toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

reducing the size of a NetApp -- temporarily
by Daniel Quinlan 10 Oct '97

10 Oct '97

We recently purchased an F630 system with 26 9GB drives (two shelf pairs of 13 drives). Because multiple RAID groups (and to a less extent, multiple filesystems) are not supported, I have concerns about bringing a 200GB filesystem into the world. All of the space won't be needed for at least several months. The main problems brought on by large filesystems and are backup dataset size (and time), but the biggest concern is that when a disk goes, the raid reconstruction affects more of your data if you have a single RAID group. (As well as worse fault tolerance, etc.) 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? 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. Dan

2 1

subscribe gsterlin@jjprayc1.jnj.com
by Greg Sterling 09 Oct '97

09 Oct '97

subscribe gsterlin(a)jjprayc1.jnj.com

1 0

Re: raid swap question
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 08 Oct '97

08 Oct '97

On 10/07/97 21:12:31 you wrote: >Can you "raid swap" and add more than one spare disk at a time? No... you want to raid swap, shove a disk in, wait for it to detect, raid swap again, shove another disk in, etc. The fastest way to do lots of disks at once is to halt and power off the filer, shove the disks in, and then turn it back on. Bruce

2 1

raid swap question
by Daniel Quinlan 08 Oct '97

08 Oct '97

Can you "raid swap" and add more than one spare disk at a time? Dan

1 0

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

07 Oct '97

On 10/07/97 13:31:50 you wrote: >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. Hmmm... I must admit ignorance in this area; I suppose it is possible, but it's not something I would believe off the cuff. >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. Well, I have some numbers for FDDI.... rmt was abyssmal (500 K/sec), but that was several releases ago. A more recent release, uses a third host to rsh a piped dump and restore across a dedicated FDDI network, drove the tape drive much closer to it's limit, but I don't have exact numbers. 100Mbps ethernet isn't great but I would expect you'd see numbers much closer to local backup speed if you use rsh, but still not as fast as local. >Our main interest in the 7000 is capacity (single tape backup at the >moment), rather than speed. What if it takes 2 tapes? Are you going to get a 7000 stacker, or will you have to spend a lot of effort breaking the backup into pieces? At least a 4000 stacker will be able to keep up with your expansion. FYI, my experience with 7000 on the filer suggests that the capacity isn't as great as you might hope. A DLT-IV cartridge on a 4000 could often get 35-40GB on it (almost max 2:1 compression), but on a 7000 I could only get about 50GB, not the 60-70GB expected with max compression. It was not clear if this was a Netapp issue or a 7000 issue... perhaps they have resolved it? You would have to inquire and find out. >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. Neato. I wish they'd update the web pages to actually reflect this. Bruce

1 0

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

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