toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13532 discussions

Re:
by tmac 04 Mar '21

04 Mar '21

That is correct and wrong at the same time ;) You still cannot go directly from 9.3 to 9.7. I have heard you can load up 9.5 and 9.7 images and it will progress through: 9.3 -> 9.5 and then 9.5 -> 9.7 Still a double hop, but somewhat automated. Personally, I would still do the 9.3 -> 9.5, wait at least 24 hours and then do the 9.5 -> 9.7 --tmac *Tim McCarthy, **Principal Consultant* *Proud Member of the #NetAppATeam <https://twitter.com/NetAppATeam>* *I Blog at TMACsRack <https://tmacsrack.wordpress.com/>* On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 8:44 PM Brian Parent via Toasters < toasters(a)teaparty.net> wrote: > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Brian Parent <bparent(a)ucsd.edu> > To: Heino Walther <hw(a)beardmann.dk> > Cc: "toasters(a)teaparty.net" <toasters(a)teaparty.net> > Bcc: > Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 17:41:48 -0800 > Subject: Re: > I'm hearing conflicting information about being limited to 2 versions per > hop. > Our support team says once we're at 9.3, we should be able to go directly > to 9.7. > > I guess we'll find out, and I can update this list on how it goes. > The update is scheduled for late March. > > Re: > > From: Heino Walther <hw(a)beardmann.dk> > > Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 19:08:57 +0000 > > Subject: SV: > > To: Brian Parent <bparent(a)ucsd.edu>, "toasters(a)teaparty.net" > > <toasters(a)teaparty.net> > > > > I would recommend 9.7p10 > > > > Be aware that you can only jump 2 versions… so it’s 9.1 to 9.3 to 9.5 to > 9.7 😉 > > I would recommend a pause between each version, and get the latest > patched version also… > > I seem to remember one specific version where the cluster certificate in > the downloaded ontap version was expired, which resulted in an upgrade of > the cluster never completing… no downtime or anything, but NetApp support > had to fix the cluster database… 😊 > > > > I have been working with NetApp for 15 years and never done a real > production revert in my life 😉. But maybe I’m just lucky? > > > > /Heino > > > > > > I've got an AFF8020 running 9.1P10 and wondering whether I should target > 9.6P10 or 9.7P10 as the destination version. > > I'm aware that such an upgrade will require a hop to 9.3 first. > > I'm also aware that reversion can not skip a release, which is a little > scary. I *really* hope I don't have to revert > > from 9.6 or 9.7 all the way back to 9.3 (3 or 4 hops). > > > > What I'm looking for is advice on 9.6p10 vs. 9.7p10. Any horror stories > of either release? > > I'm leaning towards 9.7p10, just because it's more recent. > > > > > > Fra: Toasters <toasters-bounces(a)teaparty.net> på vegne af Brian Parent > via Toasters <toasters(a)teaparty.net> > > Dato: fredag, 5. februar 2021 kl. 19.22 > > Til: toasters(a)teaparty.net <toasters(a)teaparty.net> > > Emne: <no subject> > > _______________________________________________ > > Toasters mailing list > > Toasters(a)teaparty.net > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toast… > > -- > Brian Parent > Information Technology Services Department > ITS Computing Infrastructure Operations Group > its-ci-ops-help(a)ucsd.edu (team email address for Service Now) > UC San Diego > (858) 534-6090 > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Brian Parent via Toasters <toasters(a)teaparty.net> > To: Heino Walther <hw(a)beardmann.dk> > Cc: "toasters(a)teaparty.net" <toasters(a)teaparty.net> > Bcc: > Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 01:42:00 GMT > Subject: > _______________________________________________ > Toasters mailing list > Toasters(a)teaparty.net > https://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters

