toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

Start a nNew thread

Kronberg Monique
by Jerry 20 Mar '10

20 Mar '10

http://cacworldwide.net/Wayne.html

1 0

Re: performance advisor question
by Fox, Adam 17 Mar '10

17 Mar '10

Metadata ops. Lookups, getattrs, etc. -- Adam Fox ------------------------ Typed with my thumbs on a very small keyboard. ________________________________ From: Kennedy, Jeffrey <jkennedy(a)qualcomm.com> To: NDMP List (toasters(a)mathworks.com) <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Tue Mar 16 21:30:55 2010 Subject: performance advisor question In perf advisor under Overall IOPS by OPtype there is read, write, and other. Anyone know what “other_ops” consists of? From the ever helpful Help tool on perf advisor: Volume object other_ops Number of other operations per second to the volume Thanks. Jeff Kennedy Qualcomm, Incorporated QCT Engineering Compute 858-651-6592 "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -James Madison on the appropriation of $15,000 by Congress to help French refugees

2 1

Disaster Recovery Adapter for VMware SRM v. 1.4.3
by Milazzo Giacomo 16 Mar '10

16 Mar '10

Hi all, this doc http://media.netapp.com/documents/tr-3822.pdf is an update of a preceding one (http://media.netapp.com/documents/tr-3785.pdf) but it cites also a new great change reporting of an "unified" adapter for VMware SRM, a Disaster Recovery Adapter for VMware SRM v. 1.4.3 to be useful for mixed environment NAS/SAN (both iSCSI and FC). On the NOW download software section there only the old 1.4.2. We would to test the new DR functions reported in tr-3822 in an environment formed by NFS datastore/vmdk and iSCSI RDM for VM data disks. Where I can found this new 4.2.3 release of adapter for SRM? Thank you in advance,

1 0

Multipath-HA and SATA
by Milazzo Giacomo 14 Mar '10

14 Mar '10

Hi all, rumors from NetApp's engineering state that Multipath-HA on loops formed with SATA disks are counterproductive and with worst performances. This seems to me physically a nonsense. Is there somebody with further informations? Thanks,

2 2

SFU mounting NFS netapp volume
by Linux Admin 12 Mar '10

12 Mar '10

Dear toasters, Do i need to do anything special on netapp side for SFU windows nfs client mounting? I saw something on the group in regards to this: "It's user name mapping most likely... make sure to check that box on install. Windows won't be able to mount until you map the windows user to root (default only allows root to mount)." Is it in reference to usermap.cfg? (but that is only for cifs/nfs maping, no?) please advice. Thank you for your help!!!

3 3

Storage Chargeback
by Joseph Bishop 08 Mar '10

08 Mar '10

Hello, Here is the info on how I setup Chargeback for storage at NASA-JPL. The original equation had a base charge of $50/GB. This included clustered storage that was snapmirrored to a different building on JPL property. I had worked the equation through trial and error to end up with monthly charge = U * 50 / (log ( (U^2/1000) (U^4/200000000) + 10 )) where U is the usage in GB. If you plot that out, you can see a decreasing cost per gig overall. That equation was a little confusing as the cost per gig was contained within the function. The algorithm was reworked (down to $25/GB base) to break out the Cost per Gig, it became Cost per Gig =25*(1.3348-LOG((U+100)/10)/3)^2 where U is the total usage in GB. Once you have the cost per gig, monthly charge is, Total monthly charge = U * Cost per Gig Here is the real trick, you need to create a spreadsheet or some other method that will total your customers and all of their monthly charges to result in a Monthly Customer Total (MCT). Multiply 12* CMT to get an estimate of the the Annual Customer Total (ACT). Now you have to make sure you can afford all of the costs of supporting your storage infrastructure within that ACT number. Be sure to combine the costs for your systems, replacement hardware, the power, A/C, network, backup and system administration costs to get the Annual Total Cost of Ownership (ATCO). If ATCO is greater than ACT, then you either need to charge more, or figure out a way to reduce your ATCO. It takes some trial and error, but after a few attempts at closing the gap between ATCO and ACT, you will get a better feel for that base ($25/GB ?) storage charge unit. Customers will appreciate the Cost per Gig equation as it shows them economies of scale. I hope that helps you balance your books. Best, Joe Bishop

