toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

Re: NIS Binding Problem
by Jason D. Kelleher 20 Mar '98

20 Mar '98

In message <3510F4A6.701C13F2(a)mitre.org>, "John F. Kane" writes: >I have not located any reported bugs in the NOW Bugs Online >database that resemble this problem. Is NetApp aware of this >problem and working a solution? Turning off NIS may stop >the problem from reoccurring but is not a solution to the problem. >The NetApp NIS implementation is a relatively new addition to >ONTAP and may need some attention. > >John Kane > >geen wrote: > >> John, >> >> I saw the same thing with 4.3.1. My solution was to turn off NIS. >> >> -g d geen >> >> geen(a)ti.com >> >> John F. Kane wrote: >> >> > Has anyone experienced NIS binding problems on their filers? >> > We have four filers (3 F330s & 1 F230) running Ontap 4.3R3 >> > that have been locking out users on a few occasions this past week >> > The UNIX servers and user workstations trying to access the >> > filers are reporting "server not responding: RPC: Timed out" errors. >> > There is not much helpful in the filer logs. In order to unhang the >> > filer, we must manually rebind it to a different NIS slave server. >> > >> > -- >> > John F. Kane When we first turned on NIS, everything went to hell. The filer started denying mounts to all the clients. Unfortunately, it didn't do this right away, took several hours. Seems the filer wasn't getting netgroup info. Anyway, here's what NetApp told me: > Hi Jason, > > I had one of our escalation engineers look over this > call with me. > > We believe that what you saw when upgrading to 4.1d > is the result of an inefficient method we use to > "lookup" the YP information. Instead of doing 3 or 4 > lookups to get the netgroup info when the mount is > checked we would do one for *every* line in the netgroup > file. > > This behavior has been logged as bug#4088 in our database > and engineering is working to modify the NIS client to > correct this problem. > > For now the recommendation would be to continue using > the local file method which hasn't caused you any > problems. When a fix is available for #4088 then you > could upgrade and begin using the NIS client for > netgroup which should be much faster. One of the > benefits of NIS client is that these lookups should > be faster but with our first release of this NIS > client they simply are not. > > I have flagged this call record as bug#4088 with all > the info you sent to me. The escalation engineer I > spoke with is actually the one that will fix the NIS > code and by flagging your call record as this bug > he can review it during the time he makes the patch. > > This would first be available as a patch release > (a release with a capital D in it such as you > were running prior to upgrading to 4.1d). The > best way to find out when it is available would be > to call back and reference the bug#4088 and ask > if Eirik has a patch for the NIS client yet. I > would think that you might want to wait 30 days or > so -- there is no schedule for a fix date for this > right now. > > Regards, > Gil I never bothered to check back. NOW lists bug #4088 as unfixed. Here's our nsswitch.conf which "solved" our problems: # # nfssrv1:/etc/nsswitch.conf # passwd: files nis group: files nis hosts: files nis dns netgroup: files nis Good Luck. --- Jason D. Kelleher kelleher(a)susq.com Susquehanna Investment Group 610.617.2721 (voice) 401 City Line Ave, Suite 220 610.617.2916 (fax) Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-1122

4 3

Re: NIS Binding Problem
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 20 Mar '98

20 Mar '98

On 03/20/98 09:23:07 you wrote: > >Dave, > > Don't waste your time on NetApp, threw it away and get a new one >from Auspex. Is this a joke? > If you chose Auspex from the first beginning, you won't have any >problem. > Every things has its price, you got lower price, so they gave >you cheaper service. > Auspex's price may be a liitle bit higher, but you get much >more than you pay. Yeah, like slow NFS service (without RAID protection), even slower NFS service with RAID 5 protection, no support for RAID 4, hours-long software upgrades, hardware that is difficult to service/upgrade, lagging support for CIFS and Microsoft Networking, etc. Bruce

