toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

Re: DLT7000 streaming
by Alan Judge 07 Oct '97

07 Oct '97

>>>>> On Tue, 07 Oct 1997 06:28:55 CDT, sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com said: Bruce> Perhaps you are asking the wrong question? The 7000 isn't going to Bruce> be any slower than the 4000, I don't think, whether you keep it fed Bruce> or not. Maybe it's the wrong question, but I remember from other drive types that once you drop into start-stop mode (or shuffling), the throughput goes through the floor. Our SE thought that a 7000 being fed below streaming speed might be actually slower than a 4000 being fed at the same speed. I agree that network backup is not great, but we're managing (just about) to get it to work at the moment using amanda and exabytes. I'd like to keep to one system, so we'll probably modify amanda to use the DLT (either locally or on the filer). Has anyone any hard figures for backup speeds both locally on a filer and remotely via 100Mbps ethernet and rmt or rsh? We don't have anything that supports NDMP at the moment, but might consider Budtool, though it doesn't support all the machines we have at the moment. Our main interest in the 7000 is capacity (single tape backup at the moment), rather than speed. Bruce> PS - Is the 7000 even supported on the F230? I'm told that they've now released a wide card supported on the F230 in the latest release, so you can attach a 7000. -- Alan

1 0

Re: DLT7000 streaming
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 07 Oct '97

07 Oct '97

On 10/07/97 10:38:50 you wrote: >Our SE raised an issue about streaming with the DLT7000 and how the >drive can slow down a lot if you don't keep it fed. Has anyone any >experience with either local or remote DLT7000s? Can a 230 keep one >streaming? Can you stream one over 100Mb ethernet, or at least keep >it going at a reasonable rate? Perhaps you are asking the wrong question? The 7000 isn't going to be any slower than the 4000, I don't think, whether you keep it fed or not. It may be that even local backup can't feed a 7000 fast enough under many "real world" circumstances. So if you're looking at 7000 for speed reasons, that's one thing; but then, I wouldn't be doing network backup at all in that case. My experience with rmt is that you won't get anything near what you want; if you are using NDMP, maybe the performance is substantially better. If you want fast backup, keep it local; if you're concerned about capacity, get a 7000, local or not. Bruce PS - Is the 7000 even supported on the F230? Unless they released a wide or wide differential card, it's SCSI-2 only. Or do they have a narrow version of the 7000? In either case, I would suspect that performance for such a peripheral to be severely reduced when compared to the wide version.

1 0

DLT7000 streaming
by Alan Judge 07 Oct '97

07 Oct '97

We've just purchased an F230 and are considering our backup options. We have been considering connecting a DLT7000 to a local host and using it for both backing up the filer and our local stuff (100BaseTX connect). The other possibility is to connect the drive to the filer and backup other stuff remotely (though that might confuse our backup software). Our SE raised an issue about streaming with the DLT7000 and how the drive can slow down a lot if you don't keep it fed. Has anyone any experience with either local or remote DLT7000s? Can a 230 keep one streaming? Can you stream one over 100Mb ethernet, or at least keep it going at a reasonable rate? Perhaps a 4000 stacker might be better, but the capacity of the 7000 would be nice. -- Alan Judge Phone: +353-1-6046901 Indigo Network Operations Centre Fax: +353-1-6046948

2 1

Re: Consistent crashing on quota initialization
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 07 Oct '97

07 Oct '97

On 10/05/97 23:47:29 you wrote: > > Could someone try reproducing this problem? I know it pretty much >requires a Netapp that you don't mind the risk of crashing, but maybe >there are some new Netapp owners out there. ;-) It's a long-known problem that rebooting during quota initialization is a Bad Thing (tm). It might have been fixed in 4.1; I'm not sure. I'm sure support will give you the bug ID and let you know the current status of the bug, and how to get you out of your current jam. As the old doctor joke goes - don't do that! Bruce

2 3

Re: quota size limits (was: "quotas to track disk usage")
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 06 Oct '97

06 Oct '97

On 10/05/97 21:27:29 you wrote: > >sirbruce <sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com> writes: > >> There was a bug submitted... that's all I know. It should be >> trivial to implement a clamping option like df_2gb_limit, unless >> there is something really annoying in the quotad protocol that >> prevents this. > >Since I'm only wanting to use quotas for usage tracking, not hard or >soft limits, the solution is to turn on only part of the quota system, >the clients don't need to know. Aha! Yes, this is exactly the conclusion I came to a while back, and hit myself for not thinking of it before... just mount noquota, even though the filer keeps tracking usage. Sorry, I thought I had mentioned that in my original email some weeks back. Bruce

1 0

Re: quota size limits (was: "quotas to track disk usage")
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 06 Oct '97

