toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13513 discussions

first experience with RAID groups
by Daniel Quinlan 27 Mar '98

27 Mar '98

Some first-try comments on RAID groups: the order in which disks get added to new RAID groups is pretty screwy. Group 0 was the original v4.1 group and I just created group 1. Group 0 is pretty straightforward. Group 1 is not. It would be nice if one of the following was implemented: - there was also some sort of "fake" command that would show you what would be done if you tried a certain command. Since this was my first experience with setting the volume raidsize, I wasn't 100% certain where the next disk I added. - a way to abort disk additions while they are still being added Basically, since disk changes are non-reversible, there should be some comfort/safety margin for configuring things the way you want them to be configured. Other than that, it wasn't too bad, although I'm starting to find the "vol" command really awkward to use. Dan ------- start of cut text -------------- thorium> sysconfig -r Volume vol0 RAID group 0 RAID Disk HA.Disk_ID Used (MB/blks) Phys (MB/blks) --------- ---------- -------------- -------------- parity 8a.1 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 8a.2 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 8a.3 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 8a.4 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 8a.5 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 8a.8 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 8a.9 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 8a.10 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 8a.11 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 8a.12 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 8a.13 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 8a.14 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 RAID group 1 RAID Disk HA.Disk_ID Used (MB/blks) Phys (MB/blks) --------- ---------- -------------- -------------- parity 8b.14 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 8b.13 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 8b.12 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 8b.4 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 8b.8 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 8b.3 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 8b.5 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 8b.9 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 8b.1 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 8b.11 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 8b.10 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 8b.2 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 ------- end ----------------------------

2 1

Re: Data ONTAP 5.0 memory requirements
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 27 Mar '98

27 Mar '98

On 03/27/98 17:13:43 you wrote: > > >> I received a notice for voluntary recall on those Storageshelf-2 >> EMU units from Netapp... haven't had any problems with ours yet, >> thankfully. > >Our EMU keeps complaining about a fault on the SS-2, which I'm told is >because it's a bit too fussy... I hadn't heard about any recall, what's >the story? This can also happen if your filer is not cabled exactly as specified. You should double-check the cabeling. (It could also be an EMU problem, in which case you should get it fixed.) I don't know about the recall myself but if you have a cabling problem it's doubtful new EMUs would fix it. Bruce

1 0

Re: Data ONTAP 5.0 memory requirements
by David Power 27 Mar '98

27 Mar '98

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. --- 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.

5 4

shares
by Tom Yates 27 Mar '98

27 Mar '98

what the largest number of any shares anyone's currently exporting from a toaster? are there performance penalties associated with too many shares, and at what point does that start? 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: Data ONTAP 5.0 memory requirements
by David Power 27 Mar '98

27 Mar '98

I tried that, kingston went "netapp 630, duhhh". That was totaly unexpected from them. I've always had great support from them before. --- On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:04:48 -0800 (PST) Jaye Mathisen <mrcpu(a)cdsnet.net> wrote: > >Call Kingston, they had the NVRAM and RAM that Netapp used as I recall, >and it plugs in and works fine, and you don't have to get taken to the >cleaners. > >On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, David Power wrote: > >> 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. >> >> >> --- 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. >> >> >> > -----------------End of Original Message----------------- David Power V-P Operations Insync Internet Services Inc.

3 2

Re: Data ONTAP 5.0 memory requirements
by Lewis Kirschner 27 Mar '98

27 Mar '98

Wrong!! Read-Cache and NVRAM different for F540 vs F630!! Yes... its true!!! Be careful !! ----- At 07:47 PM 3/26/1998 -0800, Jaye Mathisen wrote: > >Well, I would suspect it's the same as the 540 memory, which they list. > >Sometimes you have to try a few times, they have various quality levels >of sales people. > >The first time I wanted 540 memory, I found it on the web page, and >was reading her the part number and she was telling me it didn't exist. > >Called back, spoke to a different person, and no problem. > >On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, David Power wrote: > >> I tried that, kingston went "netapp 630, duhhh". That was totaly >> unexpected from them. I've always had great support from them before. >> >> >> --- On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:04:48 -0800 (PST) Jaye Mathisen >> <mrcpu(a)cdsnet.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >Call Kingston, they had the NVRAM and RAM that Netapp used as I recall, >> >and it plugs in and works fine, and you don't have to get taken to the >> >cleaners. >> > >> >On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, David Power wrote: >> > >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> --- 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> -----------------End of Original Message----------------- >> >> >> David Power >> V-P Operations >> Insync Internet Services Inc. >> >> >> > > > NETWORK APPLIANCE ====================================================================== FAST! SIMPLE! RELIABLE! MULTIPROTOCOL!! ********************************************************************** Lew Kirschner - Eastern Area Reseller Mgr Voice: 908 603 7330 Network Appliance FAX: 908 603 7795 120 Wood Ave Suite 300 email: lewisk(a)netapp.com Iselin, NJ 08830 http://www.netapp.com ********************************************************************** The Market Leader in Network Attached Storage for Multiprotocol Environments!

