toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13529 discussions

Start a nNew thread

None
by Gity Barghi 20 Apr '98

20 Apr '98

2 1

Filer and IIS
by Jimy Liu 20 Apr '98

20 Apr '98

Hi sirs: I have one filer share directory to one NT server.(NT mount filer's /home/www as its f:\ directory) And I set up Internet Information Server(IIS) Web's root directory as f:\ . Then I use brower to open NT's web page from IIS. The browser show "Can not find the object". And in IIS web directory setting shows "this directory access denied. But I can using brower to open file in f: directory . Why can not access through IIS ? There is must something wrong on filer or IIS . Jimy

4 4

Re: backup times
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 20 Apr '98

20 Apr '98

On 04/20/98 11:37:38 you wrote: > >people are familiar with the temporary performance hole in one's toaster >when starting a backup via "rsh toaster dump 0fqwerty etc. etc.", right? > >am i imagining it, or is it getting worse with later versions of ONTAP? >it's got to the point where users are substantially hampered in working >over the weekend when the backups kick off becasue CPU goes to 100% used >and stays there for tens of minutes (and, for that matter, at various >times during the backups). am i doing something wrong? I know in a previous version, we ran into a problem where the CPU pegged high when scanning a deep directory tree, hundreds or thousands of entries deep, that someone had created. I believe this impact was alleviated in later releases but I can't be certain of that having not tried it myself. So, unless your filer is just heavily loaded and/or short of memory when doing your backup, I'd suspect something like a deeply nested directory tree. Perhaps you can locate it an remove it. Then again, it could be something entirely different. :/ Bruce

1 0

Re: Filer and IIS
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 19 Apr '98

19 Apr '98

On 04/20/98 04:38:04 you wrote: > >Mike Patchen - Verio Southern California wrote: >> >> This is a bug in IIS. MS and netapp are aware of it. Frontpage also has >> a bug where all content has to be on local disk so we cannot use our filer >> on these accounts. MS says this will be fixed in the FP99 release. >> >> We had the exact same problems you describe. >> >> -Mike Patchen >> Verio Southern California >> >> On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Jimy Liu wrote: >> >> >But I think I did not use FrontPage. And if I use other PC(win95) as >NT's network >drive running IIS. It worked fine. Why Netapp Not ? MS may say "We can >work with Normal >network drive like win95. NetApp filer may be not Normal". It is not unusual for Microsoft to violate their own spec. I don't know specifically what is wrong in IIS, but probably the filer is advertising something perfectly reasonable (that win95 doesn't), but IIS isn't handling it correctly. If Microsoft says this is a problem with IIS, then I see no reason to doubt them. (Yes, they may initially accuse Netapp, but the impression I am getting is that they aren't doing so now.) >About two month ago, my customer ran Notes server on NT using NetApp >filer => Notes boot Fail . >If she ran Notes server on this NT using another NT's disk as network >drive => Notes boot Success. Again why filer can't ? >(ps: I hope to resolv IIS with filer first ) I know these sorts of things happened in earlier versions of the filer CIFS software. Whether or not it happens now is hard to say. I would upgrade your filer software, try it, and if it still doesn't work, contact Netapp so they can open a bug on it. Bruce

1 0

Re: Filer and IIS
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 19 Apr '98

19 Apr '98

On 04/18/98 14:25:45 you wrote: > >On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, Mike Patchen - Verio Southern California wrote: >> >> This is a bug in IIS. MS and netapp are aware of it. Frontpage >> also has a bug where all content has to be on local disk so we >> cannot use our filer on these accounts. MS says this will be fixed >> in the FP99 release. > > Yup. Interestingly, if you run an NFS client on the NT server and >mount the Netapp filesystems that way, it *does* seem to work, even >though it still "looks" like a network share. There are other >problems though, with directory and file permissions, that we gave up >and went with local disks for the NT boxes. Silly Microsoft. :( I dunno... seems like Microsoft "won" to me, since you didn't abandon IIS. Instead you were coerced into a more expensive and more NT-centric solution. (Before someone questions whether or not such a solution is really more expensive, please don't... I don't want this to turn into some flamewar about Microsoft and/or NT.) Bruce

