toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13518 discussions

Re: Hello...
by mer＠world.evansville.net 13 Jun '97

13 Jun '97

Apologies if this is off the charter -- let me know (gently, please!) and I'll desist -- but I'm evaluating dedicated NFS servers and have narrowed things down to Network Appliance (F220, qty 2) versus Falcon Systems (FastfilePro 7000, qty 1). I must admit that I'm leaning toward the 7000 due to its superior expandability and greater administrative flexibility (multiple filesystems and RAID sets, ability to run old drives via JBOD on the SCSI port). Also, the 7000 tests about even with the F540 in various magazine reviews, and NetApp's own LADDIS testing shows the F220 to be only half as fast as the F540 (is this true in the real world?). On the other hand, NetApp tells me that the highly random nature of my traffic -- typical ISP work including email, USENET news, and webservers -- should point me toward multiple servers to maximize main memory cache hits. They say that the main memory cache on the 7000 will become worthless as I expand storage and that performance will drop off. I don't have a good feel for the importance of main memory cache here -- the 7000 uses hardware RAID controllers with onboard cache, so it seems like it would be less important to the Falcon product than it is to the NetApp line. But I must admit that NetApp's larger installed base -- 1000's versus 100's of systems -- makes it a safer choice on the surface. Anyone care to share his/her thoughts on this topic? -- Marc Rouleau VP and Chief Technology Officer Voice: (812) 479-1700 Fax: (812) 479-3439 World Connection Services, LLC http://www.evansville.net

3 2

Re: Hello...
by fred.abounader＠vantis.com 13 Jun '97

13 Jun '97

Let me know via personal or newsgroup email if you are getting the performance you expect from the F220 and F330. What type of network are you on (10, 100, ATM, FDDI, etc)? ---} In enteract.private.lists.toasters, David Drum <david(a)more.net> wrote: ---} ---} > Brian Tao penned: ---} > ---} > > Just checking to see if anyone else is alive here... ;-) ---} > > ObInventory: got an F220, getting two F210's and an F230. :) ---} > ---} > Hi Brian, ---} > ---} > My F330 was delivered yesterday, and set up today (thanks Jeff West!). ---} ---} Me too. :)

2 1

Third-party components for F210 and F230
by Brian Tao 13 Jun '97

13 Jun '97

Does someone have a Netapp-approved list of components that can be used with the F210 and F230 filers without voiding service and support warranties? I bought a minimally configured F220 a few months ago, and populated with third-party RAM from Kingston, Seagate Barracuda 4.3GB narrow SCSI drives, and DEC StorageWorks canisters. The total cost came out to 30% less than an identical system put together by Netapp. The new filers use fast/wide drives (I heard that Fujitsu drives are now on the approved list) and a different canister (metal instead of plastic, for one thing). Does anyone have vendor and part numbers for those components? Much as I love Netapp, I still find the pricing a wee bit steep. ;-) -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)netcom.ca) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

1 0

Archive of this mailing list?
by Brian Tao 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

Is there an archive of this mailing list somewhere, preferably searchable? -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)netcom.ca) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

3 2

Hello...
by Brian Tao 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

Just checking to see if anyone else is alive here... ;-) ObInventory: got an F220, getting two F210's and an F230. :) -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)netcom.ca) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

8 8

Re: Hello...
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

> > We are currently using NFS over TCP for news purposes. Is that a bad > > thing? > Not necessarly. Do you have a reason for needed tcp such as your are > doing long haul networking? > > However there are a lot of things that can go wrong with tcp that can't > with udp (there are lots of very broken tcp implementations in this > world: not ours of course:-) I would sugest disabling tcp and see > what happens. If things stay the same or get better just leave it that > way. If not you had tcp turned on for a reason. We currently run with NFS v2/UDP on our NetApp. The change from v3 to v2 resulted in a noticeable decrease in expiry time for us. The disadvantage of NFS v2 is that you won't be able to get number of inodes (files) via NFS. I like the suggestion from Guy Harris to deal with this: Use two mount points for the NetApp file system - one NFSv2 for the main News spool, and one NFSv3 to be able to check inodes, selected by suitable mount options on client. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

2 1

mixing 4Gb and 9Gb discs
by Tom Yates 05 Jun '97

05 Jun '97

here's the situation. i have an F330, currently with 20 4Gb discs in three shelves. it is not performance-bound, it's capacity-bound. i'd heard (from netapp) sometime back that, at some future date, mixed 4 and 9 arrays would be permitted, but that i couldn't remove existing 4s, and that 9s would require a dedicated shelf. therefore, i'd tried to keep my disc load on three shelves, and so far succeeded. if i understand correctly, whilst i will shortly be allowed to mix 4s and 9s, i won't be allowed to use a full set of 9s - in fact, i'll be limited to 21*4 + 3*9 for data, with one hot spare and one parity, leaving me two disc slots i can't use. is this in fact the case, and if so, would anyone care to try to explain why, *bearing in mind that this toaster is definitely not performance-limited*? Tom Yates - Unix Chap - The Mathworks, Inc. - +1 (508) 647 7561 MAG#65061 DoD#0135 AMA#461546 1024/CFDFDE39 0C E7 46 60 BB 96 87 05 04 BD FB F8 BB 20 C1 8C "Microsoft (tm) is a single-sofa supplier"

6 7

CIFS and HTTP performance
by Aamer Latif 22 May '97

22 May '97

I have a couple of questions regarding CIFS and HTTP performance on NAC filers. Appreciate any answers regarding these. In reviewing the CIFs performance white paper on the NAC website (http://www.netapp.com/technology/level3/3015.html), I'm unclear on what type of NetBench test is being run. Specifically, I'm not sure if the paper describes NetBench Disk Mix or Random Read/Write tests. I'd thought that the graphs pertained to the Disk Mix test but block size variation test (section 3.1 in above paper) made me think that perhaps Random Read/Write test was being described (Disk Mix does not allow the I/O block size to be varied? If the Read/Write test is being used, I would be very interested in knowing the file sizes that are being used in these tests. Second, I'm wondering if there is any info or experiences regarding how many http op/s can a Netapp Web filer support? Thanks! Aamer a.latif(a)ieee.org

3 2

serial port
by Tom Yates 22 May '97

22 May '97

if the serial port on an F330 seems to be "wedged", ie seems to be operating at the wrong speed, spitting back junk characters, and the like, is there any way to clear it without resetting the toaster? i have high confidence in the terminal being ok as it's on a serial switch between my two F330s, and the other one seems fine. i have tried the "busted" toaster on all three other ports on the serial switch, so i don't think the problem is there, either. just curious. tom yates unix chap

1 0

F520 slots?
by Jim Davis 21 May '97

21 May '97

I'm looking for info about how many expansion slots a F520 system has -- if that's at www.netapp.com then I'm overlooking it. We're looking at a system with 64, maybe 128MB RAM 2MB NVRAM 3 disk shelves 1 network card and I'm trying to find out how much room for future SCSI or networking cards that would leave.

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