toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13520 discussions

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

subscribe
by David B. Ritch 28 May '98

28 May '98

subscribe toasters

1 0

User Quota Checking
by Mike Mueller 25 May '98

25 May '98

We've just turned on user quotas and I am trying to figure out a way to allow users to check their current disk usage and quota limit. Since the filer is running rquotad, this would seem to be the way to go. But alas, the filer rquotad apparently wants quota [path] instead of quota [uid], just like its command line quota report. It returns "NO QUOTA" when queried via a client's quota command. Has anyone figured out a way to allow a general user to check their disk usage and quota limits? It looks like there may be a way through the MIB, but how could this be easily made into a command line script that a user could run? Better yet, is there a way to allow the user to interact with the rquotad deamon that is already running on the filer to get their quota report? If not, why is it running? Thanks for your insight! -- Mike

3 3

command reference guide discontinued in 5.x
by Tom Yates 21 May '98

21 May '98

here's a little someting to take our minds off how nice NTP support would be... would anyone from netapp care to comment on the suggestion that the command reference guide has been discontinued in 5.x? would anyone else care to comment on whether they use the command reference guide? perhaps some might care to say that it's about twice as useful as the system administrators' guide, despite weighing half as much? i certainly think so. i'd even pay for it. i'd think it was a bit rich, given the price of the toaster, but i'd shell out folding money for it. it's just too useful. any chance we could have it back? 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

2 1

Re: don't run an F630 with the case open
by Mark D Simmons 21 May '98

21 May '98

Credit to our SE's for pointing this one out to us when they installed our F630's. I can see why this would drive you up the wall trying to diagnose a fail-to-boot when no-one's pointed out the change.

2 1

Re: don't run an F630 with the case open
by Guy Lauterbach 21 May '98

21 May '98

At 08:28 AM 5/21/98 -0700, Christina Sanfilippo wrote: >Ouch! That's got to hurt. I am sure Rich was glad he could fix your problem. > >For the F200/F300 and F500 series filers these filers can run with the case >open. >As you found out the F630 can't. Although some NetApp filers *can* be operated with the case open, it is not a good idea to run any of these machines with the box open. This is because an open cabinet changes the airflow within the filer and often results in reduced airflow to some devices within the box, allowing them to overheat. And that means increased failures. Please, close them up! rgl

1 0

Re: don't run an F630 with the case open
by Christina Sanfilippo 21 May '98

21 May '98

Ouch! That's got to hurt. I am sure Rich was glad he could fix your problem. For the F200/F300 and F500 series filers these filers can run with the case open. As you found out the F630 can't. Cheers, Christina At 08:27 AM 5/21/98 -0400, Tom Yates wrote: >d'oh of the day contest entry, just fyi: > >you can run an F330 with the case open, or at least ajar. i often do >after i've done work, before i seal the case down tight, to make sure that >it boots and i'm not going to have to undo everything to fix it. well, >don't try the same trick with an F630; it doesn't work. thanks to rich >ciammaichella at netapp for not roasting me when we discovered that this >was a major part of my F630 booting problem. > >for those who haven't looked closely inside an F630, there are no longer >cables going from the board to the front-of-case displays; there are now >fixed connectors that seat when the board tray is slid fully home. this >may be true for other high-end models, too - i don't know. > > 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 > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++****************** Christina Sanfilippo Customer Support Representative Network Appliance 2730 (Shipping:2820) San Tomas Expressway Santa Clara, CA 95051 (408) 367-3747 chrissan(a)netapp.com ============>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tech Support Hotline:1-888-4-NETAPP (Remember to reference your log # if you have one.) _____________________________________________________ VISIT Netapp On the Web http://now.netapp.com

1 0

don't run an F630 with the case open
by Tom Yates 21 May '98

21 May '98

d'oh of the day contest entry, just fyi: you can run an F330 with the case open, or at least ajar. i often do after i've done work, before i seal the case down tight, to make sure that it boots and i'm not going to have to undo everything to fix it. well, don't try the same trick with an F630; it doesn't work. thanks to rich ciammaichella at netapp for not roasting me when we discovered that this was a major part of my F630 booting problem. for those who haven't looked closely inside an F630, there are no longer cables going from the board to the front-of-case displays; there are now fixed connectors that seat when the board tray is slid fully home. this may be true for other high-end models, too - i don't know. 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

NTP or rdate.....
by gordon＠nabaus.com.au 20 May '98

20 May '98

Yes, put me on the voting list too. Netapp folk have been misteriously quiet regarding this thread. We know nearly ALL of the netapp dudes read from this list, so how about a response from Netapp? What is Netapps official position regarding NTP? That's my 2cents worth. The check is in the mail.... .... Gordon. Gordon Maudsley, Unix and Network dude, National Australia Bank.

