toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13520 discussions

Moving disks between filers
by Amy Chused 11 Feb '98

11 Feb '98

I have a 540 and a 220. The 220 has been taken out of production and is going to be reinitialized before it is used again. The 220 disk shelves are full (lots o' disk). The 540 is in production, and isn't short of disk space right now, but we all know how swiftly disk space vanishes. I'd like to know if it's possible to use disks from the 220 in the 540 disk shelves. Does anyone know? Thanks, Amy

1 0

Logging in to CIFS from W95 using multiple loginids
by Steve Losen 10 Feb '98

10 Feb '98

One of our staff is working on an application that makes it easy to map a netapp share to a drive letter. This application works fine on NT, but W95 is causing trouble. The application is a little visual basic program that opens up a box that allows the user to enter a loginid, password, and shows a list of drive letters to map to. The user sets these things and the application supplies the name of the share by building it from our NetApp's name and the user's loginid, eg, \\home1\abc9d. On NT this works great. You can specify different loginids and passwords for different shares and map them to various drive letters. On W95, however, this doesn't work so well. Apparently the calls that the visual basic app makes are replacing the loginid that the user specifies with the loginid that the user logged in to W95 with. In other words, this app cannot override the current W95 loginid. If you specify the same loginid that you logged in to W95, then it works fine. We are curious if anyone else has any experience with this problem and has any suggestions for fixing it. For the curious, we want an application like this because our NetApp box is going to eventually have around 20,000 CIFS accounts and we are going to use the unix passwd authentication rather than set up a NT domain controller and have to pay license fees per user, etc. We don't plan to have any WINS servers know about the NetApp. We have too many different networks at this University to rely on every net being able to browse for the NetApp in Network Neighborhood, etc. Instead, we are going to hand out this little app that knows the name of the netapp, making browsing, and/or remembering the name of the server unnecessary. Plus, this app will disconnect after a certain amount of idle time. Because various departments maintain their own NT file servers (with their own loginids), we can't assume that a user will always be able to login to W95 using the same loginid that they have on the netapp, hence the need to override the W95 loginid. Also, in some of our lab environments, each PC automatically logs in to W95 on boot using a "dummy" machine loginid. Has anyone done anything like this? If we can't override the W95 loginid, could our application somehow change it, connect to the server, and change it back? Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 804-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

1 0

Re: More capacity on lower-end filers
by hitz＠netapp.com 10 Feb '98

10 Feb '98

> On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Dave Hitz wrote: > > > > Although marketing certainly has input, the space restrictions also > > come from engineering droids. During normal operation the smaller > > machines could certainly handle more disk, but the time required for > > something like RAID reconstruction could get dangerously long. > > Is this the reason why the F210 can still only use around 50GB of > disk, even though it can physically accomodate more using 9GB drives? In order for a RAID reconstruction to complete, you have to read all of the data on all of the other disks. So RAID reconstruction time is proportional the the amount of data, not proportional to the number of disks. Dave Hitz hitz(a)netapp.com Network Appliance (408) 367-3106

8 10

Unexpected behaviour from F330 running 4.0.1c and Solaris 2.5.1
by Christoph Doerbeck 09 Feb '98

09 Feb '98

Greetings, we've isolated our little problem but... the behaviour or the solaris system seemed a bit unexpected to me. There exhisted a >2GB file on our NAS and when the Solaris box encountered it, all communication (NFS) to the toaster became locked. We could ping, telnet etc... but no NFS. Once we tracked down the culprit, removing the file promptly returned the system to normal. If I understand things correctly, Solaris 2.6 now allows larger files >4GB. Anyway, I thought I'd post as a informational blurb, and maybe someone could outline the latest file (system) limits for the latest versions of the popular operating systems (HP,SGI,AIX, ..er...cough....gag...NT, and others) Maybe this would be a good QA for the NetApp FAQ some of you discussed a few months ago. - Christoph

1 0

archive is now searchable... ish.
by Tom Yates 09 Feb '98

09 Feb '98

The archive can now be searched through a simple search engine. Note that this search engine, like the web server itself, runs on my desktop machine. If I find my work going very slowly because you're all searching the archives like crazed weasels, I'm likely to kick back. Please be nice. The search engine can be found at http://teaparty.mathworks.com:1999/toasters/Search.html . In case anyone wasn't aware, the list is archived at http://teaparty.mathworks.com:1999/toasters/ . There is a reference to the search engine in the "about this archive" page, which is referenced at the very very top of the main archive page, in case you forget where the engine is. If people find this search engine not working, or think it could be improved in ways that won't take me a week, please let me know. 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

