toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13528 discussions

Re: backing up large filers
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 13 Nov '97

13 Nov '97

On 11/13/97 00:02:12 you wrote: >dump makes for a fairly poor backup management solution. Ever try to >maintain ~30 filers with around 600GB? We kinda found that our home >grown scripts we're scaling to where we needed to be and found it >increasinly harder to manage the whole mess. Well, I admit, not 30. :) But hundreds of gigabytes, yes. The only real problem in terms of scalability was long restore times; that could be solved by breaking the backups into smaller chunks. But with snapshots the need for restores was very rare; I could see how this could easly be a more frequent need in a different environment. Bruce

1 0

Re: backing up large filers
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 13 Nov '97

13 Nov '97

On 11/12/97 15:53:59 you wrote: >Any ideas? We're all pretty frustrated at the lack of a solid backup >solution from Network Appliance. Hell, I'd go for something proprietary >so long as it worked! Straight dump and restore works well, IF you have one of the latest versions of the software... at least then if there is a problem, Budtool won't be involved and you can address the bug right to Netapp. I'm not sure why you'd be having so much trouble with Budtool, though. Bruce ]

2 1

Re: backing up large filers
by Lars Wean 13 Nov '97

13 Nov '97

Hi, > > Has anyone found a "good" solution to backing up large filers? No.... > > Someone convinced me that this ndmp thing was the way to go and I bought > into the whole BudTool scheme (since they're the only ones supporting > ndmp). I have an issue with that too - only one vendor. > NetApp tried with us too... > However, it's been nothing but a disaster and I'm looking for something > far better. We've gotten the impression that no one at PDC has bothered > to test BudTool with large filers with BreeceHill stackers (PDC and > NetApp recommeneded these to us). There appears to be a general lack of > interopibility. And finger pointing between Network Appliance and PDC. > > Right now we have an issue that keeps rebooting our filers every few > days. > > Don't even talk about restoring data... as part of our general backup > policy, we do periodic restores. I believe the wording from PDC was > something to the effect that BudTool is a backup management software and > not geared towards restores. Suffice it to say that we rarely have a > successful restore. > > I'm basically fishing for alternative backup solutions. We have three > F540s with ~100GB disk and about 20 other boxes with ~50GB or so each, > all code development and all needs to be backed up. > > Any ideas? We're all pretty frustrated at the lack of a solid backup > solution from Network Appliance. Hell, I'd go for something proprietary > so long as it worked! My best solution is based on using Legato Networker 5.02, running on Solaris 2.6 2 CPUx 200MHz Ultra with 256 MByte of memory, and 2 x 100Mbit ethernet interfaces against the filers.The tape drives are 2 x DLT7000 in a 10 slot jukebox. The filers contains about 5 million files, using 192 Gbyte of data. Occasional restores never failed us, online file indexes has 1 month of history. A restore of a single file usually takes about 5 minutes, including overhead in mounting tapes. A disaster recovery takes *far* to long, but the potential for restoring files to something other than NetApp is promising, I can restore a full saveset of 100GByte in 6 hours ( to /dev/null, or scanning in files not contained in the online index) Needless to say, we are looking into something else..... Best Regards, Lars Wean

1 0

Re: Experiences with CIFS
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 13 Nov '97

13 Nov '97

On 11/12/97 16:13:05 you wrote: >I have answered this question many times, and I am sick of it. Hey, you don't have to convince *me*. I didn't mean it as a personal attack. But I do know it has been a source of confusion. As you see yourself, different people here had different expectations. So perhaps it's not quite as obvious as it seems? >Go onto your own SunOS or Solaris system and try it yourself, soft >quotas have been around for a very long time and so far, I have not >heard a single technical reason why it should not work. My investigations into this tell me they work much like Guy Harris says. Do you agree with his assessment? If your version of soft quotas differs, in what way does it differ? Does your SunOS system report you as over soft quota over NFS as soon as it happens? I'm only trying to facilitate the questions and answers here. >FreeBSD does it, shoddy Linux does it, hell, I can't name a unix >system off the top of my head that doesn't. > >Is it so much to ask? What would a Netapp implementation do, other than report a "time left" or somesuch in the field reported via the quota command? Bruce

7 6

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

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