1 0

DFM installation segfaulting
by Neis, Mark 08 Mar '10

08 Mar '10

Hi all, a colleague of mine came back from a DFM course and brought a CD with - inter alia - Operations Manager Linux install. I just tried to install 3.8 on a SuSE SLES 9.4 (x86_64). But the install binary segfaults right at start: | # strace ./dfmsetup-3-8-1-linux.sh -h | execve("./dfmsetup-3-8-1-linux.sh", ["./dfmsetup-3-8-1-linux.sh", "-h"], [/* 54 vars */]) = 0 | [ Process PID=13923 runs in 32 bit mode. ] | uname({sys="Linux", node="somenode", ...}) = 0 | brk(0) = 0x1c98a000 | --- SIGSEGV (Segmentation fault) @ 0 (0) --- | +++ killed by SIGSEGV +++ Has anybody seen something like this before and would know the cause? Btw, I'd freshly d/l it from NOW, but at the time being, the download link for the software is (falsely) marked as "not activated"... I already opened a case. Freundliche Grüße, Mark Neis -- Mark Neis Systemadministrator GISA GmbH Chemnitztalstr. 13 09114 Chemnitz Tel. +49.(0)371.482.6737 Fax +49.(0)345.585.100.6737 GISA GmbH - Geschäftsführer: Michael Krüger (Sprecher), Stephan Drescher; Sitz der Gesellschaft: Halle/Saale; Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stendal; Handelsregister-Nr: HRB 208414; UST-IdNr: DE 158253683 Diese E-Mail enthält vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Empfänger sind oder diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Mail oder des Inhalts dieser Mail sind nicht gestattet. Diese Kommunikation per E-Mail ist nicht gegen den Zugriff durch Dritte geschützt. Die GISA GmbH haftet ausdrücklich nicht für den Inhalt und die Vollständigkeit von E-Mails und den gegebenenfalls daraus entstehenden Schaden. Sollte trotz der bestehenden Viren-Schutzprogramme durch diese E-Mail ein Virus in Ihr System gelangen, so haftet die GISA GmbH - soweit gesetzlich zulässig - nicht für die hieraus entstehenden Schäden.