1 0

Re: Data ONTAP 5.0 memory requirements
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 27 Mar '98

27 Mar '98

On 03/26/98 13:45:12 you wrote: >>Exactly how were they "bad"? Did they not work when you added them, or >>did they work but you had to troubleshoot crashes that caused you to swap >>them out, etc.? Netapp does indeed do testing that catches bad SIMMs from >>the vendor, but it can't catch problems where the SIMM is damaged after >>testing in handling, or in shipping, or improperly inserted into the board. > > Failed to boot w/ the error, "Unsupported NVRAM size 5MB", after >placing the six new SIMMs in the NVRAM card. Did the memory shuffle >(got very annoyed because it doesn't report this error until close to >the end of the boot process) and narrowed the problem down to 2 SIMMs. >Then I proceeded to get really pissed (only allowed to do non-emergency >hardware maintenance on the filer Friday's after 19:30) because I spent >over an hour and ruined a Friday night to add 2MB of NVRAM. (F330's >support 2, 4, or 8 MB - not 6.) When I've seen this in the past, it's been due to improper insertion of the SIMMs into the board. But it could be the SIMMs were bad or even the slots on the board were bad. I assume you've gotten new SIMMs since then and they worked fine? >>Sometimes the time at which a SIMM will fail in the future is beyond their >>horizon of testing. It seems to me getting it straight from the vendor is > > How were these tested? I can only speak in general terms. To say they're just put in a memory tester would be incorrect; they get burned (or at least, they used to) just like the DRAM. >My filer didn't even acknowledge their >exictence. Granted, they could have been damaged during shipping... >Or, I could have zapped them when I opened the packaging while grounded >to our ESD bench... Maybe I don't know how to install SIMMs and just >always got lucky before... (Please excuse the sarcasm.) No need to be sarcastic. All of those are very possible, no offense intended to your consider memory installation skill. :) But surely they were tested at Netapp, so it seems like you can't "blame" them for a failure later. Is the chance of a failure later still large enough that Netapp's testing isn't worth it? Again, that's an individual choice. >>only going to increase your chances of failure, unless maybe there is a >>particular vendor with which Netapp has rarely encountered failures. > > I disagree. I'd prefer to go to a vendor with which _I_ have >rarely encountered failures. Well, that is mostly wordplay. Surely one person's experience is not as predictive as testing thousands of such SIMMs, but most people do develop such individual biases, especially if they get a couple of failures in a certain vendor in a row. The point of the sentence was simply that NVRAMs are tested and they do fail, so if you want to go with a vendor that isn't tested, it would seem your best choice would be one that historically had failed little in said testing. >>Does it justify increased price? Hard to say. Depends upon the atmosphere >>of the company/environment your in. If it's like many bosses I know, the >>increased price isn't worth it until a component fails, and then they get >>upset that you didn't get better quality. :) > > Increased price isn't a problem if you _do_ get better quality. We >paid a 600% mark up on parts that had to be shipped back and replaced >as soon as we tried to use them. That doesn't mean you don't get better quality. Without Netapp's testing, it's more probably that you would have gotten bad parts twice in a row. If you have multiple filers, you would generally see more bad SIMMs, etc. > I'm not saying NetApp is low quality. We've seen great uptime w/ >our F330 and keep asking for details on their HA system because we >think NetApp is a good bet. I just don't like the way they handle >memory and disk sales. This is more or less what I was getting at, too. Netapp does do quality testing, and I think that's better than no testing. Is it worth, assuming your figures, a 600% mark up? It seems many people on mailing list say it isn't. What about a 200% mark up? Bruce

1 0

Re: Data ONTAP 5.0 memory requirements
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 26 Mar '98

26 Mar '98

On 03/26/98 10:52:18 you wrote: > >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. Exactly how were they "bad"? Did they not work when you added them, or did they work but you had to troubleshoot crashes that caused you to swap them out, etc.? Netapp does indeed do testing that catches bad SIMMs from the vendor, but it can't catch problems where the SIMM is damaged after testing in handling, or in shipping, or improperly inserted into the board. Sometimes the time at which a SIMM will fail in the future is beyond their horizon of testing. It seems to me getting it straight from the vendor is only going to increase your chances of failure, unless maybe there is a particular vendor with which Netapp has rarely encountered failures. Does it justify increased price? Hard to say. Depends upon the atmosphere of the company/environment your in. If it's like many bosses I know, the increased price isn't worth it until a component fails, and then they get upset that you didn't get better quality. :) Bruce

2 1

Re: Data ONTAP 5.0 memory requirements
by Mike Bosch 26 Mar '98

26 Mar '98

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 ********************************************************************* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------

1 0

Data ONTAP 5.0 memory requirements
by Brian Tao 26 Mar '98

26 Mar '98

[http://now.netapp.com/download/software/ontap/5.0/] > Software Download Instructions > > Important: Data ONTAP 5.0 requires 128MB of memory on the filer to run > properly. If you do not currently have 128MB of memory, contact our > Installed Base Group either by e-mail or by phone at 1-888-2NETAPP. Ouch. 128MB? Why is that? Will filers be sold with a minimum configuration of 128MB in the future? -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)netcom.ca) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

10 9

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