toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13513 discussions

Start a nNew thread

None
by yingchih＠mitac.com.tw 17 Mar '98

17 Mar '98

subscribe toasters

5 4

FP'98 + IIS 4.0 + NT4 + CIFS
by Brian Tao 13 Mar '98

13 Mar '98

Does anyone have some experience setting up an NT4/IIS 4.0 Web server with the FrontPage extensions, using a Netapp as the data store? According to Microsoft (and supported by our own tests), FrontPage will *not* work to a network share. In fact, many Microsoft server products will lose much of their functionality if they are not run on local disks. I'm pretty much convinced this is an NT issue and not a Netapp one (since we can't get FrontPage to work even when sharing a filesystem from another NT box). What are the alternatives? NFS on NT? We asked a Microsoft IIS engineer how MS handles the problem of distributed servers, and his response was "Oh, we just replicate all our data". :-/ -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)netcom.ca) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

2 2

Re: FP'98 + IIS 4.0 + NT4 + CIFS
by Rajiv Khemani 13 Mar '98

13 Mar '98

> That's another approach we can take, but since IIS is the only >Microsoft component left in the equation, Microsoft probably won't >like that much (this hosting agreement is part of a larger deal >between our two companies). ;-) Brian, I know of a few filer customers who are using IIS with the filers using CIFS. No one is using the Frontpage 98 extensions to IIS, as they don't work over a network share. As Mike Patchen pointed out, Microsoft has promised to fix this in Frontpage 99. If this is really important to you, you should bring that up as a requirement to Microsoft. Andy Schulert <andyschu(a)microsoft.com> is the person to send your needs to. The people successfully using IIS with filers are currently using FTP - to allow users to upload web pages to their personal directories. With the filers, we also have created a special NT utility that "effectively" allows large # of directory quotas for this special situation. This is so you can do quotas for your web-hosting users. Using quotas on filers is apparently the only scalable quota solution available for NT today (according to people who use them). We can polish this utility for wider usage, if we see a lot of demand for web-hosting quotas. Regards, -Rajiv ---- Rajiv Khemani Group Marketing Manager Network Appliance, Inc. Direct: 408-367-3758 Fax: 408-367-3670 HTTP: http://www.netapp.com

1 0

Re: FP'98 + IIS 4.0 + NT4 + CIFS
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 13 Mar '98

13 Mar '98

On 03/12/98 23:39:54 you wrote: > >On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: >> >> The alternative is pretty clear to me... don't use IIS/FrontPage if >> it requires you to redo your entire infrastructure or approach in >> order to support it. > > I don't think that's an option, unfortunately. The challenge is >to give customers what they need, rather than what they think they >want. They want NT. What they need is an easy way to manage the >content of their Web site and the e-mail of their employees, without >having the first clue about the Internet. I can sympathize. I'm sure everyone here does. We've ALL been there. :) And I'm not trying to start that tired old UNIX vs. NT argument. There are circumstances where NT is a fine solution. All I'm saying is that if the application isn't up to your needs, perhaps one should consider a different application. (And if that means a different platform, then you have reason to question NT in the first place.) >Writing our own software to >do that would take a lot longer than buying an off-the-shelf product. >Maybe we'll go with FrontPage with Apache on Solaris, or perhaps we'll >find that NFS on NT with the Netapp does the job for us. I wouldn't be surprised if IIS/FrontPage have the same troubles over NFS on NT, but I confess I don't know for certain as I've never tried it. Bruce

3 3

Re: FP'98 + IIS 4.0 + NT4 + CIFS
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 13 Mar '98

13 Mar '98

On 03/12/98 15:22:50 you wrote: > > Does anyone have some experience setting up an NT4/IIS 4.0 Web >server with the FrontPage extensions, using a Netapp as the data >store? According to Microsoft (and supported by our own tests), >FrontPage will *not* work to a network share. In fact, many Microsoft >server products will lose much of their functionality if they are not >run on local disks. > > I'm pretty much convinced this is an NT issue and not a Netapp one >(since we can't get FrontPage to work even when sharing a filesystem >from another NT box). What are the alternatives? NFS on NT? We >asked a Microsoft IIS engineer how MS handles the problem of >distributed servers, and his response was "Oh, we just replicate all >our data". :-/ The alternative is pretty clear to me... don't use IIS/FrontPage if it requires you to redo your entire infrastructure or approach in order to support it. Bruce

3 3

postscript: ndmpcopy
by Alexei Rodriguez 11 Mar '98

11 Mar '98

Well, my migration of content between filers is complete and I have a few odd tidbits I thought I would share. - ndmpcopy is an interesting (but frustrating) program. It is great to be able to kick off a dump piped to a restore on a remote filer via ndmp. level0's work well. The time estimates are pretty accurate (I got 30GB in 7 hours) if a bit slow. The irritating aspect of it is that ndmpcopy "hangs" after the completion of the program (at least when the source filer is 4.2a and the destination filer is 4.3.1) and the /etc/dumpdates file is not updated. This makes incrementals impossible. - gnu find and cpio are your friend for incrementals. I did a level0 dump (with ndmpcopy) 2 days before my cut-over. The night of the cut-over, I did a find (with mtime -2) piped to cpio (-dump) onto the new location. It took under 1/2 an hour to do most everything. Had I parallelized the finds a bit more, it would have probably been around 15 minutes to complete. Having completed the migration, here is what the before/after stats are: before: f540/256MB ram/8MB NVRAM; 3000-4000 NFSops avg, 80-100% cpu util, 1 min cache after: f540/256MB ram/8MB NVRAM; 1500-2000 NFSops avg, l0-20% cpu util, 25 min cache f630/512MB ram/16MB NVRAM; 1800-2200 NFSops avg, 20-30% cpu util, 27 min cache The f540 contains tools, logs and home directories. The f640 contains web content. My users were immediately able to notice a significant speed improvement (we use alot of server side includes which lead to alot of IO) when dealing with certain areas of our websites. I would like to thank Beepy (from NetApp) for helping me in this endeavor. I hope might be of use to someone at some point. Alexei