1 0

Re: Slow aggregate/shelf, hot disk
by Adam McDougall 02 Mar '10

02 Mar '10

Approx late Sept-09. I wouldn't be surprised if it was slow before that but I have no real data to back that up. On 03/01/10 13:50, Jeff Mohler wrote: > How long has this aggregate been over 95% full? > > > > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Adam McDougall <mcdouga9(a)egr.msu.edu > <mailto:mcdouga9@egr.msu.edu>> wrote: > > For a long time we've known backing up our largest volume (3.5T) was > slow. More recently I've been investigating why and it seems like a > problem with only that shelf or possibly aggregate. Basically it is > several times slower than any other shelf/aggregate we have, it > seems bottlenecked whether I am reading/writing from nfs, ndmp, > reallocate scans, etc, that shelf is always slower. I will probably > have a support case opened tomorrow with netapp but I feel like > checking with the list to see what else I can find out on my own. > When doing NDMP backups I get only around 230Mbit/sec as opposed to > 800+ on others. The performance drops distinctly on the hour > probably for snapshots (see pic). Details below. 0c.25 seems like > a hot disk but the activity on that aggr also seems too high since > the network bandwidth is fairly small. A 'reallocate measure' on > the two large volumes on aggregate hanksata0 both return a score of > '1'. > > I guess my two main questions are, how do I figure out what is > causing the activity on hanksata0 (especially the hot disk which is > sometimes at 100%) and if its not just activity but an actual > problem, how could I further debug the slow performance to find out > what items are at fault? > > I used ndmpcopy to copy a fast volume with large files from another > filer to a new volume on hanksata0 and hanksata1. The volume on > hanksata0 is slow but the one on hanksata1 is not. Both of those > aggregates are on the same loop with hanksata1 terminating it. > > Sun Feb 28 20:14:20 EST [hank: wafl.scan.start:info]: Starting WAFL > layout measurement on volume scratchtest. > Sun Feb 28 20:19:01 EST [hank: wafl.reallocate.check.value:info]: > Allocation measurement check on > '/vol/scratchtest' is 2. > > ^^^ almost 5 minutes! > > Sun Feb 28 20:13:38 EST [hank: wafl.scan.start:info]: Starting > WAFL layout measurement on volume scratchtest2. > Sun Feb 28 20:14:12 EST [hank: wafl.reallocate.check.value:info]: > Allocation measurement check on > '/vol/scratchtest2' is 1. > > ^^^ less than 1 min > > When I write to scratchtest, you can see the network bandwidth jump > up for a few seconds then it stalls for about twice as long, > presumably so the filer can catch up writing, then it repeats. > Speed averages around 30-40MB/sec if that. > > I even tried using the spare sata disk from both of these shelves > to make a new volume, copied scratchtest to it (which took 26 > minutes for around 40G), and reads were equally slow as the existing > scratchtest, although I'm not sure if thats because a single disk is > too slow to prove anything, or theres a shelf problem. > > hanksata0 6120662048 6041632124 79029924 99% > hanksata0/.snapshot 322140104 14465904 307674200 4% > hanksata1 8162374688 2191140992 5971233696 27% > hanksata1/.snapshot 429598664 39636812 389961852 9% > > hanksata0 and 1 are both ds14mk2 AT but hanksata0 has > X268_HGEMI aka X268A-R5 (750m x 14) and hanksata1 has > disks X269_HGEMI aka