Apache/Netapp problem + solution (fwd)
by David R. Van Sandt 05 Feb '98

05 Feb '98

What version of ONTAP are you using on the NetApp? ---------------------------------------------------------------- David R. Van Sandt, dv(a)corp.earthlink.net, 626/296-5137 Earthlink Network, Lead System Administrator "It's Your Internet" ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 13:39:14 -0500 (EST) From: rasmus(a)bellglobal.com To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Apache/Netapp problem + solution Apache 1.2.5 on a Solaris 2.5.1 Sparc box connected to a Netapp 630 filer. Problem symptom: Web server established a connection, but would not respond to requests. Looking at the parent httpd process we see that it is in a normal "wait for something to do" loop: 0.000000 sigsuspend([] <unfinished ...> 0.415977 --- SIGALRM (Alarm Clock) --- 0.000214 <... sigsuspend resumed> ) = -1 EINTR (Interrupted system call) <0.415636> 0.000272 setcontext({uc_sigmask=[ALRM], ...}) = ? <0.000113> 0.000525 alarm(0) = 0 <0.000083> 0.000389 sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, [ALRM], NULL) = 0 <0.000087> 0.000475 sigaction(SIGALRM, {SIG_DFL}, NULL) = 0 <0.000086> 0.000464 waitid(P_ALL, 0, {si_signo=0, si_code=SI_USER, si_pid=0, si_uid=0, ...}, WNOHANG|WEXITED|WTRAPPED) = 0 <0.000091> 0.000499 alarm(0) = 0 <0.000084> 0.000349 sigaction(SIGALRM, {0xef5b8cfc, [], 0}, {SIG_DFL}) = 0 <0.000094> 0.000570 sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, [ALRM], []) = 0 <0.000090> 0.000577 alarm(1) = 0 <0.000086> 0.000351 sigsuspend([] <unfinished ...> 0.995342 --- SIGALRM (Alarm Clock) --- 0.000184 <... sigsuspend resumed> ) = -1 EINTR (Interrupted system call) <0.995330> 0.000248 setcontext({uc_sigmask=[ALRM], ...}) = ? <0.000107> 0.000517 alarm(0) = 0 <0.000083> Looking at the spawned child httpd's we see: 0.000000 fcntl(21, F_SETLKW, {type=F_WRLCK, whence=SEEK_SET, start=0, len=0} And they got there by: ef5b6fd8 fcntl (15, 7, 5cfcc) ef5b6fd8 _libc_fcntl (15, 7, 5cfcc, 0, 0, 0) + 8 ef78aba8 s_fcntl (15, 7, 5cfcc, ef611938, 34, effff944) + 164 00019138 accept_mutex_on (62d08, 1, 0, effffa78, effffa88, 2) + 18 0001a874 child_main (6c170, 5d000, 5d000, 5cc00, 5d000, 5b000) + 1f8 0001ad1c make_child (61880, 2, 61400, 11, 0, 5cfc9) + d4 0001b3a0 standalone_main (effffb78, 5cf48, 5f400, 5cc00, 75, 5f7b0) + 2a4 0001b920 main (3, effffc94, effffca4, 5f3f4, 1, 0) + 2a0 00017b48 _start (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) + 5c Ok, so what are we locked on? Parent process says: Current rlimit: 92 file descriptors 0: S_IFCHR mode:0620 dev:32,0 ino:162863 uid:100 gid:7 rdev:24,2 O_RDWR 1: S_IFCHR mode:0620 dev:32,0 ino:162863 uid:100 gid:7 rdev:24,2 O_RDWR 2: S_IFCHR mode:0620 dev:32,0 ino:162863 uid:100 gid:7 rdev:24,2 O_RDWR 4: 0xd000 mode:0444 dev:164,0 ino:8952 uid:0 gid:0 size:0 O_RDONLY close-on-exec 15: S_IFCHR mode:0000 dev:32,0 ino:26208 uid:0 gid:0 rdev:42,8491 O_RDWR 16: S_IFREG mode:0644 dev:162,1 ino:2924135 uid:0 gid:1 size:13387 O_WRONLY|O_APPEND 17: S_IFCHR mode:0000 dev:32,0 ino:6664 uid:0 gid:0 rdev:42,8911 O_RDWR 18: S_IFREG mode:0644 dev:162,1 ino:4842016 uid:0 gid:1 size:61789 O_WRONLY|O_APPEND 19: S_IFREG mode:0644 dev:162,1 ino:4842022 uid:0 gid:1 size:4551030 O_WRONLY|O_APPEND 20: S_IFREG mode:0644 dev:162,1 ino:4842019 uid:0 gid:1 size:29387 O_WRONLY|O_APPEND 21: S_IFREG mode:0644 dev:162,1 ino:4842021 uid:0 gid:102 size:0 O_WRONLY advisory write lock set by system 0x7FFF process 2135 Inode 4842021 is: 4842021 -rw-r--r-- 1 root devel 0 Feb 3 15:34 logs/.nfsCAC So, for some reason the accept queue mutex mechanism is no longer working. There are no lock manager error messages from the NetApp, but this server which has been running fine for months will suddenly no longer lock. Other servers sitting right next to it with the same configuration lock fine. Would be nice to determine why it stopped working, but the solution is to add the the following line to the Apache httpd.conf file: LockFile /tmp/accept.lock That will keep the lockfile on the local disk. This is probably not a bad idea for anybody running Apache off of a Netapp to do. It may save you some future headaches. -Rasmus

