toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13528 discussions

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

Re: Support for Network Time Protocol?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 17 May '98

17 May '98

On 05/15/98 14:39:03 you wrote: > >We recently observed some strange behavior due to the filer's clock being >about 1 minute and 30 seconds faster than a client's. The dates displayed >by 'ls -l' of files that had been recently created were listed as "May 14 >1998" instead of "May 14 18:22" like they should be. That is odd... I though ls did this only if the file was older than six months. I presume after 90 seconds it displays normally again, so I guess the ls in question isn't handling "in the future" times very well (it thinks they are in the past). >It is important that NFS clients and servers have the same time. We would >prefer to use NTP for time synchronization on the NetApp instead of running >a cron job on a UNIX server that will fire off a 'rsh rdate' command on the >filer. 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? >Does anyone know about any NetApp plans to support NTP? I've heard a lot of people ask for it over the years but usually they move on to a different solution since HTP doesn't seem immediately forthcoming. Bruce

2 1

Re: Botched filer upgrade
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 17 May '98

17 May '98

On 05/16/98 15:05:47 you wrote: > > >Hey folks. > >I just got some gigabit ethernet cards to replace my fddi >back-end network. The install went well (trivial) but all >release, non-5.x, DataONTAP versions have some bugs with >the gigabit ethernet. > >So, I upgraded to 4.3.4D2 which supposedly has the fix. >It works well on my f540. > >My f630 pukes horribly: > >Probing devices >Finding image... >Loading 14 f 5 disk@0 >Complete >Starting NetApp Release 4.3.4D2: Wed May 13 07:55:56 PDT 1998 >Copyright (c) 1992-1998 Network Appliance, Inc. > >PANIC: MM fault MMCSR=1, type=1, VA=0x79dba0, PC=0xfffffc00002a2d44 > > >version: NetApp Release 4.3.4D2: Wed May 13 07:55:56 PDT 1998 >cc flags: 1 >dumping core: Error dumping core --- not dumped. > >ok c > > >I quickly put the 4.3.3 boot floppy I had and we are back in service >and I am calming down.. :) > >So, anybody able to decode this error? It's a pretty brutal error that you probably can't do anything to fix. Since 4.3.4D2 is unreleased and a patch you got from support (I assume) particularly to address a Gigabit problem, then my guess it was never tested on a 600 series. So you really need to talk to tech support and let them know of the error and ask when a version of that will be available for the 600 series. :) Bruce

1 0

Re: Support for Network Time Protocol?
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 16 May '98

16 May '98

> >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. :) 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. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

2 1

Botched filer upgrade
by Alexei Rodriguez 16 May '98

16 May '98

Hey folks. I just got some gigabit ethernet cards to replace my fddi back-end network. The install went well (trivial) but all release, non-5.x, DataONTAP versions have some bugs with the gigabit ethernet. So, I upgraded to 4.3.4D2 which supposedly has the fix. It works well on my f540. My f630 pukes horribly: Probing devices Finding image... Loading 14 f 5 disk@0 Complete Starting NetApp Release 4.3.4D2: Wed May 13 07:55:56 PDT 1998 Copyright (c) 1992-1998 Network Appliance, Inc. PANIC: MM fault MMCSR=1, type=1, VA=0x79dba0, PC=0xfffffc00002a2d44 version: NetApp Release 4.3.4D2: Wed May 13 07:55:56 PDT 1998 cc flags: 1 dumping core: Error dumping core --- not dumped. ok c I quickly put the 4.3.3 boot floppy I had and we are back in service and I am calming down.. :) So, anybody able to decode this error? My filer is: whirlpool> sysconfig -v NetApp Release 4.3.3: Mon Mar 16 12:58:27 PST 1998 System ID: 0016786960 slot 0: System Board (NetApp System Board IV rev-b) Firmware release: 1.8_a1 Memory Size: 512 MB slot 2: Ethernet Controller e2 (Znyx) MAC Address: 00:c0:95:f8:2f:6d (Twisted pair) slot 3: FDDI Network Adapter f3 (DEC 3002) MAC Address: 00:00:f8:bd:c6:04 (Dual Attach Fiber) slot 8: Dual SCSI Host Adapter (NetApp SCSI Adapter I) SCSI Host Adapter 8a (Qlogic ISP 1040B) Firmware Version 2.26 Clock Rate 40MHz. 0: SEAGATE ST19171W 0023 Size=8.3GB (17783112 blocks) 1: SEAGATE ST19171W 0023 Size=8.3GB (17783112 blocks) 2: SEAGATE ST19171W 0023 Size=8.3GB (17783112 blocks) 3: SEAGATE ST19171W 0023 Size=8.3GB (17783112 blocks) 8: SEAGATE ST19171W 0023 Size=8.3GB (17783112 blocks) 9: SEAGATE ST19171W 0023 Size=8.3GB (17783112 blocks) 10: SEAGATE ST19171W 0023 Size=8.3GB (17783112 blocks) 11: SEAGATE ST19171W 0023 Size=8.3GB (17783112 blocks) 12: SEAGATE ST19171W 0023 Size=8.3GB (17783112 blocks) EMU 0: P/N 500408 S/N 2550270236 Firmware Rev 1.19 0 Swap Events, 0 Enclosure Events EMU 1: P/N 500408 S/N 2550272530 Firmware Rev 1.19 0 Swap Events, 0 Enclosure Events SCSI Host Adapter 8b (Qlogic ISP 1040B) Firmware Version 2.26 Clock Rate 40MHz. 0: SEAGATE ST19171W 0023 Size=8.3GB (17783112 blocks) 1: SEAGATE ST19171W 0023 Size=8.3GB (17783112 blocks) 2: SEAGATE ST19171W 0023 Size=8.3GB (17783112 blocks) 3: SEAGATE ST19171W 0023 Size=8.3GB (17783112 blocks) 9: SEAGATE ST19171W 0023 Size=8.3GB (17783112 blocks) 10: SEAGATE ST19171W 0023 Size=8.3GB (17783112 blocks) 11: SEAGATE ST19171W 0023 Size=8.3GB (17783112 blocks) 12: SEAGATE ST19171W 0023 Size=8.3GB (17783112 blocks) EMU 2: P/N 500408 S/N 2550272276 Firmware Rev 1.19 0 Swap Events, 0 Enclosure Events EMU 3: P/N 500408 S/N 2550272259 Firmware Rev 1.19 0 Swap Events, 0 Enclosure Events slot 9: NVRAM (NetApp NVRAM II) Revision: A1 Serial Number: 9744 Memory Size: 16 MB Battery 1 Status: 100% (3.30v) Battery 2 Status: 100% (3.29v) slot 10: Gigabit Ethernet Controller e10 MAC Address: 00:60:cf:20:48:61 (1000fx) whirlpool> I need gigabit pretty badly but don't want to go to 5.x yet. Anybody? Thanks. Alex

1 0

Re: Support for Network Time Protocol?
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 16 May '98

16 May '98

> 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. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

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