1 0

Re: Disk drives prices
by Mark D Simmons 20 Mar '98

20 Mar '98

> Anyone have a prediction for how long it will be (if ever) until NetApp is > a software only company? For example, Compaq produces a server running a > NetApp OS. > > I predict 2 years. I rather hope NetApp don't become a software only company because it would mean poorer quality software and overly complex hardware maintenance in a very short period of time after the decision was implemented. > > How many people would pay a few grand for a CD containing a NetApp OS that > could be installed on any PC (albeit with a limited hardware selection) > and a software license? I'd rather (get someone to) pay lots of cash up front for the Rolls-Royce approach. As it is, my time as a contracted SA is very expensive to my ultimate employer but I'm happily managing TB's of data because of some very shrewd h/w and software purchasing, of which NetApp is a very significant part. So my vfm to my employer is acceptable to them... The day we can no longer get NetApp boxes will probably be the day when we revert to Sun, SGI or even Auspex for a total solution approach. There are companies out there who do the software only approach, but I've yet to hear of anyone betting their multi-billion dollar/year enterprise on them. > > Chris >

4 3

exports with IP only?
by Alexei Rodriguez 19 Mar '98

19 Mar '98

Has anybody gotten exports from a filer to work with the network/netmask notation (eg: 192.168.254.0/24) without the resolver running (or at all)? I tired it under 4.3.r1 and it failed. I have not spent more time working on this. Anybody? Alex

1 0

Re: Disk drives prices
by Scott Miller 19 Mar '98

19 Mar '98

On Mar 19, 10:15am, Dave Hitz wrote: > Subject: Re: Disk drives prices > > I rather hope NetApp don't become a software only company because it > > would mean poorer quality software and overly complex hardware > > maintenance in a very short period of time after the decision was > > implemented. > ... > For high-end or > enterprise-class servers, I think that customers want fully integrated > solutions. Customers do; the key word being "solution". We fight all the time with vendors who sell parts, when what we want to buy is a solution to our problems. Plus, in an environment where the data is valuable, and (as in our case) where the data *is* the product, the mildly higher price for disks and RAM is well worth the peace of mind. Having hardware parts are tested, qualified and supported by the vendor is a huge win. How valuable is your data? -Skottie -- ----- Scott Miller | Walt Disney Feature Animation skottie(a)fa.disney.com | Digital Studio Technology

1 0

Re: inn and 630
by David Power 19 Mar '98

19 Mar '98

And how much ram was enough? Im using v2/udp nfs and have disabled v3 tcp but the performance on large files stinks. Are you using a solaris machine? Im wondering if its a OS specific problem or a Netapp config problem. Everything so far points at the 630. --- On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 18:10:53 -0800 (PST) Jaye Mathisen <mrcpu(a)cdsnet.net> wrote: > >Yes, I am, works fabulous once I got enough RAM in that baby. > >I find best results with v2/UDP NFS, and disable v3 and TCP mounts >completely. > >Also, trim your misc.jobs.offered, and control directories regularly, >large dirs still kill the Netapp until they get their Btree directory >implementation running. > > > >On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, David Power wrote: > David Power V-P Operations Insync Internet Services Inc.

