toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13514 discussions

Re: Experiences with CIFS
by Rajiv Khemani 12 Nov '97

12 Nov '97

>I'm considering a F230 with CIFS support to replace several creaking >NT file servers which are being used in a SW development environment. > ... >I note from the netapp site that Windows Networking Software 2.0 is >out, but I quote from the FAQ: > >" The next release of Windows Networking Software will also provide >NTFS-style file and directory permissions for Windows users." > >This is what was said about version 1.0 > >Q to Netapp people on the list (yes, I have asked directly a week or >2 ago and am still awaiting a reply ) > > When can file level ACLs be expected? Garrett, I apologize for the delayed response. Just like the FAQ says, NTFS-style file and directory level ACLs will be available in the next release of Windows Networking Software. This is the first time we have publically said this, and are working hard to deliver on it. We expect that this functionality will be available in the first half of 1998. Rajiv Khemani Group Marketing Manager Network Appliance > I know having file level ACLs is more complex to manage, but it does >allow us to have multiple groups with different ranges of access >(which stops the Analysts & Business people deleting/changing the >developers work and project teams to have read access to other teams >work) > >Even directory level ACLs would go a long way to meeting our >requirements, but I think that if netapp is serious about the CIFS >market then they need to duplicate the NT ACLs on the filers. > >Thanks, >GB > > >-- >Garrett Burke, Network Admin,Managed Solutions Corp. >32 Upper Mount St., Dublin, Ireland. >burkeg(a)msc.ie +353-1-661-4840 >A jug of wine, a loaf of bread and thou. > > ---- Rajiv Khemani Group Marketing Manager Network Appliance, Inc. Direct: 408-367-3758 Fax: 408-367-3151 HTTP: http://www.netapp.com

2 1

Re: rsh and date
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 12 Nov '97

12 Nov '97

On 11/11/97 17:38:46 you wrote: >So my question is: how do I get around this? Change your network configuration so that your filer *does* have access to port 37 on some (reasonably correct) time server, and use rdate. Wait until date is rsh-able or NTP is supported. Bruce

1 0

rsh and date
by Brian Candler 11 Nov '97

11 Nov '97

Hello all from a new member of this list. I want to set the clock on a Netapp like this: # rsh netapp "date +$(date +%y%m%d%H%M)" I can't use rdate because this Netapp is on a private RFC1918 network and doesn't have access to a port 37 time server. NTP _is_ running on the admin host, but NetApp doesn't support NTP :-( However when I try the above command, it gives: date not found. Type '?' for a list of commands It seems that the list of commands which can be executed via rsh is restricted, and 'date' is not on that list :-( # rsh netapp '?' cifs df dump exportfs halt httpstat mt netstat nfsstat options raid reboot quota rdate restore route snap snmp sysconfig sysstat timezone uptime version # rsh netapp version NetApp Release 4.0.1c: Wed Jan 8 05:07:02 PST 1997 So my question is: how do I get around this? [And _please_ can we have NTP support...!] Regards, Brian.

3 2

Re: Solaris and NetApps
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 10 Nov '97

10 Nov '97

> One of my clients is complaining that performance between Solaris 2.5.1 > systems (mainly Ultra 1s and 3000s) and an F210 is pretty damn awful. (The > 210 is to be used for syslog, so the amount of disk writes isn't *that* > high). > > I got him to switch to NFS v2 and UDP to get around timeout issues, but > performance still sucks. We use "hard,intr,bg" for an NFS v2 mount with a NetApp connected to a 2.5.1 Ultra box with a crossover cable. Works like a charm for us, as a News spool. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

4 5

Re: Solaris and NetApps
by mer＠world.evansville.net 10 Nov '97

10 Nov '97

On Nov 10, 12:30pm, Marc Nicholas wrote: > One of my clients is complaining that performance between Solaris 2.5.1 > systems (mainly Ultra 1s and 3000s) and an F210 is pretty damn awful. (The > 210 is to be used for syslog, so the amount of disk writes isn't *that* > high). > > I got him to switch to NFS v2 and UDP to get around timeout issues, but > performance still sucks. > > The entire LAN fabric is full duplex 100baseT switched through Cisco > Catalyst 5000s. Can I ask a dumb question? Is his 2.5.1 box running full duplex 100BT? We experienced the same symptom with an Ultra 2. We also noticed lots of late collisions on the Cisco EtherSwitch 1200 uplink port serving the Ultra. When we switched the port to half duplex, the problem went away. On a related topic, I spent a fruitless half hour trying to figure out how to configure our Ultra to do full duplex -- anyone know how to do it? -- Marc Rouleau VP and Chief Technology Officer Voice: (812) 479-1700 Fax: (812) 479-3439 Network WCS http://www.networkwcs.com

