-Integration Center "The Pit" Brooks AFB, DSN 240-5444

1 0

Backup strategy suggestions
by vance＠corp.theglobe.com 05 Jun '98

05 Jun '98

We have recently acquired an F230 which, once it is in production, host about 20GB of data. At the rate which new data is being added, we expect this to hit 80GB within 6 months. At that point, we expect to divide the load between a couple filers to maximize throughput. We will have a daily 8 hour window in which to perform backups. The average file size is about 20kB, and files are never modified or renamed, only created or deleted. Given this, does anyone have any words of wisdom about how to tackle backups? Thanks in advance for any advice you might have- Vance ......................... ........... vance huntley .. director of technology ............ theglobe.com . vance(a)corp.theglobe.com .........................

1 0

Soft Quotas
by Arvind K Aggarwal 05 Jun '98

05 Jun '98

Hi, Is there any way to set soft quotas? What I mean by soft quotas: If I give a user a quota of 100MB and he/she exceeds it, I don't want the system to die on him. Based on how much the excess disk usage is, I would a) Like to send him a message b) Give him/her a warning and then c) Disallow further disk usage. This is some what like the "GOD" program on the old VAX systems, if someone remebers those things :-); I have heard that it was pretty good. Thanks in advance Arvind Aggarwal

1 0

subscribe
by Elena Samsonova 05 Jun '98

05 Jun '98

1 0

Replication
by vance＠corp.theglobe.com 29 May '98

29 May '98

We would like to use some form of replication to mirror our NetApp 230 to another NetApp in a remote location. Has anyone on the list tried to do this before? Any suggestions on how to tackle this problem? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide- Vance BTW - If it matters at all, we are looking to replicate ~2M files totaling about 50GB. The WAN link would be fairly fast (> 45Mb). ......................... ........... Vance Huntley .. Director of Technology ............ TheGlobe.com . vance(a)corp.theglobe.com . http://www.theglobe.com .........................

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