toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13523 discussions

SnapMirror to tape ; anyone adopters?
by Nick Silkey 07 May '09

07 May '09

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 If anyone has words to share on FAS -- SnapMirror --> TSM[1], good bad or ugly, send them my way. I was hoping for a TR but didnt hit on one during my brief search. Thanks! - -- Nick Silkey [1]: http://www.netapp.com/us/company/news/press-releases/news-rel-20090205.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkoDSVgACgkQrDQjhjXrMeIKWwCgzSA1TiwoFfYuIcQshOIKWKrb qBkAn1VTkVT/cyr9rc8NlnE2ghmjb8PM =LjHt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

snapmirror retrieve - multiple sites from one tape
by John Stoffel 07 May '09

07 May '09

Hi, We're starting to use snapmirror to help us migrate some data from old to new filers at sites. We're also going to use it to setup from snapmirror relationships across the WAN as well. What we'd like to do is make one tape on the source side, then ship that one tape to each of the destination sites, do the snapmirror store <vol> <drive> - ship to <dest> dest> snapmirror retrieve <vol> <drive> dest> snapmirror update -S <src>:<vol> <dest>:<vol> - ship to <another> another> snapmirror retriev <vol> <drive> another> snapmirror update -S <src>:<vol> <another>:<vol> Is this possible? It's not clear from the docs if you can do this. Hmm, looking at the Data Protection Using Snapmirror documentation, it looks like the base snapshot created by the 'store' command sticks around, and could be used for other snap mirror relationships, since it has to be manually deleted down the line. Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, John John Stoffel - Senior Staff Systems Administrator - System LSI Group Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. - http://www.toshiba.com/taec john.stoffel(a)taec.toshiba.com - 508-486-1087

1 0

NetApp3140 v EMC CX4-240
by Paul McGuinness 06 May '09

06 May '09

I am after opinions / Pros and Cons on running a substantial VMware infrastructure of approximate 200+ VMs using the 2 mentioned storage systems. Obvious benefits of the NetApp seem to be around the De-Dupe out of the box. Any other thoughts / experiences would be appreciated Fibre attached Dell R900s will be running the ESX side of things. Paul McGuinness Infrastructure Services Manager FINEOS Corporation ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS for INSURANCE, BANCASSURANCE AND SOCIAL INSURANCE __________________________________________________________ FINEOS Corporation is the global brand name of FINEOS Corporation Limited and its affiliated group companies worldwide. The information contained in this e-mail is confidential, may be privileged and is intended only for the use of the recipient named above. If you are not the intended recipient or a representative of the intended recipient, you have received this e-mail in error and must not copy, use or disclose the contents of this e-mail to anybody else. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete the copy you received. This e-mail has been swept for computer viruses. However, you should carry out your own virus checks. Registered in Ireland, No. 205721. http://www.FINEOS.com __________________________________________________________

6 7

Re-exporting your /etc/exports - how do I get a change in order of shares to take effect?
by Page, Jeremy 05 May '09

05 May '09

I have several NFS mount points that also have child directories also exported and I've been told that you should export the parent directories first, then the children. I've updated my /etc/exports file and ran exportfs -r on the filer but it does not look like it's taking effect if I do an exportfs to see what's currently exported. How do I get the exports in the correct order? Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or re-transmit this email. If you have received this email in error, please notify us by email by replying to the sender and by telephone (call us collect at +1 202-828-0850) and delete this message and any attachments. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance. In addition, Danaher and its subsidiaries disclaim that the content of this email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any contract or agreement or any amendment thereto; provided that the foregoing disclaimer does not invalidate the binding effect of any digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included in any attachment to this email.

3 3

DPM and A-SIS
by Halton, Robert 01 May '09

01 May '09

Is anyone using de-dupe on a volume that does Microsoft Data Protection Manager? If so is it worth it? Thanks This message is intended only for the person(s) to which it is addressed and may contain privileged, confidential and/or insider information. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this message and any attachment(s) by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is strictly prohibited.

1 0

Re: Warning for people doing a head upgrade from a 3050 to a 3170
by Romeo Theriault 01 May '09

01 May '09

> > I dont think the issue here, is that netapp doesnt document where to > download the PROPER version of ONTAP. Agreed. I think my biggest issue is that I misinterpreted the documentation. In the docs when it say's : Go to the NOW site at http://now.netapp.com/NOW/main/software.shtml and > download the version of Data ONTAP for your existing system that matches the > version installed on the FAS31xx system. > I interpreted this as meaning download the version for your existing system (3050 in my case) that matches the version installed on the FAS3170, which I assumed meant the version number (7.2.6.1) in my case. But..ya think you're reading "upgrade version" a little too...narrowly? Yes, I guess I was. How can Netapp prevent this chain of errors? I would say by doing what you and I have both suggested. Amending the documentation to unambiguously state what they really want to happen. -- Romeo Theriault System Administrator Information Technology Services

2 1

Re: Warning for people doing a head upgrade from a 3050 to a 3170
by Romeo Theriault 30 Apr '09