06 Oct '97

On 10/05/97 17:36:18 you wrote: > >On 09/05/97 01:40:58 Daniel Quinlan wrote: > >>> Given these parameters: >>> >>> - I would like to use quotas to track user disk space usage (but not >>> limit it) > >Bruce <sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com> replied: > >> Easily done, but there are some caveats. >> >> [...] >> >> 2. Some clients can't deal with quotas great thatn 8GB, and >> there is currently no option on the filer to limit this (this >> is filed as a bug), so you'd have to restrict your users to 8GB. >> If you have any over that, you don't want them in the quota system. >> >> So, you'd want something like: >> >> # Quota Target type disk files >> # ------------- ----- ---- ----- >> /newhome tree >> * user@newhome 8G >> >> The first line might not even be necessary, but it's worth >> including just for reference. Hmm, unless it breaks the >> clients the same way. Maybe the 8G can be omitted from >> the user entry as well? I don't know, I haven't tried it. >> The line might also be ncessary for the file to be parsed >> properly. >> >> What Netapp really needs to do is a default quota report by >> uid/gid type of command on the filer, to avoid the need to >> set up quotas to track usage. > >Since we have users using more than 8GB, this is a major problem. Agreed. >What operating systems have the 8 GB limit? I have no idea. I think both SunOS 4.x and 5.x had problems, but I'm not sure. I would expect that newer OSes would be less likely to have the problem (it's similar to the 2GB disk/partition size issue). >Has there been any work >to address these issues? There was a bug submitted... that's all I know. It should be trivial to implement a clamping option like df_2gb_limit, unless there is something really annoying in the quotad protocol that prevents this. >Will it work without the "8GB" in the user >entry? I don't know. Bruce

2 1

Consistent crashing on quota initialization
by Brian Tao 06 Oct '97

06 Oct '97

Could someone try reproducing this problem? I know it pretty much requires a Netapp that you don't mind the risk of crashing, but maybe there are some new Netapp owners out there. ;-) I have two F210's both running OnTap 4.0.4N_970627_1000 (this is what came installed on them). I create some quota trees, turn on the quotas, and then reboot the filer while the quotas are being initialized. After it comes back up, quotas are off. If I try to turn them on, the filer crashes. I've been able to do this several times to both F210's. An excerpt from the syslog is included below (I've forwarded the whole thing to Netapp support). Sun Oct 5 23:32:12 EDT [rc]: saving 55M to /etc/crash/core.1-small ("wafl_nfs_lookup: inconsistent directory entry {x0 0 525472 103351382} <quota.db> in {x0 0 555944 103344539}.") Sun Oct 5 23:32:57 EDT [rc]: saving 256M to /etc/crash/core.1 ("wafl_nfs_lookup: inconsistent directory entry {x0 0 525472 103351382} <quota.db> in {x0 0 555944 103344539}.") Sun Oct 5 23:35:20 EDT [rc]: relog syslog Sun Oct 5 23:29:29 EDT [tn_login_0]: Login from host: adminhost Sun Oct 5 23:35:20 EDT [rc]: NetApp Release 4.0.4N_970627_1000 boot complete. -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)netcom.ca) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

1 0

Re: reducing the size of a NetApp -- temporarily
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 06 Oct '97

06 Oct '97

On 10/05/97 18:00:36 you wrote: > >And since we can add new drives by swapping them in, it doesn't seem >like it would hurt to only bring 13 drives online at first. Since we >have an active filesystem, can someone tell me what the best route to do >this is? Any caveats? Don't forget to calculate the space you'll need for snapshots and so on too... also, the filesystem optimizes much better if you have lots of free space rather than always running the ragged edge. You don't have to add a whole shelf at once, so if 14 or 15 drives makes more sense for you, do that. Also, feel free to leave one in as a hot spare. >I have had one report from someone at NetApp that I should erase disk >labels (I don't know if he meant all of them, just the ones being >removed, or the ones staying) before starting, and another that it would >be fine to just yank the disks I don't want and newfs the remaining >ones. Yes, yank all the disks you don't want and boot off floppy, and then newfs the filesystem. That is the best way, and won't take very long at all on an F630. Stay away from other shortcut, quickie schemes that can have lots of hidden dangers. Bruce

1 0

quota size limits (was: "quotas to track disk usage")
by Daniel Quinlan 06 Oct '97

06 Oct '97

On 09/05/97 01:40:58 Daniel Quinlan wrote: >> Given these parameters: >> >> - I would like to use quotas to track user disk space usage (but not >> limit it) Bruce <sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com> replied: > Easily done, but there are some caveats. > > [...] > > 2. Some clients can't deal with quotas great thatn 8GB, and > there is currently no option on the filer to limit this (this > is filed as a bug), so you'd have to restrict your users to 8GB. > If you have any over that, you don't want them in the quota system. > > So, you'd want something like: > > # Quota Target type disk files > # ------------- ----- ---- ----- > /newhome tree > * user@newhome 8G > > The first line might not even be necessary, but it's worth > including just for reference. Hmm, unless it breaks the > clients the same way. Maybe the 8G can be omitted from > the user entry as well? I don't know, I haven't tried it. > The line might also be ncessary for the file to be parsed > properly. > > What Netapp really needs to do is a default quota report by > uid/gid type of command on the filer, to avoid the need to > set up quotas to track usage. Since we have users using more than 8GB, this is a major problem. What operating systems have the 8 GB limit? Has there been any work to address these issues? Will it work without the "8GB" in the user entry? - Dan

1 0

Help
by Jim Grinnell 01 Oct '97

01 Oct '97

help

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