2 1

(no subject)
by Iluhes 04 Mar '21

04 Mar '21

I heard 9.7p11 is the way to go On Wednesday, March 3, 2021, 07:52:07 PM CST, Brian Parent via Toasters <toasters(a)teaparty.net> wrote: I'm hearing conflicting information about being limited to 2 versions per hop. Our support team says once we're at 9.3, we should be able to go directly to 9.7. I guess we'll find out, and I can update this list on how it goes. The update is scheduled for late March. Re: > From: Heino Walther <hw(a)beardmann.dk> > Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 19:08:57 +0000 > Subject: SV: > To: Brian Parent <bparent(a)ucsd.edu>, "toasters(a)teaparty.net" > <toasters(a)teaparty.net> > > I would recommend 9.7p10 > > Be aware that you can only jump 2 versions… so it’s 9.1 to 9.3 to 9.5 to 9.7 😉 > I would recommend a pause between each version, and get the latest patched version also… > I seem to remember one specific version where the cluster certificate in the downloaded ontap version was expired, which resulted in an upgrade of the cluster never completing… no downtime or anything, but NetApp support had to fix the cluster database… 😊 > > I have been working with NetApp for 15 years and never done a real production revert in my life 😉. But maybe I’m just lucky? > > /Heino > > > I've got an AFF8020 running 9.1P10 and wondering whether I should target 9.6P10 or 9.7P10 as the destination version. > I'm aware that such an upgrade will require a hop to 9.3 first. > I'm also aware that reversion can not skip a release, which is a little scary. I *really* hope I don't have to revert > from 9.6 or 9.7 all the way back to 9.3 (3 or 4 hops). > > What I'm looking for is advice on 9.6p10 vs. 9.7p10. Any horror stories of either release? > I'm leaning towards 9.7p10, just because it's more recent. > > > Fra: Toasters <toasters-bounces(a)teaparty.net> på vegne af Brian Parent via Toasters <toasters(a)teaparty.net> > Dato: fredag, 5. februar 2021 kl. 19.22 > Til: toasters(a)teaparty.net <toasters(a)teaparty.net> > Emne: <no subject> > _______________________________________________ > Toasters mailing list > Toasters(a)teaparty.net > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toast… -- Brian Parent Information Technology Services Department ITS Computing Infrastructure Operations Group its-ci-ops-help(a)ucsd.edu (team email address for Service Now) UC San Diego (858) 534-6090 _______________________________________________ Toasters mailing list Toasters(a)teaparty.net https://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters

1 0

SV:
by Heino Walther 04 Mar '21

04 Mar '21

I would recommend 9.7p10 Be aware that you can only jump 2 versions… so it’s 9.1 to 9.3 to 9.5 to 9.7 😉 I would recommend a pause between each version, and get the latest patched version also… I seem to remember one specific version where the cluster certificate in the downloaded ontap version was expired, which resulted in an upgrade of the cluster never completing… no downtime or anything, but NetApp support had to fix the cluster database… 😊 I have been working with NetApp for 15 years and never done a real production revert in my life 😉. But maybe I’m just lucky? /Heino I've got an AFF8020 running 9.1P10 and wondering whether I should target 9.6P10 or 9.7P10 as the destination version. I'm aware that such an upgrade will require a hop to 9.3 first. I'm also aware that reversion can not skip a release, which is a little scary. I *really* hope I don't have to revert from 9.6 or 9.7 all the way back to 9.3 (3 or 4 hops). What I'm looking for is advice on 9.6p10 vs. 9.7p10. Any horror stories of either release? I'm leaning towards 9.7p10, just because it's more recent. Fra: Toasters <toasters-bounces(a)teaparty.net> på vegne af Brian Parent via Toasters <toasters(a)teaparty.net> Dato: fredag, 5. februar 2021 kl. 19.22 Til: toasters(a)teaparty.net <toasters(a)teaparty.net> Emne: <no subject> _______________________________________________ Toasters mailing list Toasters(a)teaparty.net https://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters

3 2

Moving a 4 node cluster in two pairs?
by John Stoffel 03 Mar '21

03 Mar '21

Guys, We're getting ready to move our 4 node FAS8060 cluster to a new data center. As part of our due diligence, we're thinking that we would snapmirror the most critical business volumes between the two pairs. The idea would be that if the truck holding pair A+B doesn't make it for some reason, we can still bring up the cluster with nodes C+D and still have those snapmirrored volumes available to continue working. So my questions are: 1. Can I boot a cluster with half the nodes missing? I'm sure I can... 2. Has anyone else had to do this half assed method of shipping DR? Cheers, John

5 8

Admin access to CIFS shares
by John Adams 03 Mar '21

03 Mar '21

Is there anyway to setup a domain user on the filer so that it has administrative access to all files under a cifs share (NTFS style qtree)? Backup Operator group? Backup Role (what privs would it need). The problem I'm trying to solve here is groups that remove Domain Admins from the ACL and lock us out. As Domain Admin.. I could take ownership and reset the ACLs.. but I would rather just have an account that has access regardless of the ACLs. This is for a 7-Mode filer. Thanks.

