toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13513 discussions

alternate drives, RAM for NetApp 630
by Wayne D. Correia 06 Sep '97

06 Sep '97

Hi, What's the current supported 9GB drive revision that works in the NetApp 630? Also, can someone confirm if the DEC Storageworks shelf model SWXSS-22 shelf works in a NetApp 630? That's the Storageworks shelf that DEC recommends for their 9GB drives that are actually Seagate ST-19171-W's. I just can not justify paying NetApp $3000 for a $1200 hard disk or $10,000 for 256MB of DRAM when it should cost no more than $1500. As far as testing does, I really doubt that NetApp can possibly perform any level of pre-sale burn-in testing to justify more than 400% markup on RAM, more than 200% markup on hard disks, and more than 300% markup on an empty DEC Storageworks shelf.

2 1

Re: quotas to track disk usage
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 05 Sep '97

05 Sep '97

On 09/05/97 01:40:58 you wrote: > >Given these parameters: > > - I would like to use quotas to track user disk space usage (but not > limit it) Easily done, but there are some caveats. > - Quotas trees are not usable because you can't mv files from one > quota tree to another (according to the docs). The docs are slightly misleading here... sure, you can mv files from one to another, but they get copied, not moved. This should not generally be a problem (it's just like a separate mount point). > - I only want to track usage in /home/* only, not the entire disk > (since there are other areas on the filesystem that users use, but > I do not want included in the quota report. This can be done with the new 4.1 software. >Is this possible or are the docs wrong about #2 ? Take a look at the na_quota(1) man page and they provide just such an example of restricting user quotas per export. However, there are some caveats: 1. You have to create the quota tree first... if you already have a /home and directories in it, you can't "convert" them into a quota tree. You have to start with a new directory from scratch, crated via the "quota qtree newhome" or something similar. 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. Bruce

3 2

Re: drive enclosure options
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 05 Sep '97

05 Sep '97

On 09/05/97 09:07:08 you wrote: > >We have a F220 and our first drive enclosure is the standard Digital >Storage Works one provided by NetApp. We are considering making our >second enclosure be an Adjile Systems Lynx enclosure, since we have had >good experience with them in other systems. > >We are wondering if there are any incompatibilities between the Lynx and >the F220. I know when a drive is "raid fail"ed with the DSW enclosure >that the lights indicate the drive is spun down and ready for removal. The >Lynx does not provide that kind of lighting, but it is designed for hot >swapping. I don't think any other enclosures are allowed except on a PVR and unsupported basis. I'm surprised if Netapp is changing this, as even different Storage Works enclosures have demonstrated problems with each-other, let alone other enclosures. Bruce

1 0

NIC card for NetApp?
by Wayne D. Correia 05 Sep '97

05 Sep '97

Hi, Are any of the NetApp 630 accessories like hard disks, disk shelves, NIC cards, and RAM for the NetApp available via any other source than NetApp? Their prices for the add-ins are quite high and I am trying to plan out a system purchase now. Quick responses really appreciated. :-) -w Wayne D. Correia 1-415-826-6000

5 4

Re: Clarification
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 05 Sep '97

05 Sep '97

> > In my specific circumstance (lots of small files grouped in large > > quantities in single directories), I am unhappy with the performance of > > the F540 that I have. NetApp tech support and I have been working on the > > issue for almost 3 months now, and resolution may be in sight. ... > But this application sounds disturbingly similar to Internet news...and > the NetApp's tend to excel in that! > > We noticed a 300% performance increase versus a Sun StorageArray, for > example. We use an F330 for News, and are very happy with the performance and stability. That being said, our NetApp/Ultrasparc system still isn't very happy with 200.000 (or more) files in control.cancel, and we also see the occasional "not responding still trying" during renumbering (i.e. readings lots of directory entries, including some moderately large ones. (We no longer have the problem with control.cancel after we started deleting the cancel messages every few hours. The renumber problem is still with us, but isn't *enough* of a problem to worry about.) My conclusion is that a NetApp works much better than the traditional Unix file system for lots of small files - but there are limits even to what a NetApp will take of file system "abuse". The obvious long term solution for News is a few large files for the article store, like Diablo does it - and like Scott Fritchie's mods to INN. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

