toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13513 discussions

RE: File Locking
by Weeks, Thomas 08 Apr '98

08 Apr '98

> -----Original Message----- > From: hitz(a)netapp.com [SMTP:hitz@netapp.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 11:39 AM > To: jeff.stampes(a)xilinx.com > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: File Locking > > > If someone opens up one of our > > applications, the NAC keeps all related libraries, execs, and > > datafiles locked until the application is exited. > > Our goal is to match the CIFS behavior of an NT server as closely as > possible. Do you see a difference between NetApp and NT in this area? > > Of course, where NFS and CIFS interact, there is no model to emulate > exactly, but for CIFS-only interactions, NT is the target behavior. > > Dave [Weeks, Thomas] What version of OnTap are you running? We need to start evaluation of 5.0 but didn't want to instll it (for testing) on our production server until I can be assured that it won't crash and burn. Tom

1 0

Re: File Locking
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 08 Apr '98

08 Apr '98

On 04/07/98 09:49:22 you wrote: >Is this indeed proper bahavior? If so, is there a "Big Hammer" >mode we can use to break locks if needed? This doesn't directly answer your question but I did want to throw something out... My view is that both root under UNIX and Administrator under NT should count as "Big Hammer". That is, these two should be able to override any and all locking behavior that would prevent an action. However, I believe there are some things that even NT won't let the Administrator do, so I can see how for the purposes of emulation you would follow the same rules. Under UNIX, though, root has always been able to do just about anything. The problem arises when an NT user has a file locked and in use and root on a UNIX box wants to delete that file. The answer is you can't do it. I think the same is true for modification as well. To actually break the locks, you have to log into the filer and blow away that user's session. This just seems needlessly cumbersome. Assuming most environments have one with root access to the filesystem also having access to the filer, you are ultimately not "preventing" any behavior... you're just making it harder for the administrator. In other words, that UNIX rm should result in that CIFS user being logged out if need be. Does anyone out there really desire to have an environment where even root can't blow such things away? If so, then perhaps this should be an option, but I would believe this group to be in the minority. Bruce

3 2

updated netapp-qdiff
by Daniel Quinlan 08 Apr '98

08 Apr '98

I just put up a new netapp-qdiff, which is a small script that prints the differences between two quota reports from the same filer taken at different times. (There's a separate program to make quota reports readable.) The new version has a few minor changes that should let it work for NetApp release 4.x in addition to 5.0, allows you to query a filer directly for the second report (to compare an old report against the current usage), and will also let you query, delay some seconds, and query again (to get information about disk usage changes during the delay period). It's at <URL:http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/netapp/>. Dan

1 0

Backup ; ndmp
by Philip Thomas 07 Apr '98

07 Apr '98

One of our groups is evaluating NetApp for NFS server. Apparently, their backup concerns are not being satisfactorily addressed by local NetApp contact. Since backup is a key factor in their decision, they would appreciate if someone could shed some more light to their following questions/concerns. Please feel free to copy the group at: mannyk(a)msil.sps.mot.com --------------------------------------------------- It seems that they have a few select tape drives that are now able to be connected to the netapps and are recognized by netbackup. The problem I still see and have not recieved a clear answer to is will ndmp support the tar protocol or just dump? Does the ndmp protocol support the full dump command - different levels of dump (incremental, differential and full)? When and if we will be able to hook up several netapps to one large tape library unit (STK 9710)? What in the ndmp protocol will allow several backup streams to work simultaneously, so that a full backup of an 800 GB netapps won't span over several days. --------------------------------------------------- Philip Thomas Motorola - ATL, M/S M350 2200 W. Broadway M350 Mesa, AZ 85202 rxjs80(a)email.sps.mot.com (602) 655-3678 (602) 655-2285 (fax)

1 0

Re: File Locking
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 07 Apr '98