2 1

volume move perforance issues
by Heino Walther 02 Mar '21

02 Mar '21

Hi there We are in the process of migrating from an AFF8060 to an AFF220. We have attached two CN1610 switches and we have started to migrate several volumes over… (NFS and CIFS) Because we want to do the cut-over in a service window we have done it with the command: volume move start -vserver vserver -volume volme -cutover-action wait We currently have 10 volumes waiting. Users has started to complain about poor performance… I think this is due to the fact that the volume move while in “wait” status does a snapshot every minute, and updates the mirror. (I can verify this with a “snapshot show”.. Is there a way to modify this, so that it does not update so often? Of cause when we get closer to our service window we would like to set it back to 1 minute again… There is a “volume move pause” but I would rather modify the frequency of the snapmirror updates if possible? /Heino Heino Walther<https://www.linkedin.com/in/heinowalther/> Beardmann ApS<http://beardmann.dk/> Jellingvej 9 - 7100 Vejle<https://goo.gl/maps/xQVPFMHXpXu> D: 7199 9060 M: 2075 7501 --

2 2

Motherboard Replacement on out-of-warranty filer
by Alexander Griesser 18 Feb '21

18 Feb '21

Hey there, we do operate a few EOL'ed devices in our labs (and as playground for the automation services, etc.) and from time to time, things break - very rarely, but they do. I do have quite some hardware on stock here and I'm all set for exchanging almost anything that can break inside a filer (from disks to shelves to backplanes, cables, fans, PSUs, NVRAM batteries, etc.), but changing the motherboard proved difficult. I cannot find a way to assign the old S/N to the new motherboard in order to be able to reuse the licenses we had on the (now dead) filer. License transfers to other serial numbers are also not possible without active support contract. Any idea how to make that happen? Thanks, Alexander Griesser Head of Systems Operations ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH E-Mail: AGriesser(a)anexia-it.com<mailto:AGriesser@anexia-it.com> Web: http://www.anexia-it.com<http://www.anexia-it.com/> Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601

2 3

interesting 9.3P17 & 9.5P5 bug
by John Stoffel 12 Feb '21

12 Feb '21

Just ran into an interesting bug in 9.3P17 (yes, I'm off support!) and another 9.5P5 system which I thought I'd share. Let's grab all the export policies on the system in CSV format to make it easy to parse: ntap1::> set -showseparator ","; export-policy show Vserver Policy Name --------------- ------------------- foo default WTF? That's wierd? Let's try something else: ntap1::> set -showseparator ","; export-policy show -fields vserver ,policyname vserver,policyname, Vserver,Policy Name, foo,default, Ah! Now we're getting what we want. Stupid annoying bug when you're trying to write a perl script to pull out data. Can anyone confirm if this is still there in the latest releases? Hmm... poking at it some more... I suspect I'm forgetting that you *must* specify the fields when changing the -showseparator to get easier to parse output. But I still think this is a surprising occurance, since it does include the field names, so there's no need to actually specify them in the output. Principal of least surprise and all that. Cheers, John

2 2

OnTap 9.6 vs 9.7
by Brian Parent 05 Feb '21

05 Feb '21

I've got an AFF8020 running 9.1P10 and wondering whether I should target 9.6P10 or 9.7P10 as the destination version. I'm aware that such an upgrade will require a hop to 9.3 first. I'm also aware that reversion can not skip a release, which is a little scary. I *really* hope I don't have to revert from 9.6 or 9.7 all the way back to 9.3 (3 or 4 hops). What I'm looking for is advice on 9.6p10 vs. 9.7p10. Any horror stories of either release? I'm leaning towards 9.7p10, just because it's more recent. -- Brian Parent Information Technology Services Department ITS Computing Infrastructure Operations Group UC San Diego (858) 534-6090

1 0

7-mode upgrade mismatch
by Carl Howell 04 Feb '21

04 Feb '21

I have a 3240 cluster with node A running 8.2.5P5 and node B running 8.1.4P9. Node A was upgraded to 8.2.5P5 and giveback was performed from node B. Takeover of node B by node A was performed, and both nodes are now running on node A. But, node B was not upgraded to 8.2.5P5 before the takeover and now when we attempt to giveback to node B so that it can be upgraded, it panics. So, node A running 8.2.5P5 in takeover mode. Node B running 8.1.4P9 has been taken over by A. How can we get B upgraded to 8.2.5P5? Thanks, --Carl

3 5

Jump to page:

2026

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