X269A-R5 (1T x 14). hanksata0 has > been around since we got the filer say around 2 years ago, > hanksata1 was added within the last half year. Both > shelves have always had 11 data disks, 2 parity, 1 spare, > the aggregates were never grown. > > volumes on hanksata0 besides root (all created over a year ago): > > volume 1 (research): > NO dedupe (too big) > 10 million inodes, approx 3.5T, 108G in snapshots > endures random user read/write but usually fairly light traffic. > Populated initially with rsync then opened to user access via NFS. > Sun Feb 28 21:38:11 EST [hank: wafl.reallocate.check.value:info]: > Allocation measurement check on '/vol/research' is 1. > > volume 2 (reinstallbackups): > dedupe enabled > 6.6 million files, approx 1.6T, 862G in snapshots > volume created over a year ago and has several dozen gigs of windows > PC backups written or read multiple times per week using CIFS but > otherwise COMPLETELY idle. Older data is generally deleted to > snapshots after some weeks and the snapshots expire after a few weeks. > Only accessed via CIFS. > Mon Mar 1 12:15:58 EST [hank: wafl.reallocate.check.value:info]: > Allocation measurement check on '/vol/reinstallbackups' is 1. > > > hanksata1 only has one volume besides the small test ones I made, > it runs plenty fast. > dedupe enabled > > 4.3 million files, approx 1.6T, 12G in snapshots > created a few months ago on an otherwise unused new aggregate with > initial rsync, > then daily rsyncs from another fileserver that is not very active > > > > disk ut% xfers ureads--chain-usecs writes--chain-usecs > cpreads-chain-usecs greads--chain-usecs gwrites-chain-usecs > /hanksata0/plex0/rg0: > 0c.16 7 5.69 0.94 1.00 55269 3.22 3.02 2439 > 1.52 2.71 579 0.00 .... . 0.00 .... . > 0c.17 9 6.34 0.94 1.00 74308 3.84 2.86 2228 > 1.56 2.93 873 0.00 .... . 0.00 .... . > 0c.18 63 121.00 118.86 1.01 30249 1.38 3.26 3516 > 0.76 5.43 2684 0.00 .... . 0.00 .... . > 0c.19 60 117.74 116.69 1.00 30546 0.40 3.73 5049 > 0.65 5.56 2840 0.00 .... . 0.00 .... . > 0c.20 60 120.82 119.66 1.02 29156 0.43 5.33 5469 > 0.72 4.80 3583 0.00 .... . 0.00 .... . > 0c.21 60 119.37 118.25 1.02 29654 0.36 4.60 5870 > 0.76 5.76 3140 0.00 .... . 0.00 .... . > 0c.22 62 124.87 123.32 1.02 29423 0.62 5.65 5677 > 0.94 3.58 2710 0.00 .... . 0.00 .... . > 0c.23 62 119.48 118.35 1.03 30494 0.36 4.00 6875 > 0.76 5.14 3417 0.00 .... . 0.00 .... . > 0c.24 61 119.08 117.96 1.02 29981 0.47 6.92 3289 > 0.65 3.94 2930 0.00 .... . 0.00 .... . > 0c.25 93 118.17 116.72 1.03 45454 0.58 4.00 17719 > 0.87 4.63 11658 0.00 .... . 0.00 .... . > 0c.26 61 121.40 120.27 1.04 29271 0.43 7.75 3097 > 0.69 5.21 2131 0.00 .... . 0.00 .... . > 0c.27 59 115.75 114.81 1.03 29820 0.43 5.50 4530 > 0.51 6.00 3321 0.00 .... . 0.00 .... . > 0c.28 63 125.53 124.15 1.01 30302 0.65 6.94 3808 > 0.72 3.40 5191 0.00 .... . 0.00 .... . > > Both sata shelves are on controller 0c attached to two 3040. > Both sata shelves are on controller 0c attached to two 3040. > Raid-DP in 13-disk raid groups so we have 2 parity and one spare > per shelf. > Active-Active single path HA. > Latest firmwares/code as of beginning of the year. 7.3.2. > no VMs, no snapmirror, nothing fancy that I can think of. > wafl scan status only shows 'active bitmap rearrangement' or > 'container block reclamation'. > > Thanks for thoughts and input! > > > > > -- > No Signature Required > Save The Bits, Save The World!