1 0

Successfull NDMP Stories
by Timothy A. McCarthy 10 Mar '98

10 Mar '98

Hi ther everyone. I have a customer that *wants/needs* to use NDMP. I know for a fact that BudTool works. Has anyone else had successful attempts with other packages? like Veritos? or even OpenVision? thanks! -- Timothy A. McCarthy --> System Engineer, Eastern Region. Network Appliance http://www.netapp.com 301-230-5840 Office \ / Page Me at: 301-230-5852 Fax \/ 800-654-9619

1 0

VS: AIT vs. DLT7000
by Tronrud, Asle EDNO 09 Mar '98

09 Mar '98

In Norway we agree with Mr. Alexei regarding support of the AIT streamer from SONY or Seagate (called Sidewinder for Seagate) on the filers. It is correct that the DLT7000 (on the brochure) has the possibilities of slightly more sustained transfer the the AIT, but in real life the AIT slightly outperforms the DLT 7000 - and in addition the AIT's are 60% cheaper! In Norway the pricing at the moment is approximately DLT7000 85000 NOK and the AIT 35000 NOK. Big shock people wanting the AIT's. The AIT's are using the most powerful compression algorithm in the market (ALDC developed by IBM). Compression ratio is in average 1:2.6, which gives in average approx. 65 GB on each media. DLT's and Mammoth in average 1.8 (Mr Gremban, TI below is reporting an average on appr. 1.7) The sustained transfer is increasing to the same 1:2.6 ratio (7.8 MB/sec) In addition the AIT has a Metal evaporation and Carbon coating on the media which makes the media even more robust (archival time on media guaranteed from SONY > 30 years) Memory In Cassette (MIC) on the AIT makes the funniest difference: Media Load Time 10 sec - DLT 45 sec. (4,5 times faster) Average File Access 23 sec - DLT 60/68 sec (3 times faster) Regarding transfer rate, whether the AIT or the DLT7000 has any problems recieving the data from the NetApp filers because of the following: Since most of the filers installed usually is containing thousands and millions of small files instead of a few big files - this (whether one likes it or not) leads to an significant decrease in backup throughput. This happens not only on NetApp filers, but on all kinds of machines serving files out there. The MB/min output number will anyway be lower than the number handled by the AIT and DLT. So AIT is 60% cheaper, has 3-5 times faster access/media load time and arhival time in the media is more than 30 years. This is what is interesting to the customer base. You could buy two AIT streamers instead and place them both locally on the NetApp's - maybe this will do something with the numbers, I am not sure. By the way, AIT-2 is coming in the autumn this year. 130GB capacity and transfer rate 12MB/s compressed. Please support the AIT's! Rgds Asle Tronrud _______________________________________________________ Asle Tronrud Sales Engineer Storage Berendsen Data Tel. +47 2208 8500 Div. av Berendsen Components AS Dir. +47 2208 8569 Konows gt. 8 Fax. +47 2208 8595 P.O.Box 9376, Groenland Mob. +47 9001 2906 N-0135 Oslo, Norway Email: aslet(a)berendsen.no http://www.berendsen.no _______________________________________________________ -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: Bjørnsen, Paal H. EDNO Sendt: 13. februar 1998 09:19 Til: Tronrud, Asle EDNO Emne: VS: AIT vs. DLT7000 -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: Steve Gremban [SMTP:gremban@msp.sc.ti.com] Sendt: 13. februar 1998 07:39 Til: toasters(a)mathworks.com Emne: AIT vs. DLT7000 Alexei, We are using DLT7000 (5-10 MB/sec depending on compression) drives which actually outperform the Sony AIT (3-7.8 MB/sec depending on compression). We are not quite seeing 2:1 compression, we get about 60GB compressed on each 35GB tape. -Steve Gremban gremban(a)ti.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous message follows: I would like to see AIT supported; we currently use DLT, but as our backup needs are approaching 300GB (well, as soon as I get my new filer), DLT is not cutting it (backup/restore times are too long). Also, the media is a huge problem (DLT's are not all too happy with a drop...). I suspect that these additional drives will be supported eventually. Alexei -----------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

ndmpcopy?
by Alexei Rodriguez 04 Mar '98

04 Mar '98

Anybody used this? ftp://ftp.ndmp.org/ Just curious Alex

1 1

Re: ndmp copy?
by Mark D Simmons 02 Mar '98

02 Mar '98

NDMPCopy is a little bit creaky but allows you to control explicitly which directories get copied. It's very useful. When I say it's a bit creaky I mean I've observed some strange and uneven behaviours from it performance wise. It's never threatened our data though and so we still use it without qualms. We've also used the prototype technology Dave alluded to and that goes like the proverbial off a shovel! I think we were seeing 20+GB/hr between a F330 and an F520. It makes a full copy of a filer (ie we had to be careful to boot with the right OS floppy and such, one of the few times you have to care which CPU you're using) no more, no less. NDMPCopy has gone as fast as 2.5MB here, over FDDI, the prototype software boosted that to almost 5MB/s and we basically had a full filer copy in an hour and a half! Sorry this mail isn't very timely, but I hope it's useful to someone.

2 1

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