toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13513 discussions

Re: Performance problems
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 15 May '98

15 May '98

On 05/14/98 18:56:07 you wrote: > >> What, by the way, is "yes"? > > >YES(1) FreeBSD General Commands Manual YES(1) [etc.] An old UNIX hand once told me yes was originally "designed" for use with the fsck -y option. Whether or not this was true, I don't know. Other things to note - on some systems it's still a C program, on others it's just a shell script. Also, I think some shells have "yes" built-in now. So this can also account for performance differences between OSes. Bruce

2 1

syslog and /etc/messages format
by tjt＠netapp.com 15 May '98

15 May '98

Here at NetApp, we're planning some changes in the way messages are implemented, to provide more specific information (e.g. unique message id's, to identify exactly where messages are coming from), handle things like internationalization, and make it easier to post-process messages. We'd like to know how many people currently have scripts to process the /etc/messages file (and/or any other destinations of syslog or console output). If you would be affected by any changes to the format of /etc/messages or console output, please send me email, so we can take your input into account. Thanks much. ...Tim Thompson...Network Appliance, Inc...tjt(a)netapp.com...

2 1

Performance problems
by Brett Rabe 14 May '98

14 May '98

Most of ya'll probably understand what it feels like to be frustratingly baffled, so pull up a chair, lend me an ear, and I'll buy ya a beer. I've got two NetApps (and two more on order). 1) F230 o 5.0R2 OnTap o 128MB RAM o 4MB NVRAM o 5 9-gig drives o 2 100bT NIC 2) F520 o 5.0R2 OnTap o 192MB RAM o 4 MB NVRAM o 9 9-gig drives o 2 100bT NIC The installation is as follows. Both NetApps are fronted by three FreeBSD servers. One NIC on the NetApps routes to its own private subnet. Each of the three servers have a second NIC card also routing to that subnet. I can't get squat for performance from the F520. I'm not trying to pretend that using 'yes' is a true benchmark, but it does illustrate the point sufficiently: F520 front-end# yes > /some_nfs_mounted_filesystem/yes F520> sysstat 1 CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 2% 35 0 0 445 8 0 0 0 0 >60 4% 36 0 0 468 9 0 0 0 0 >60 18% 37 0 0 469 9 1684 816 0 0 >60 10% 30 0 0 377 7 96 1632 0 0 >60 15% 157 0 0 1457 33 0 0 0 0 >60 29% 84 0 0 870 18 1336 2348 0 0 >60 F230 front-end# yes > /some_nfs_mounted_filesystem/yes F230> sysstat 1 CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 68% 287 0 0 1510 823 1052 2300 0 0 >60 63% 212 0 0 1683 751 24 1628 0 0 >60 67% 248 0 0 1678 811 944 1960 0 0 >60 59% 248 0 0 1680 780 1068 1632 0 0 >60 59% 214 0 0 1727 804 1048 1760 0 0 >60 60% 215 0 0 1684 805 43 2285 0 0 >60 53% 202 0 0 1741 783 1052 2328 0 0 >60 57% 179 0 0 1416 758 1064 2320 0 0 >60 (The F230 also was being backed up and is in production hosting web pages, in case anyone notes about all the outbound traffic that wouldn't be accounted for by 'yes'....) The NetApps are configured as close to identical as reasonable. The version of FreeBSD appears to be not a factor -- I've got both 2.2.5-RELEASE and 2.2.6-RELEASE that produce the second results on the F230, and 2.2.5-RELEASE and 2.2.6-RELEASE that produce the first results on the F520. All the interfaces are configured correctly. There are no significant errors reported by the NetApps, the FreeBSD boxes, or the network device to which they all terminate. I can't discern any significant difference in the FreeBSD box configurations -- if anything, the fact that I get the same performance with different FreeBSD OS revs on the F230 and the same poor performance with different FreeBSD OS revs on the F520 points to a problem with the F520. I had the F230 at 4.3.1 and got similar performance as I do with 5.0R2. I've gone so far as to swap ethernet cables. :p I'm not sure where to look next; suggestions would be highly welcomed. I have (of course) hit now.netapp.com and hunted through their troubleshooting suggestions to no avail. ... just another day. :) Brett --- Brett Rabe Email : brett(a)uswest.net Systems Administrator - U S West Phone : 612.664.3078 Interact - 3S Pager : 612.613.2549 600 Stinson Blvd. Pager : page-brett(a)uswest.net Minneapolis, MN USA Fax : 612.664.4770 All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand!

