toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13520 discussions

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

08 Apr '98

On 04/08/98 11:35:09 you wrote: > >sirbruce wrote: > >> 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. > >I think having to take explicit action to terminate a CIFS session is >preferable to blowing it away as a side-effect of a remove. I would worry >about making it too easy to accidently remove something that is in use. I agree with your concerns, but this is exactly why such power is restricted to root. People doing removes as root are already well aware of the dangers of their actions. Removing something in use is already something that has to be faced under NFS, so why do they need additional hand-holding when dealing with a file used via CIFS? Your argument isn't a bad one but it just doesn't fit the paradigm UNIX folks have come to expect. This is just one of many "clashes" between two worlds that will have to be resolved over time. Bruce

1 0

DLT Libraries and Netapps
by Fred Ab 08 Apr '98

08 Apr '98

Looking at purchasing a small (2 drives and 10-15 tapes) DLT library to direct attach to my F520. Please reply with any DLT libraries that you have been really happy with and those that have constant problems / jamming. Don't worry about the software being used to control the unit just the library itself. Thanks in advance for any feedback. Fred. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ Fred Abounader Vantis (AMD's PLD Subsidiary) ~ ~ email: fred.abounader(a)vantis.com Mailstop 546 ~ ~ voice: (512)-602-1644 5300 E. Ben White Blvd. ~ ~ FAX: (512)-602-4148 Austin, TX 78741 ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3 2

[Fwd: Backup ; ndmp]
by David Yu 08 Apr '98

08 Apr '98

Grant Melvin wrote the content below (thanks, Grant), and I thought that I would forward to toasters. David Hi Philip, > 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? > Today NDMP as implemented on the NetApp filer only offers dump format, since this is the only backup method natively available on the filer. However, once the filer has other backup formats available, they will be accessible via NDMP. We are in discussion with many backup vendors to determine the best way to add support for their favorite data format and we are ensuring that the NDMP infrastructure is correct in offering these other formats. We also have been working on a new internal NetApp format that will be made available via NDMP. So the question is not will NDMP support the tar protocol, but when. The answer to this involves the cooperation of the backup vendors who use tar. > > Does the ndmp protocol support the full dump command - > different levels of dump (incremental, differential and full)? > Yes. My understanding of incremental, differential and full is: full = level 0 incremental = last level + 1 differential = level 1 followed by level 1 (each backup grows) > > When and if we will be able to hook up several netapps to one > large tape library unit (STK 9710)? > This can be done today given that your backup vendor software supports the STK 9710. NDMP allows the backup s/w such as netbackup to control the library via SCSI-2 and to perform "local" tape backup on each attached tape drive. In the case of the 9710, 10 volumes or 10 filers simultaneously backing up to one library. Note, we have a current limit of 4 dumps per filer. I'd suspect that Veritas havn't QA'd such a configuration yet and have simply stuck with the minimum NetApp supported devices for their current (beta) release. *** Currently, Veritas is sticking to just the NetApp supported devices but this may change. There is a mutual interest in expanding the set of supported devices, but certification process details need to be worked out. - David > > 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. > There is nothing in NDMP other than allowing multiple dumps to occur on a single filer. We are planning to have our next software release allow quota trees to be dumped so they data can be split into several dumps or you can use 5.0 today and have separate volumes dumped concurrently. The big thing is performance of each individual dump. We have an increase in performance with 5.0 -- our testing has shown two volumes dumping at an aggregate of 23GB/hr and 1 dump running at 15GB/hr. We have still to quantify 4 dumps, however, our goal in the next release is to have a 20GB/hr dump which will definitely help your backup window above. If we could achieve 4 x 20GB/hr dumps to backup your 800GB in ~10 hours we would be very pleased. We'll keep you informed of our progress. Let me know if you need anymore information. Cheers, Grant

1 0

Re: File Locking
by Mark Muhlestein 08 Apr '98

08 Apr '98

sirbruce wrote: > 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. I think having to take explicit action to terminate a CIFS session is preferable to blowing it away as a side-effect of a remove. I would worry about making it too easy to accidently remove something that is in use. Garrett Burke wrote: [deleted description of using "winfile" to close files] > What's the behaviour on a filer when you do the above? I hope it's > the same or I'm going to have problems. With currently shipping products you will have to issue the commands to do this from the filer console, a web browser, or rsh, but not using the native NT server manager tools. At the risk of bringing down the wrath of the product folks here at Netapp, I'll just say that that will be changing soon, and I think you'll like the change. > Now, on the original question from Jeff about not being able to apply > patches since his QA team have the file locked. > > Surely this is the required behaviour. NT would have a fit if you > patched a DLL or an EXE while it was in use. > > If your QA team really want the latest build, then either copy it (or > snapshot it?) to another area and let them mess with it there. Then > you can patch the original. Interesting you mentioned snapshot. It might be feasible to have the testers use the executables from a filer snapshot. That way you could have the live build system put things in the usual place while testing is going on. Of course, that wouldn't apply to files that need to be modified, since snapshots are read-only. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com

1 0

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

08 Apr '98

On 04/08/98 10:00:04 you wrote: >Now I know this is our files are on a NT server, but if you fire up >'winfile' from an NT box, connect to the share on ther server, >highlight the file, select properties (ALT-Enter), select 'Open By', >you are given a list of users who currently have the file open AND >can chuck them off. > >What's the behaviour on a filer when you do the above? I hope it's >the same or I'm going to have problems. This is a great question and I'd like to know the answer myself. I suspect that you couldn't in ONTAP 4 but you might be able to with NT SMB support in ONTAP 5. But the old method is to log into the filer manually and do a cifs terminate on the user. The filer, while supporting CIFS, doesn't necessarily support all of the extra NT "administrative" tools - but I think that is Netapp's ultimate goal. Bruce

1 0

persons from auspex
by Tom Yates 08 Apr '98

08 Apr '98

this is not related to toasters. unless you're connected with auspex, please ignore it. if there's anyone still on this list from auspex, would you *please* tell your colleagues who subscribe to this list to do it openly? i'm getting a *large* number of bounces recently, all from accounts at random ISPs, all of which end up with > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- > <USERNAME(a)auspex.com> > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > 554 <USERNAME(a)auspex.com>... mail relaying prohibited > 554 <USERNAME(a)auspex.com>... Service unavailable > > ----- Message header follows ----- i don't know what changes you've made wrt your mail provision recently, but it looks like anyone who's trying to sneak mail into auspex by having it forwarded from another account has been torpedoed. <rant> i don't mind people from auspex on this list. i don't think anybody minds it. i *do* mind having to read umpty hundred bounce messages because people are trying to do it sneakily and getting it wrong(ish). just subscribe the simple way, ok? </rant> Tom Yates - Unix Chap - The Mathworks, Inc. - +1 (508) 647 7561 MAG#65061 DoD#0135 AMA#461546 1024/CFDFDE39 0C E7 46 60 BB 96 87 05 04 BD FB F8 BB 20 C1 8C

1 0

Re: File Locking
by Jeff Stampes 08 Apr '98

08 Apr '98

> 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? I honestly can't tell you that...I've never used an NT box as a server in my life. I guess that's why I'm asking. This is different behavior than I'm used to from out relugar UNIX servers (Solaris), and have no experience with NT servers. I'll echo Bruces comments though. It seems silly that when I have a file locking issue, my sysadmin can't just blow it away as root from the UNIX side...immunity to the big hammer is not a feature I was looking for. I just got some support mail...anyone have any experiences with sm_mon -l? I just got mail from someone saying they heard it would help break locks, but had not tested it themselves. -Jeff

2 1

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

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