30 Apr '09

I stated in the original message: The documentation states that you need to bring the 3050 heads up-to the > same software level as the 3170 heads. If you read the rest of the doc it says this: *If your FAS3020 or FAS3050 system has... * *Then...* The same version of Data ONTAP as the FAS31xx system Go to Step 3. A version of Data ONTAP different from the one on the FAS31xx system Go to Step 2. Step 3 is to continue with the install, Step 2 is to upgrade the *version*of OnTap to the level of the FAS3170. To me version says software level, not different binaries for the different arch. Besides, step 3 is to continue with the install. Under what case would you have a 3170 build of OnTap on your filers before you start an upgrade? All of this tilted towards making me believe that they were concerned with the software version on the heads. If this is not the case it needs to be made clear. Romeo On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Kevin M. Parker <kevin(a)theparkerz.com>wrote: > Top of the document…. > > > > - Data ONTAP® 7.2.5.1 or later software or the FAS3020 or FAS3050 > system. During the upgrade, you need to download and install on the FAS3020 > or FAS3050 system the same version of Data ONTAP that is on the FAS31xx > system. > > Did I miss something, or has it been changed already? Seems like it’s good > to go. > > > > Best regards, > > > > -/- > > Kevin Parker > > 919.521.8413 > > http://theparkerz.com > > Blackle.com <http://www.blackle.com/> - Saving energy one search at a > time. > > > > *From:* owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] > *On Behalf Of *Romeo Theriault > *Sent:* Thursday, April 30, 2009 9:56 AM > *To:* Miller, Michael CTR USTRANSCOM J2; toasters(a)mathworks.com > *Subject:* Re: Warning for people doing a head upgrade from a 3050 to a > 3170 > > > > Thanks for the note. It's good to know that you didn't have any kernel > panics or such. I'll have to take a look at the OnTap download matrix. But > if anyone at Netapp is listening this, the doc that could really could use > the updating to say something about this is: > > > http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/hardware/NetApp/cs_migration/FAS3x… > > This doc is called "Upgrading from a FAS3020 or FAS3050 System in an > Active/Active Configuration to a FAS31xx System in an Active/Active > Configuration" so you would think that is would say something about this > wouldn't you? > > Romeo > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Miller, Michael CTR USTRANSCOM J2 < > michael.miller.ctr(a)ustranscom.mil> wrote: > > I had a similar problem when I upgraded a 960 to a 3040. I didn’t see the > info in the OnTap download matrix that showed the heads required a different > build version. It was there, just not obvious. Never had any problems other > than lots of the mapfile log entries. Once I loaded the correct version (q > or e versus m, I also have a 3020) all was well. > > > > Mike Miller > Site Lead > General Dynamics Information Technology > Michael.Miller.ctr(a)ustranscom.mil > Michael.Miller(a)gdit.com > > > > *From:* owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] > *On Behalf Of *Romeo Theriault > *Sent:* Thursday, April 30, 2009 7:43 AM > *To:* toasters(a)mathworks.com > *Subject:* Warning for people doing a head upgrade from a 3050 to a 3170 > > > > Here is a warning for people that might be doing a head upgrade from a 3050 > to a 3170 (and possibly other heads). The documentation states that you need > to bring the 3050 heads up-to the same software level as the 3170 heads. > This may very well be the case but they fail to mention that the 3170 uses a > different build of OnTap and that you need to upgrade OnTap on the 3170's > immediately after the upgrade with the build for the 3170's. > > So right now we are running 3170's with a build of OnTap 7.2.6.1 built for > the 3050's and getting these errors in syslog: > > na1-u-e0a [na1-u: mgr.stack.openFail:warning]: Unable to open function > name/address mapping file /etc/boot/mapfile_7.2.6.1.2O: No such file or > directory > > Netapp Supports response is: "Upgrade or you'll probably get Kernel > Panics." and "We'll try to update the documentation." Needless to say I'm > not impressed. > > -- > Romeo Theriault > System Administrator > Information Technology Services > > > > > -- > Romeo Theriault > System Administrator > Information Technology Services > -- Romeo Theriault System Administrator Information Technology Services

1 0

Warning for people doing a head upgrade from a 3050 to a 3170
by Romeo Theriault 30 Apr '09

30 Apr '09

Here is a warning for people that might be doing a head upgrade from a 3050 to a 3170 (and possibly other heads). The documentation states that you need to bring the 3050 heads up-to the same software level as the 3170 heads. This may very well be the case but they fail to mention that the 3170 uses a different build of OnTap and that you need to upgrade OnTap on the 3170's immediately after the upgrade with the build for the 3170's. So right now we are running 3170's with a build of OnTap 7.2.6.1 built for the 3050's and getting these errors in syslog: na1-u-e0a [na1-u: mgr.stack.openFail:warning]: Unable to open function name/address mapping file /etc/boot/mapfile_7.2.6.1.2O: No such file or directory Netapp Supports response is: "Upgrade or you'll probably get Kernel Panics." and "We'll try to update the documentation." Needless to say I'm not impressed. -- Romeo Theriault System Administrator Information Technology Services

4 6

Encryption of data at rest
by Paul Letta 28 Apr '09

28 Apr '09

Hi Everyone, I am looking for suggestions for encryption of data at rest on a NetApp. We use both NFS and CIFS, but no iSCSI. The clients are Linux, Windows, and Mac. Suggestions ? Experiences ? Thanks, Paul

3 2

Protection Manager
by steve klise 27 Apr '09

27 Apr '09

I have an issue with protection manager 3.7. I have a primary filer (6030 ontap 7.24) that I have backups running to another filer (3070 7.3P5D1). I have manually created the resource volumes on the 3070, and DPM creates the qtree snapmirrror relationship with no issues between filers. The backup happens at 8pm (default policy), and everything is hunky dory. Over time, the GUI has an overall status of normal, then goes to lag warning, then lag error. The snapmirror status is current, and I have removed all the alerts per kb (https://now.netapp.com/Knowledgebase/solutionarea.asp?id=kb42558), but still stays with a status of error. What is strange is if I do a manual backup, it goes from error to normal. All the jobs that run at 8pm are completed, and succeded. This is not in prod yet, but would save the backup guys about 26 hours on the weekend, so they are interested it getting this resolved. I dont want to upgrade the filers to 7.3.1. I am waiting for 7.3.2 to come out, and most likely will not go live on DPM until 3.8 comes out. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Protection-Manager-tp23262914p23262914.html Sent from the Network Appliance - Toasters mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

2 1

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