2 1

Re: RAM and NVRAM for F330
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 18 Apr '98

18 Apr '98

On 04/17/98 11:01:58 you wrote: > >sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: >> >> As has been pointed out before, Netapp tests DRAM they get from Samsung before >> it goes out the door, and does find failures, so I can't see how Samsung direct >> could be any MORE reliable, unless Netapp somehow damages the DRAM in assembly >> or shipment. >> >> Bruce > >Maybe it may make people feel better if NetApp could supply some facts >that would show people what kind of failure rate they find on some of >the different lines of products. It is one thing to say that they find >failures, but are the failures 1 in 10 or 1 in 200? > >I would agree that if the failure rate is high (i.e. 1 in 10), then >NetApp is certianly pushing the edge of the components. BUT (and a big >but at that) if the failure rate is much lower (e.g. 1 in 100 or 200 >components), then I would tend to say that NetApp's argument for testing >does not hold any water. The small amount of failures that NetApp finds >could be attributed to manufacturing defects and delivery problems. I basically agree (I'm not sure if I'd draw the line at 1 in 200), but I would point out that if they can be attributed to manufacturing defects, then you are just as likely to get such a defect direct from the supplier. So again, going through a supplier like Samsung isn't going to be more reliable, although how much less reliable (i.e. 0.5%) may be negligible for your particular environment. It would, however, somewhat dispel the notion that the filers push the edge of the components. Bruce

1 0

Re: Data ONTAP 5.0 memory requirements
by Jason D. Kelleher 17 Apr '98

17 Apr '98

In message <Chameleon.980326065754.dpower(a)blue.insync.net>, David Power writ es: >Have you priced 630 memory lately? I was quoted $12,000 for a 32 meg >nvram, 256 meg system ram upgrade. Thats not dropping to me. We just paid NetApp $4000 to up the NVRAM on our F330 from 2MB to 8MB. That's over $650 for each 1MB SIMM! When I asked our Sales Rep about the cost, I was quoted the "We do in house testing" line. Anyway, two of the SIMMs we were sent were bad... Very disappointing. I think it'd work out best for everyone if they just published a list of "approved" vendors for memory and disk. The customers would get a better price, and NetApp would look alot nicer. jason >--- On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:30:52 +1100 Mike Bosch <mbosch(a)netapp.com> >wrote: > >>Marc, >> >>As I recall, Cisco was requiring 64MB and recommending 128MB on most ISP >>7500s over a year ago. Whatever......the point is that memory >requirements >>will continue to grow over time. >> >>The good news is that as more features have required more memory, the >price >>of memory has dropped at an even faster rate. >> >>MJB >> >> >>At 22:21 25/03/98 -0500, Marc Nicholas wrote: >>>On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Mike Bosch wrote: >>> >>>> A Filer is generically much more like a router than a general purpose >Unix >>>> or NT box, but we still require much less space than Cisco's IOS, for >>example. >>> >>>Excuse me? You require less memory than IOS? Did I suddently reappear >in >>>another universe where IOS requires 128mb to run? :-p >>> >>>You can even run a couple of full BGP views in a Cisco with 64mb -- and >>>that's to compensate for Cisco's braindead table archietecture. >>> >>> >>>-marc >>> >>>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >>>Hippocampus OSD, Inc. "Industrial Strength Internet Solutions" >>>vox://416.979.9000 fax://416.979.8223 http://www.hippocampus.net >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-- >>------ >> >>Mike Bosch >>Regional Manager >>Network Appliance Australia - New Zealand >> >>Phone: 61-41-728-7345 >>Email: mbosch(a)netapp.com >> >> >>********************************************************************* >> FAST SIMPLE RELIABLE MULTI-PROTOCOL >>********************************************************************* >> >> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-- >>------ >> >> > >-----------------End of Original Message----------------- > > >David Power >V-P Operations >Insync Internet Services Inc. > >