3 3

Re: inn and 630
by David Power 19 Mar '98

19 Mar '98

--- On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 22:29:40 -0500 Alexei Rodriguez <alexei(a)cimedia.com> wrote: > >This sounds very odd. We used NetApp's for news at my previous job >and they worked beautifully. > >What OS and patch levels do you have on the Sun. Not that SS20's are >real speed demons... Sparc 20 upgraded to dual ross 150's. 512meg ram 2 fast 2.1 gig internals 2 fastwide 4 gig externals. Release: 5.6 Kernel architecture: sun4m Application architecture: sparc Hardware provider: Sun_Microsystems Domain: Kernel version: SunOS 5.6 Generic 105181-04 January 1998 > >What version of DataONTAP do you have on the filer? What ndd setting have >you applied to the SS20? NetApp Release 5.0, upgraded a couple of days ago and problem didnt change. We were running 4.3.1 before this. Are there any nfs /usr/sbin/ndd -set /dev/ip ip_respond_to_echo_broadcast 0 /usr/sbin/ndd -set /dev/ip ip_enable_group_ifs 0 /usr/sbin/ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_recv_hiwat 65536 /usr/sbin/ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_xmit_hiwat 65536 /usr/sbin/ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_cwnd_max 65535 /usr/sbin/ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_ip_abort_cinterval 30000 /usr/sbin/ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_close_wait_interval 30000 > >Doe the large writes correspond to a specific news hierarchy (ie: misc.jobs.* >or alt.binaries.*)? Any file over 30k or so. >What does sysstat look like when this occurs? > CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 0% 48 0 0 26 11 88 0 0 0 5 0% 101 0 0 50 20 296 0 0 0 5 1% 104 0 0 54 32 148 0 0 0 5 2% 117 0 0 70 24 368 0 0 0 5 1% 80 0 0 41 12 140 0 0 0 5 3% 56 0 0 33 11 248 0 0 0 5 2% 71 0 0 44 9 356 0 0 0 5 7% 111 0 0 67 18 2428 1332 0 0 5 19% 48 0 0 18 6 4808 5284 0 0 5 4% 86 0 0 43 11 680 1376 0 0 5 0% 36 0 0 12 143 272 0 0 0 5 1% 104 0 0 46 29 484 0 0 0 5 2% 69 0 0 36 14 120 0 0 0 5 2% 73 0 0 39 14 52 0 0 0 5 1% 84 0 0 41 13 180 0 0 0 5 2% 65 0 0 39 8 228 0 0 0 5 2% 61 0 0 37 11 152 0 0 0 5 7% 143 0 0 795 23 44 0 0 0 5 > >Alexei > Thanks -----------------End of Original Message----------------- David Power V-P Operations Insync Internet Services Inc.

1 0

Re: NIS Binding Problem
by John F. Kane 19 Mar '98

19 Mar '98

I have not located any reported bugs in the NOW Bugs Online database that resemble this problem. Is NetApp aware of this problem and working a solution? Turning off NIS may stop the problem from reoccurring but is not a solution to the problem. The NetApp NIS implementation is a relatively new addition to ONTAP and may need some attention. John Kane geen wrote: > John, > > I saw the same thing with 4.3.1. My solution was to turn off NIS. > > -g d geen > > geen(a)ti.com > > John F. Kane wrote: > > > Has anyone experienced NIS binding problems on their filers? > > We have four filers (3 F330s & 1 F230) running Ontap 4.3R3 > > that have been locking out users on a few occasions this past week > > The UNIX servers and user workstations trying to access the > > filers are reporting "server not responding: RPC: Timed out" errors. > > There is not much helpful in the filer logs. In order to unhang the > > filer, we must manually rebind it to a different NIS slave server. > > > > -- > > John F. Kane

1 0

Re: Turning off auto-negotiation on GbE?
by mohan＠netapp.com 19 Mar '98

19 Mar '98

That's right. To turn off auto-negotiation on filers running the 4.3 release, under rc_toggle_basic, toaster*> alttune 0 LinkNegotiation 0 mohan > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Was: Data ONTAP 5.0 memory requirements > Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 17:14:03 -0500 > From: Alexei Rodriguez <alexei(a)cimedia.com> > > +--- In a previous state of mind, Jaye Mathisen <mrcpu(a)cdsnet.net> wrote: > | > | Anybody actually running gigabit ethernet on their filer? I'm > | thinking about it... > > I elped a friend of mine get it working. The alttune command > under rc_toggle_basic is your friend (if you are using a > non-alteon switch). Turn off link auto-negotiation. > > My friend is using a Prominet (now Lucent) P550 switch. He is very > happy with it. I am scheduled to have a loaner box from them > and will buy it after (should it work). > > Alexei >

1 0

Netcache direction?
by Jaye Mathisen 18 Mar '98

18 Mar '98

Anybody actually using a caching appliance? I am looking at doing transparent proxy, but it would be nice if some of the IP header translation stuff could be done in the netapp, rather than at another machine. With the near 100% uptime of my filers, I hate the thoughts of introducing a less reliable solution.

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