1 0

Clarification
by Jaye Mathisen 05 Sep '97

05 Sep '97

To clarify a comment I made earlier... In my specific circumstance (lots of small files grouped in large quantities in single directories), I am unhappy with the performance of the F540 that I have. NetApp tech support and I have been working on the issue for almost 3 months now, and resolution may be in sight. As to the hardware itself, it's nice stuff, fast, reliable, easy to care for, couldn't ask for anything more. So if your situation is similar to mine, the NetApp may not be the optimal choice.

2 1

quotas to track disk usage
by Daniel Quinlan 05 Sep '97

05 Sep '97

Given these parameters: - I would like to use quotas to track user disk space usage (but not limit it) - Quotas trees are not usable because you can't mv files from one quota tree to another (according to the docs). - I only want to track usage in /home/* only, not the entire disk (since there are other areas on the filesystem that users use, but I do not want included in the quota report. Is this possible or are the docs wrong about #2 ? - Dan

1 0

Re: Nice hidden command: mv
by Ketil Kirkerud Elgethun 05 Sep '97

05 Sep '97

Michael Douglass <mikedoug(a)texas.net> writes: > How about having an 'enabling' command that enables those 'undocummented' > commands. There is one already. And it _does_ enable a lot of commands, most of them are obviously meant for testing only. -- ---Ketil Kirkerud Elgethun, Scandinavia Online

1 0

Re: NetApp and FDDI
by dheiland＠lucent.com 05 Sep '97

05 Sep '97

Are these NFS server not responding messages occurring at any specific time? I'm seeing similar messages about 3am each night - the same time that a cron runs to remove .nfs files. I'm still looking into and for me it might just be a matter of changing from soft mounts to hard mounts, or even problems with NIS binding. Dave > On Thu, Sep 04, 1997 at 09:59:11AM -0400, Alexei Rodriguez said: > > > Looking through the logs on the clients, we have "NFS server not responding" > > errors (for 0 sec duration) across all the clients. Those that > > beat more heavily on the NetApp (like one box that constitutes 70% of > > the traffic) has these every few minutes. > > These occur using full duplex 100T and suns as clients as well. So I > don't think that FDDI is the key. I think I remember reading that netapp > had fixed this, or were working on a fix. > -- > Michael Douglass > Texas Networking, Inc.

2 1

Re: NIC card for NetApp?
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 04 Sep '97

04 Sep '97

On 09/04/97 00:34:43 you wrote: >I might agree with you if I didn't have experience with netapp's RMA >department. We have been shipped replacement motherboards with >*mismatched* DRAM simms in them from netapp. Mistakes do happen. I've gotten motherboards with bad onboard ethernet, slots that didn't work, etc. But by working with Netapp these are put into the corrective feedback loop and prevented from happening again (at least in theory). >All accessories we put in >our netapps are *Exactly* the same part numbers as what netapp uses. >Down to the same Samsung Simms that netapp does, the same Seagate >drives that netapp does, the *same* DEC Storageworks canisters, the >*same* dallas semiconductor nvram. I don't think the nvram simms are an approved component for customer buy, but that may have changed. I mean, you think it's the same because of the serial number, but how do you know there isn't something else Netapp changes? Nvram is probably a bad example of this but you can easily think of other examples. >Guess what...it all works *perfectly* as expected So far... what are you going to do if it doesn't? >I was not talking about unapproved components. I would *never* risk >the chance of a failure due to an unapproved component. I do however >have a problem with paying 200-300% *more* for the same accessories. Again, I didn't think nvram was an approved component (as in approved for customer buy), although I know that some memory is. But what about future filers that have memory that isn't (I think the F630 is that way now?) or the new 9GB cannisters? I dunno if those are readily available elsewhere. I agree 200% is steep, but I would have no qualms about paying 150% for the same component I could get elsewhere but had been tested or modified by Netapp to work properly with their equipment. Bruce

3 3

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