2 1

Apache/Netapp problem + solution
by rasmus＠bellglobal.com 04 Feb '98

04 Feb '98

Apache 1.2.5 on a Solaris 2.5.1 Sparc box connected to a Netapp 630 filer. Problem symptom: Web server established a connection, but would not respond to requests. Looking at the parent httpd process we see that it is in a normal "wait for something to do" loop: 0.000000 sigsuspend([] <unfinished ...> 0.415977 --- SIGALRM (Alarm Clock) --- 0.000214 <... sigsuspend resumed> ) = -1 EINTR (Interrupted system call) <0.415636> 0.000272 setcontext({uc_sigmask=[ALRM], ...}) = ? <0.000113> 0.000525 alarm(0) = 0 <0.000083> 0.000389 sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, [ALRM], NULL) = 0 <0.000087> 0.000475 sigaction(SIGALRM, {SIG_DFL}, NULL) = 0 <0.000086> 0.000464 waitid(P_ALL, 0, {si_signo=0, si_code=SI_USER, si_pid=0, si_uid=0, ...}, WNOHANG|WEXITED|WTRAPPED) = 0 <0.000091> 0.000499 alarm(0) = 0 <0.000084> 0.000349 sigaction(SIGALRM, {0xef5b8cfc, [], 0}, {SIG_DFL}) = 0 <0.000094> 0.000570 sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, [ALRM], []) = 0 <0.000090> 0.000577 alarm(1) = 0 <0.000086> 0.000351 sigsuspend([] <unfinished ...> 0.995342 --- SIGALRM (Alarm Clock) --- 0.000184 <... sigsuspend resumed> ) = -1 EINTR (Interrupted system call) <0.995330> 0.000248 setcontext({uc_sigmask=[ALRM], ...}) = ? <0.000107> 0.000517 alarm(0) = 0 <0.000083> Looking at the spawned child httpd's we see: 0.000000 fcntl(21, F_SETLKW, {type=F_WRLCK, whence=SEEK_SET, start=0, len=0} And they got there by: ef5b6fd8 fcntl (15, 7, 5cfcc) ef5b6fd8 _libc_fcntl (15, 7, 5cfcc, 0, 0, 0) + 8 ef78aba8 s_fcntl (15, 7, 5cfcc, ef611938, 34, effff944) + 164 00019138 accept_mutex_on (62d08, 1, 0, effffa78, effffa88, 2) + 18 0001a874 child_main (6c170, 5d000, 5d000, 5cc00, 5d000, 5b000) + 1f8 0001ad1c make_child (61880, 2, 61400, 11, 0, 5cfc9) + d4 0001b3a0 standalone_main (effffb78, 5cf48, 5f400, 5cc00, 75, 5f7b0) + 2a4 0001b920 main (3, effffc94, effffca4, 5f3f4, 1, 0) + 2a0 00017b48 _start (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) + 5c Ok, so what are we locked on? Parent process says: Current rlimit: 92 file descriptors 0: S_IFCHR mode:0620 dev:32,0 ino:162863 uid:100 gid:7 rdev:24,2 O_RDWR 1: S_IFCHR mode:0620 dev:32,0 ino:162863 uid:100 gid:7 rdev:24,2 O_RDWR 2: S_IFCHR mode:0620 dev:32,0 ino:162863 uid:100 gid:7 rdev:24,2 O_RDWR 4: 0xd000 mode:0444 dev:164,0 ino:8952 uid:0 gid:0 size:0 O_RDONLY close-on-exec 15: S_IFCHR mode:0000 dev:32,0 ino:26208 uid:0 gid:0 rdev:42,8491 O_RDWR 16: S_IFREG mode:0644 dev:162,1 ino:2924135 uid:0 gid:1 size:13387 O_WRONLY|O_APPEND 17: S_IFCHR mode:0000 dev:32,0 ino:6664 uid:0 gid:0 rdev:42,8911 O_RDWR 18: S_IFREG mode:0644 dev:162,1 ino:4842016 uid:0 gid:1 size:61789 O_WRONLY|O_APPEND 19: S_IFREG mode:0644 dev:162,1 ino:4842022 uid:0 gid:1 size:4551030 O_WRONLY|O_APPEND 20: S_IFREG mode:0644 dev:162,1 ino:4842019 uid:0 gid:1 size:29387 O_WRONLY|O_APPEND 21: S_IFREG mode:0644 dev:162,1 ino:4842021 uid:0 gid:102 size:0 O_WRONLY advisory write lock set by system 0x7FFF process 2135 Inode 4842021 is: 4842021 -rw-r--r-- 1 root devel 0 Feb 3 15:34 logs/.nfsCAC So, for some reason the accept queue mutex mechanism is no longer working. There are no lock manager error messages from the NetApp, but this server which has been running fine for months will suddenly no longer lock. Other servers sitting right next to it with the same configuration lock fine. Would be nice to determine why it stopped working, but the solution is to add the the following line to the Apache httpd.conf file: LockFile /tmp/accept.lock That will keep the lockfile on the local disk. This is probably not a bad idea for anybody running Apache off of a Netapp to do. It may save you some future headaches. -Rasmus