3 6

Storage Chargeback Costs
by Luther Allin 02 Mar '10

02 Mar '10

For those of you that are doing storage chargeback, approximately how much are you charging per MB or GB? I'm sure that it depends on the type of disk (FC or SATA) so if you don't mind sharing numbers I'd appreciate it. Luther ________________________________ Luther Allin IT Manager Miller & Martin PLLC Suite 1000 Volunteer Bldg. 832 Georgia Avenue Chattanooga, TN 37402 Phone (423) 785-8381 Fax (423) 321-1678 [http://remote.millermartin.com/mm_logo.jpg]<http://www.millermartin.com/> [http://remote.millermartin.com/green.jpg] ________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail message is legally privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments. Thank you. Please also advise us immediately if you or your employer does not consent to receipt of Internet e-mail for confidential messages of this kind. DISCLAIMER Pursuant to Circular 230 issued by the United States Treasury Department and relating to practice before the Internal Revenue Service, any comment or opinion in this communication relating to a federal tax issue is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. ________________________________

3 3

Re: Storage Chargeback Costs
by Joseph Bishop 02 Mar '10

02 Mar '10

Tell you what, I will dig for this tonight. Best, Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sander Klein" <S.Klein(a)pictura-dp.nl> To: "Joseph Bishop" <jbishop(a)west.net>, "Luther Allin" <lallin(a)millermartin.com> Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2010 7:55:20 AM Subject: RE: Storage Chargeback Costs Hi Joseph, I'm not Luther, but I am interested in the function... Met vriendelijke groet, Sander Klein Systeembeheer PICTURA DATABASE PUBLISHING bv De Hoefsmid 11 1851 PZ Heiloo t: + 31(0)72 53 55 758 f: + 31(0)72 53 20 400 e: S.Klein(a)pictura-dp.nl w: www.pictura-dp.nl PICTURA is ISO 9001:2008 gecertificeerd > >-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > >Van: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] > >Namens Joseph Bishop > >Verzonden: dinsdag 2 maart 2010 15:59 > >Aan: Luther Allin > >CC: toasters(a)mathworks.com > >Onderwerp: Re: Storage Chargeback Costs > > > >Hello Luther, > > > >We developed a chargeback model at NASA's JPL. > > > >Basically, take the full costs of managing your system and assume 10GByte > >customers, and divide the costs for that customer base to get a rough starting point. > > > >Then to account for the high usage customers, we created a function that would > >reduce their per GB costs as they started to consume 100's of GBs. Assume that the > >customer needing 100's of GBs is not going to need customer support as much as qty > >10x 10GBs customers. > > > >In the end we created a function that fit a few data points. Think of the real costs > >to take care of a small customer 1-10G, a medium sized customer 50-100G and a > >large sized customer ~500GB-1TB, and fit your cost model to that. > > > >It may look like a complex cost model, but you don't want a linear cost model. A > >linear cost model will make the big consumers think about just buying their own > >equipment. The real key to the function is to add up your expected customers and > >their usage for the next year, pump them through your cost model (Excel) and make > >sure the numbers add up so that you won't have cost overruns. We would update > >our model every year. > > > >You want to sell to the small customers based on ease of use and better backups for > >them. > > > >You want to sell to the large customers based on the above but also their need to > >keep from having to grow their own capital expenditures. > > > >It took a little while to fit the function, and both the large and small customers were > >happy with that chargeback model. > > > >If you need an assist with the function details...ping me...I will try to find our > >equation and Excel spreadsheet in my archives. > > > >Best, > > > >Joe Bishop > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Luther Allin" <lallin(a)millermartin.com> > >To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > >Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2010 5:59:30 AM > >Subject: Storage Chargeback Costs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >For those of you that are doing storage chargeback, approximately how much are you > >charging per MB or GB? I’m sure that it depends on the type of disk (FC or SATA) so if > >you don’t mind sharing numbers I’d appreciate it. > > > > > > > >Luther > > > > > > > > > >Luther Allin > >IT Manager > >Miller & Martin PLLC > > > >Suite 1000 Volunteer Bldg. > >832 Georgia Avenue > >Chattanooga, TN 37402 > >Phone (423) 785-8381 > >Fax (423) 321-1678 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > >The information contained in this e-mail message is legally privileged and confidential, > >and is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended > >recipient, please be aware that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this e-mail is > >prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by > >reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments. Thank you. > > > >Please also advise us immediately if you or your employer does not consent to receipt > >of Internet e-mail for confidential messages of this kind. > > > >DISCLAIMER > >Pursuant to Circular 230 issued by the United States Treasury Department and > >relating to practice before the Internal Revenue Service, any comment or opinion in > >this communication relating to a federal tax issue is not intended to be used, and > >cannot be used, by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties that > >may be imposed on the taxpayer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Deze e-mail en zijn bijlagen zijn uitsluitend bedoeld voor de geadresseerde(n). Indien u niet de bedoelde geadresseerde bent, gelieve de afzender te verwittigen en de e-mail bij u te verwijderen. Tenzij de e-mail anders vermeldt, is hij vertrouwelijk en is kopieren, doorzenden of verspreiden ervan niet toegelaten. Op de eventuele overeenkomst zullen de Algemene Voorwaarden Pictura van toepassing zijn. Toepasselijkheid van eventuele inkoop- op andere voorwaarden van Opdrachtgever dan wel van derden wordt dan ook uitdrukkelijk van de hand gewezen door Pictura. Opdrachtgever verklaart nadrukkelijk de Algemene Voorwaarden Pictura ontvangen te hebben en met de Algemene Voorwaarden Pictura akkoord te gaan. This email and its attachments may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this email and its attachments, you must take no action based upon them, nor must you copy, forward or show them to anyone.

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