07 Apr '98

On 04/07/98 14:56:09 you wrote: > >On Tue, 7 Apr 1998 sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > >> Under UNIX, though, root has always been able to do just about >> anything. The problem arises when an NT user has a file locked >> and in use and root on a UNIX box wants to delete that file. >> The answer is you can't do it. I think the same is true for >> modification as well. > >my 10p-worth: i think this is another switch that should get included >under the "UNIX/NT file system semantics" big switch. i, too, find it >very annoying that i have to track down a CIFS lock holder in order to >blow away a file. > >i appreciate dave's desire to completely emulate an NT file server, but >would suggest this as another thing that might be disableable when the >filer is in "i'm not really an NT file server, i'm a UNIX file server that >can talk funny" mode. Of course, this is a UNIX-centric perspective. :) I don't think Netapp wants to appear to prefer one over the other... they also want to sell into the market of NT administrators, who would see it an NT file server that can talk funny. In that case I'm willing to concede the converse, if such a case existed, where a UNIX exclusive lock would otherwise prevent an NT Administrator from removing a file. The NT Admin will still have to do the "normal" NT thing when dealing with a CIFS-locked file, but I would not want to force him to go to UNIX to track down what a UNIX lock in a similar manner. I'm not sure that NFS is capable of such a lock, though, so this may be a moot point. But at least by this logic they would be treating both sides with equal consideration. Bruce

1 0

File Locking
by Jeff Stampes 07 Apr '98

07 Apr '98

We're having a difference of opinion over certain toaster behavior and whether it is desirable or not. The specific issue is CIFS file locking. We use out 630 for building design software. We have a QA-like group who are sort of the front line sof testing. Their goal is to test software as fast as we get it built, so they test our actual build area. If someone opens up one of our applications, the NAC keeps all related libraries, execs, and datafiles locked until the application is exited. This of course prevents us from changing data that is in-use, a behavior I see as desirable. However, it also can cause the build group (my group) heartache because we can't patch a given file if it's in use, which some see as an 'unintended feature'. Is this indeed proper bahavior? If so, is there a "Big Hammer" mode we can use to break locks if needed? -Jeff

2 1

None
by Weeks, Thomas 07 Apr '98

07 Apr '98

Hi all.. Have a Q about CIFS... Ok.. we are currently using a /etc/passwork file... here is an example of our /etc/password on out FS230 (4.2a9D) root:V5afkI50lIUdj:0:1::/: cifsuser:*:1500:1::/test: cifsadm:*:1502:1::/: weekst:*:682:1::/: Does this look ok? If so.. where the hell does the actual USER PASSWORD reside? Is there even one that exists? If no UNIX user is being used (i.e. no NIS) then how does a user CHANGE their access password? PLEASE email ASAP! Thanx.. Tom Weeks

1 0

ATM interfaces and SPANS load balancing
by Scott Miller 06 Apr '98

06 Apr '98

I'd like to talk to anyone who is using ATM in their toasters, especially with multiple interfaces and Fore Systems SPANS signalling. Specificially, I'd like to know if interface load balancing (somthing that SPANS supports) works with two or more ATM interfaces in the NetApp. Thanks -Skottie -- ----- Scott Miller | Walt Disney Feature Animation skottie(a)fa.disney.com | Digital Studio Technology

1 0

RE: Firmware and such...
by Weeks, Thomas 03 Apr '98

03 Apr '98

> > | Also again.. Why does the book say that you don't have to have > the http > > | license to do http admin and all I can get on our 230 is http man > pages? > > > > This threw me off at first. What they mean by that is that you can > load the > > FilerView software on your filer and do admin of it via a web > interface. > > It is kinda cool. Not the speediest thing over a T1 frame relay > cloud. > > Go to now.netapp.com and get filerview for your OS. It does not > require > > In ONTAP 5.0, FilerView is included by default, no separate install > needed. > Just point your browser at http://{filername}/na_admin > > ...Tim Thompson...tjt(a)netapp.com... > [Weeks, Thomas] Cool.. I'll have to check it out.. Does the current early release of 5.0 have FilerView? Tom D Tek

1 0

re: RE: Firmware and such...
by tjt＠netapp.com 03 Apr '98

03 Apr '98

> Does the current early release of 5.0 have FilerView? Yes. ...Tim...

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