3 3

New IBM drives
by joe＠vpop.net 10 Nov '97

10 Nov '97

Does anyone know if the new Hi Capacity IBM drives will work with toasters? IBM to unveil disk technology: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,16190,00.html?dtn.head Thanks, -joe ============================================================================= * NewsHub: Updated every 15 minutes/24 hours a day! * http://web.NewsHub.com/

1 0

Solaris and NetApps
by Marc Nicholas 10 Nov '97

10 Nov '97

One of my clients is complaining that performance between Solaris 2.5.1 systems (mainly Ultra 1s and 3000s) and an F210 is pretty damn awful. (The 210 is to be used for syslog, so the amount of disk writes isn't *that* high). I got him to switch to NFS v2 and UDP to get around timeout issues, but performance still sucks. The entire LAN fabric is full duplex 100baseT switched through Cisco Catalyst 5000s. Anyone got any ideas why things might be so sloooow? :-/ What mount options are the rest of you using with Solaris? Thanks, -marc --- Marc Nicholas - Hippocampus OSD Inc. 416 979 9000 - fax: 416 979 8223 - http://www.hippocampus.net 125 John St. - Suite #100 - Toronto - Ontario - M5V 2E2 - CANADA "Inter/Intra/Extra[net] consulting, services, hardware and software sales"

3 2

Re: Possible software cause for total data loss?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 08 Nov '97

08 Nov '97

On 11/08/97 01:39:24 you wrote: >> The fact that it continues to be the same machine leads me to think >> that swapping out the NVRAM card and/or the SCSI cards may be in >> order. > > I managed to capture the original kernel panic only once: "PANIC: >../common/wafl/nvlog.c: 1088: Assertion failure", although your guess >is as good as mine why all subsequent reboots panic in disk.c. The >suggestions I've received from Netapp support all involve getting a >core dump over to them for analysis. Unfortunately, the filer never >gets up to the point where it can do a savecore. :( Well, if the NVRAM error caused something bogus to be written to disk, creating bad metadata in the unclean shutdown, then this could trigger another bug in the disk code where it reads the disks and recomputes parity. Or the NVRAM itself may actually have caused the error. It could even be that the disk.c message is misleading and is really talking to the NVRAM at that point. Alternatively, the bad data on the disk could have been caused by bad SCSI, but I admit this is less likely. Frankly there's no way to know without seeing the code (even the best modular code can have subtle dependencies and side effects that make it appear the error is something other than where it is). I'm surprised support did not understand that your filer was actually DOWN, and thus you couldn't get the core. There are ways to boot from floppy to dump the NVRAM and fix the filesystem; I would press them for advice in that direction if they didn't understand your problem fully. In any case, like I said, if it consistently is happening to this machine you could replace the NVRAM card, re-install it all over again, and see if it happens again. Bruce

1 0

Re: Possible software cause for total data loss?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 08 Nov '97

08 Nov '97

On 11/07/97 18:43:45 you wrote: >On Tue, 4 Nov 1997 sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: >> >> 1. Filer crashes while running - Reboot >> 2. Filer crashes replaying NVRAM - Reboot >> 3. Filer crahses again while replaying NVRAM - Reboot >> 4. Filer realizes it's failed replaying NVRAM twice in a row, so >> it flags it as bad, dumps the NVRAM, and - Reboot > > After replacing all the disks with new ones, the same crash popped >up again on that filer, after two more days of heavy reads and writes. >I rebooted it ten times in a row... kernel panic every time on >"../driver/disk/disk.c:2633: Assertion failure" right after the >"Recomputing parity in NVRAM" message (I assume that means it never >gets around to replaying the WAFL logs?). Did it ever mention dumping the NVRAM? Or is it always crashing before it ever replays NVRAM? I think I understand what you're saying above but you didn't mention any other error messages from the other reboots so I wanted to be sure. > Call Netapp tech support, was told an on-call engineer would call >back... haven't heard anything back yet. *sigh* It sounds like the disks themselves have become corrupted in such a way that it's dying on initialization... they will probably have you boot off floppy to wack the filesystem, and/or dump the NVRAM manually. The fact that it continues to be the same machine leads me to think that swapping out the NVRAM card and/or the SCSI cards may be in order. But, I'm no expert support person and I don't have access to the code, so Netapp may have already figured out what this bug is and the solution is totally different. :) Bruce

2 1

Alpha future
by Gregory M. Paris 08 Nov '97

08 Nov '97

Any thoughts on what the Intel/Digital settlement means to NetApp and its customers? It sure looks (to me anyway) as though the Alpha is dead. -- Gregory M. Paris Senior Systems Administrator Bose Corporation Email: paris(a)bose.com The Mountain, MS#258 Phone: +1 508 766-4072 Framingham, MA 01701-9168 FAX: +1 508 820-0173

9 10

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