1 0

Earthlink's NetApp-based email system?
by mer＠world.evansville.net 13 May '98

13 May '98

A few months ago I read an article on NetApp's webserver which was written by an Earthlink engineer. The article described the work that Earthlink had done to build a scalable, reliable email system using NetApp filers. It was interesting to me because it covered in detail the work needed to ensure proper locking across NFS for this application. The article seems to have been removed from www.netapp.com, and none of the search engines I have tried know of it anymore either. Does anyone have an URL (or a copy) they could send me? Thanks, -- Marc Rouleau VP and Chief Technology Officer Voice: (812) 479-1700 Fax: (812) 479-3439 Network WCS http://www.networkwcs.com

2 1

new filer and netcache monitoring tools on NOW site
by tjt＠netapp.com 13 May '98

13 May '98

The Tools&Utilities section of the NetApp NOW site (http://now.netapp.com) has a couple of new tools for monitoring: filer-mrtg A package that uses MRTG for monitoring filers. It provides a web-based interface for current and historical views of: network traffic in/out, NFS ops, disk usage (%), CPU usage, CIFS read/write ops, and CIFS other ops. netcache-mrtg A package that uses MRTG for monitoring NetCache Appliances. It provides a web-based interface for current and historical views of: URLs served, Cache I/O and hit rates, network bandwidth, URL fetch time, cpu and disk space usage, and DNS calls. If you haven't checked out the Tools&Utilities section of NOW lately, it has been enhanced with a number of new tools, and a "Tool Time" effort in which customers are encourage to submit tools (and win a fabulous polo shirt!). ...Tim Thompson...Network Appliance, Inc...tjt(a)netapp.com...

1 0

subscribe
by jimy＠hwacomsys.com.tw 12 May '98

12 May '98

1 0

Re: Toasters list - any FAQs?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 08 May '98

08 May '98

On 05/08/98 21:19:41 you wrote: > >> Also, here's a real item: I'm seeing fairly high >> error and collision rates on my F330's quad ethernet >> card, (10BaseT Quad-Ethernet Controller (Znyx)) and >> was wondering if there are any known issues with this >> card, since the network traffic on these four nets >> does not warrent this high error rate (I'm on OnTap 4.3.1). > >Note that collision is not the same as error! On standard half-duplex >Ethernet, a collision is a normal and healthy phenomenon - simply means >that the Ethernet flow control meachnism is working. > >It's okay to be worried about high error rates. High *collision* rates >(as long as we're not talking about "late collision") aren't really all >that meaningfull by themselves - what you should probably look at is the >*utilization* of the Ethernet segment. I myself have observed high error rates on the Quad 10BaseT card on the filer. It was clearly the largest source of errors on the network, and much higher than I'd ever seen on a normal network. Moreover, it seemed that the error rate increased which each port (I don't quite remember if it went from A to D or D to A) without correlation to the actual amount of traffic on those ports. A bug was filed on this. However, these errors never seemed to actually be a major problem for the network and while I suppose they were responsible for the occasional performance anomaly overall performance of the filer was never a problem. Bruce

1 0

Re: Toasters list - any FAQs?
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 08 May '98

08 May '98

> Also, here's a real item: I'm seeing fairly high > error and collision rates on my F330's quad ethernet > card, (10BaseT Quad-Ethernet Controller (Znyx)) and > was wondering if there are any known issues with this > card, since the network traffic on these four nets > does not warrent this high error rate (I'm on OnTap 4.3.1). Note that collision is not the same as error! On standard half-duplex Ethernet, a collision is a normal and healthy phenomenon - simply means that the Ethernet flow control meachnism is working. It's okay to be worried about high error rates. High *collision* rates (as long as we're not talking about "late collision") aren't really all that meaningfull by themselves - what you should probably look at is the *utilization* of the Ethernet segment. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

1 0

Toasters list - any FAQs?
by applix!jimsparc!jim＠uunet.uu.net 08 May '98

08 May '98

I'm new to this list, so forgive my ignorance... are there any FAQs or digests of past list submissions that I can come up to speed with??? Also, here's a real item: I'm seeing fairly high error and collision rates on my F330's quad ethernet card, (10BaseT Quad-Ethernet Controller (Znyx)) and was wondering if there are any known issues with this card, since the network traffic on these four nets does not warrent this high error rate (I'm on OnTap 4.3.1). -- Jim Morton, Applix Inc., Westboro, MA jim(a)applix.com

1 0

OnTap FIler OS Upgrade Q's
by Weeks, Thomas 08 May '98

08 May '98

Hi all... Have a NA FS230 box running 4.2aD9... I need to do CIFS inter ACL/UFS-permissions testing and evaluation (for our NFS-->CIFS migration) and was PLANNING on going to 4.3.3 because I do not have a "test box" and wanted to protect myself from the possible "problems" associated with going to the full 5.x release and then trying to back out. (yes.. I am planning on EVENTUALLY going to 5.x, but I want to address one problem at a time (i.e. don't want to have to adress UFS/ACL/locking issues AND variables associates with backing out of the 5.x upgrade.. that's all)) Does anyone have any information on this subject that I should examine? I guess 4.3.3 is no longer the highest pre-5 release version.. but it is now 4.3.4? Anyone? Thanx... Tom Thomas Weeks GTE SYSTEMS ENGINEER Testing-Integration Center "The Pit" Brooks AFB, DSN 240-5444

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