9 9

fcal filers?
by Alexei Rodriguez 17 Apr '98

17 Apr '98

Has anyone ordered or taken delivery of such a beast yet? How is it? Alex

1 0

RE: RAM and NVRAM for F330
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 17 Apr '98

17 Apr '98

On 04/16/98 11:37:53 you wrote: > >On Thu, 16 Apr 1998 sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > >|On 04/16/98 09:10:23 you wrote: >|> >|>> >I know that Stornet has a slightly better price than NetApp, but it is >|>> >still several times what I'd expect to pay for RAM. >|>> >|>> My experience has been that if you get third-party components, they are >|>> going to be less reliable. Period. >|>> >|> >|>That's a shame. You might try some other third-party vendors. >| >|Perhaps you'd care to tell us what "others" you refer to? I've had >|experience with just about every vendor I can think of. What third-party >|vendor have you found to be more reliable than Netapp's components? >|Perhaps your experience with a given vendor differs from mine. > >I think you have a serious misunderstanding about "netapp components" >bruce. > >Netapp uses: > >Dallas SEmiconductor NVRAM >Samsung DRAM >Seagate Hard Drives >Alteon gigabit ethernet cards >Eurologic storage shelves > >I would hardly call it "3rd party" if you buy the *EXACT* OEM >equipment netapp uses. > Oh, I see what you are getting at now... as if "netapp components" don't come from a third-party vendor in the first place. I'm afraid you're the one who misunderstood; within the context of the discussion, we were distinguishing between the original vendor of the component and getting it straight from Netapp itself. Thus, when I say third-party components are less reliable, I mean "If you get Samsung DRAM from Samsung, it's going to be less reliable than if you get Samsung DRAM from Netapp" in this context. You suggested another vendor was required; perhaps you didn't think I meant Samsung in the first place. But that's what I asked... what vendor do you think is more reliable, or at least the same reliability, getting it direct than from Netapp? In other words, are you saying the Samsung memory you get direct from Samsung is more reliable than the Samsung DRAM you get from Netapp? As has been pointed out before, Netapp tests DRAM they get from Samsung before it goes out the door, and does find failures, so I can't see how Samsung direct could be any MORE reliable, unless Netapp somehow damages the DRAM in assembly or shipment. Bruce

2 1

RE: RAM and NVRAM for F330
by Weeks, Thomas 17 Apr '98

17 Apr '98

> -----Original Message----- > From: Marc Nicholas [SMTP:marc@hippocampus.net] > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 1998 2:48 PM > To: Weeks, Thomas > Cc: 'Kelly Setzer'; sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: RAM and NVRAM for F330 > > On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Weeks, Thomas wrote: > > > RAM on the filer is being run to the very MAX of its specs > > (maybe more)... I hear that they have a fairly high failure rate on > RAM > > that would otherwise work FINE in slower, less demanding systems > (PC's). > > 'scuse me??? Really? I find this somewhat hard to believe... > > 60ns RAM is widely available, are you saying they're pushing the > envelope > on that? > > I very much doubt the memory architecture on a NetApp is anything more > sophisticated than Sun's memory architecture (and I almost guarantee > Sun's > memory architecture blows away low-end NetApps)...and Sun seem able to > use > fairly standard parts without too much failure. > [Weeks, Thomas] I'm just telling you what the NetApp engineer that I spoke to told me. Of the RAM that they get in for filer use, that have to send back they told me that they have like a 30% failure rate (of the exhaustive testing they do). I don't know how much that has changed (if at all) recently or not... Why don'tcha ask 'em. > Maybe I'm just missing the big picture... > > > -marc [Weeks, Thomas] Tom

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

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