1 0

strange cached information for CIFS
by Tom Yates 28 Jan '98

28 Jan '98

i have two F330s, both at 4.3R4, both running CIFS. apart from the number of shares on each one, and the machine names, the CIFS setups are supposed to be identical. one will authenticate through a PDC, and one won't. we have been through the old "create a domain account for the server" thing *many, many* times. it's not helping. when we try to "cifs setup" to use the PDC, we get the following joyous dialogue: Tue Jan 27 18:07:18 EST [rc]: Connection with DC BIGDADDY terminated Tue Jan 27 18:07:18 EST [rc]: CIFS - Filer retrying authentication with backup password. Tue Jan 27 18:07:28 EST [rc]: Connection with DC BIGDADDY terminated Tue Jan 27 18:07:28 EST [rc]: CIFS - Filer's security information differs from domain controller. and, in many cases, cifs will sit there trying to shut down, locking up the console, until i reboot the filer. it's been suggested to me that it needs to authenticate as part of the shutdown process. so, my questions are: 1) what flaming backup password? 2) what decides whether cifs starts up at boot time, absent a "cifs on" rc entry? 3) is it true that the delayed shutdown is caused by failure to authenticate? 4) has anyone else had trouble going from X to 4.3R4, esp. if X=4.0.1c{,D10}? and, if were allowed a slightly less serious wish list, any chance of an option such as options no.stupid.microsoft.authentication on to get the CIFS support to authenticate based on the user logged into the NT Workstation in question, a la NFS? or do i misunderstand terribly what's going on here? 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

Faq(?) - Sendmail & Toasters getting along well?
by Don Glascock 23 Jan '98

23 Jan '98

Hi. We're evaluating/purchasing an F230, and are slowly getting all of our i's dotted and t's crossed in setting it up. In our environment, the sendmail.cf files on our Unix boxes hand everything over to the main file/mail server in our group, which is a DEC Alpha running Digital Unix. The workstations mount its "/usr/spool/mail" as "/usr/spool/mail" or "/usr/mail", as you would expect. With this configuration, we've had very few file locking problems, presuming that life is easier if the sendmail daemon that actually manipulates mail files runs on the same box on which the files sit. Now, we're debating about moving everyone's mail folders to the F230, which means that sendmail on our Alpha will be making regular use of NFS file locking. Has anyone tried this? How frequently (if ever) do you run into problems? Thanks & hope this isn't a FAQ... Don Glascock (ps, I'm new to the list -- is there an archive for this mailing list? I didn't see one on ftp.mathworks.com, and Majordomo says there are no "toasters"-related files. Thanks, again! :-) -- Donald S. Glascock Mailstop GU-1016 Special Purpose Processor Development Group Mayo Foundation Rochester, MN 55905 Glascock.Donald(a)Mayo.EDU +1.507.284.1850 +1.507.284.9171 (fax) http://www.mayo.edu/sppdg/sppdg_home_page.html "No matter where you go, there you are."

3 2

F630 with more than 52 disks ?
by Daniel Quinlan 23 Jan '98

23 Jan '98

I'm not planning on it, but I'd like to know if anyone out there has an F630 (or anything) with more than 52 9GB disks on it (~ 200GB). If you do, how long does a disk recontruction take? Our F630 with 52 9GB disks took 25 hours to reconstruct a failed disk (while it was being used, so we had to turn the knob down to 2 and 1 for most of the time because response was so slow). 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