1 0

Re: NetApp File Server (FS230) mounted directly on an NT server
by Keith Brown 19 May '98

19 May '98

Thomas... Taking your various issues one at a time... >It looks like while yes >there is indeed NT server authentication happening now, no matter WHO I >want to access the CIFS shares, they STILL have to MANUALLY PLACED into >the /etc/passwd file!!!! Right. That is the case in current Data ONTAP releases, and the root reason for this requirement is that the security model used by the WAFL file system today is a UNIX security model. In order to assess what a Windows user can and can not do to the files and directories resident on its file system, a filer has to associate each Windows connection (user) with a UNIX identity (a UID and GID(s)) so it can control the users access to data using the UNIX inode based security that it stores (read, write and execute for owning UID, owning GID and other). The /etc/passwd isn't really storing Windows users accounts per se, it's storing mappings between account names and UIDs/GIDs. >What is the POINT of full blown NT server >(domain) authentication if I STILL have to input >ALL of the users into the /etc/passwd file! The Windows clients still get to authenticate themselves in the normal way with the domain infrastructure on startup. The full Windows security/authentication protocols are enforced on the wire, and the users also wind up being subject to all the correct limitations and restrictions that the Windows administrator may have assigned to their account (times of day they are allowed to use the network and so forth...). >We have TONS of >UNIX users across campus who are on various NIS+ domains >and as a result many have overlapping UIDs! So called "overlapping UIDs" situations are not handled by the above mechanism today. If by overlapping UIDs you mean multiple users posessing the same UID, I thought this was generally regarded as a pretty bad idea even to start out with? Unless the accounts with identical UIDs have different lexigraphical user names, that's that. If they do, you could actually get to "break up" the different users with the same UIDs by allocating them different UIDs in the filers /etc/passwd file. However, if you configure the filer into your existing NIS infrastructure as a client, then the problem will remain. As an FYI, we have a utility available on our NOW web site that many of our customers have found useful. Check out CVTUSERS in the "Tools & Utilities" section of NOW. It will automatically generate passwd and group databases from a Windows NT domain infrastructure for you. >Is the ONLY way to get around this is by going to 5.x? Not a current 5.X (5.0) release, no. The resolution to this "problem" as described above is actually quite a bit larger than you might imagine, and is embodied in a major enhancement to the Data ONTAP microkernel and WAFL file system that is already announced and about to be unleashed shortly. Specifically, the solution lies in enhancing WAFL to maintain true Windows NT style security attributes (NTFS Security Descriptors) such that Windows client users can be treated as exactly what they are, Windows client users who might not even have UNIX accounts at all! :-) The new capability is briefly mentioned in the announcement of our previous Windows Network Software enhancement (WNS 2.0) at: http://www.netapp.com/news/level3b/news_rel_971103.html The new software is currently in external test, and has even been briefly reviewed by Windows NT Systems magazine in their article at: http://www.netapp.com/news/level3b/news_rel_971103.html (See the "Sidebar: Midyear Release" box toward the end of the article). I'll save all the details for another time, but suffice to say that what you have coming your way is not just a "resolution", it's a whole new solution in its own right. :-) >Is there any way to MOUNT a NetApp file server directly to an NT file >system and access it like unix does with a /mnt directory? Well, yes. But apparently you already know about it because you write: >I know about the menthod of mounting to NT via a drive letter... but >you can't re-share that as a resource under that the NT file system CAN >you? You mean "re-sharing" a network drive or the directories thereon? No, you can't do that with current versions of Windows NT, at least not without resorting to some undocumented tricks which nobody has ever been able to confirm to me *really* exist. It's like re-exporting NFS mounted file systems on a UNIX machine, arguably not a good idea and definately not allowed. >You know.. like this: > given that > NetApp box="\\barium\C$" > > and > NT Server="\\ntbox" > >net use \\ntbox\shares\share \\barium\share >net use \\ntbox\shares\winapps \\barium\winapps What? Now there's a "net use" syntax that I've never seen before. >Anyone wanna tell me exactly why things can't be done like this? Because it would be a syntax error? :-) Keith

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