toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13513 discussions

Re: Support for Network Time Protocol?
by Daniel Quinlan 19 May '98

19 May '98

Jason D. Kelleher <kelleher(a)susq.com> writes: > I recall asking about NTP over two years ago. Very disappointing. 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. Dan

1 0

Re: Support for Network Time Protocol?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 19 May '98

19 May '98

On 05/18/98 09:14:26 you wrote: > >sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: >> Okay, I was just curious. Most places I've seen aren't as "religious" about >> the use of NTP. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :) >> >> Bruce > >NTP is integral to keeping the NYSE, SIAC, and Amex clocks in sync. We >use it on everything so that all trading is accurate on all systems to >within milliseconds of each other, which is crucial when billions of >messages have to be ordered, stored, processed, and then compared at the >end of the trading day. I can imagine! The demands there are much different from a college campus or a departmental server in a small corporation. Different environments need different solutions. I think all these posts are great - the more Netapp knows about customer desire for this, the more likely they are to implement the feature. It certainly seems more widespread than the last time I saw the question asked (although this mailing list doesn't exactly constitute a scientific survey). Bruce

1 0

NetApp File Server (FS230) mounted directly on an NT server
by Weeks, Thomas 18 May '98

18 May '98

I have a fairly good grasp on NT and CIFS and the like... but I am from the UNIX worls and just want someone to answer this for me once and all... 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? 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 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 I know this is probably not possible.. but ya never know if you dont' ask.. it just seems that if the netapp box could be treated as a raw storage unit like this, that it would greatly simplify matters (regarding all the ACL problems). Anyone wanna tell me exactly why things can't be done like this? Thomas Weeks GTE SYSTEMS ENGINEER Testing-Integration Center "The Pit" Brooks AFB, DSN 240-5444

1 0

Exports file vs exportfs
by Alexei Rodriguez 18 May '98

18 May '98

In 4.x, NetApp added a feature such that one could do an export of a file system to a network (net/netmask) such that: exportfs -root=192.168.250.0/24 /export/test would allow anybody on the 192.168.250 network to get to /export/test on the filer. Cool. This works without a problem. What I am running into a hitch with is making this work out of the /etc/exports file. It just does not seem to want to work. Has anybody else worked with this notation out of the exports file? Did it work? Is the order of the hosts important (subnets before hosts)? Or am I simply missing something obvious? Thanks. Alex

1 1

Re: Support for Network Time Protocol?
by Jason D. Kelleher 18 May '98

18 May '98

In message <199805162033.NAA20194(a)paradiso.cnet.com>, John Caruso writes: >> Nothing religious about it, actually. We have a well established NTP >> infrastructure, we've used NTP for many years and are very comfortable >> with it. Thus we'd like to use it for NetApps too. > >Ditto. This seems to be on the "sometime in the future..." list for >Netapp, but we haven't heard of any definite plans. I recall asking about NTP over two years ago. Very disappointing. jason --- Jason D. Kelleher kelleher(a)susq.com Susquehanna Investment Group 610.617.2721 (voice) 401 City Line Ave, Suite 220 610.617.2916 (fax) Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-1122

1 0

NetApp as database storage - interface speeds?
by Thomson, Michael 18 May '98

18 May '98

Hi there. I've been asked to look at whether NetApp is a potential candidate for hosting some Oracle databases, but one thing I don't see is how to get sufficient sustained data rates between the Oracle server and the filer. We use 10 Base-T Ethernet and FDDI right now, 100 Base-TX Ethernet is coming onstream at present. Even connecting a filer direct to a server on private 100 Base-TX only gives 10 MBytes/sec, lots slower than Ultra-SCSI. If I'm going to use NetApp to host Oracle Databases I probably want more than one database server connected to a filer. I can only have one Gigabit Ethernet card per F630. So right now, I can't see a way to support more than one Oracle server from a single NetApp. Yours comments much appreciated as always. Cheers, Mike Thomson

2 1

Re: Support for Network Time Protocol?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 18 May '98

18 May '98

On 05/16/98 08:52:28 you wrote: > >> It is a little bit of a hassle, but rsh rdate works pretty well. Any reason >> why you don't want to use it? Do you use NTP for the rest of your environment? > >Yes. NTP for everything, including our Cisco routers. Keeps the time nicely, >and doesn't step it. It would be *much* nicer to have NetApp support use >NTP also. Okay, I was just curious. Most places I've seen aren't as "religious" about the use of NTP. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :) Bruce

2 1

Re: Support for Network Time Protocol?
by Alan Judge 18 May '98

18 May '98

Ditto here. We use NTP for everything else, machines, routers, even some Windoze PCs, ... It gives us accurate multi-machine logs that we can stand over (important for an ISP when people are accused of various sorts of misbehaviour). We also asked Netapp about NTP, but haven't had any definite statement yet. Even SNTP would do. -- Alan

1 0

HELP! CIFS and 4.3.4?
by Weeks, Thomas 17 May '98

17 May '98

Hey all... I was told, by just about everyone, that if I wanted full CIFS without the "backout problems" possible with 5.x, then I should just go to 4.3.4... Well.. I have.. and the major porblem I HAD with the NetApp implimentation of CIFS seems to still be there: 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!!!! 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! That's what my main problem is! We have TONS of UNIX users across campus who are on various NIS+ domains and as a result many have overlapping UIDs! i.e. we can NOT rely on single NIS+ uid mapping.. and would have the SAME problem if we tried to input all our users directly into a single /etc/passwd file on the server. Is the ONLY way to get around this is by going to 5.x? Does 5.x even FIX this serious problem? What about the differences in the 5.x file system? I don't HAVE a test file server to test this on.. 100% production... 8v/ Anyone here have this kind of expereince? Thomas Weeks GTE SYSTEMS ENGINEER Testing-Integration Center "The Pit" Brooks AFB, DSN 240-5444

2 1

Re: Performance problems
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 17 May '98

17 May '98

On 05/14/98 15:19:12 you wrote: > > >How are the NICs on the F520 configured? How are the >switch ports configured? > >Make sure that the duplexes match on both ends. And, after checking that, I would double-check your setup in terms of routing. Perhaps configurations and netstat -r for each BSD system and filer would be helpful. Bruce

3 2

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