toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

Re: removing a loop from running filer
by Borders, Rich 18 Oct '07

18 Oct '07

You eventy need to pull the enclosure services drives and make the loop unstable. It is easy to test, but individual circumstances can come into play. That means a test and repro may not be sufficient and the ultimate answer is no support. -----Original Message----- From: Leeds, Daniel <dleeds(a)edmunds.com> To: George, Andrew <Andrew.George(a)anz.com>; Fox, Adam; toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Mon Oct 15 19:41:59 2007 Subject: RE: removing a loop from running filer i got a suggestion to do a disk remove of all the spares on the loop first and then down the loop interface as well. i realize this is not supported or recommended but this environment would take hours to bring down and back up and even for the 70 seconds or so it would take to reboot many apps are not graceful and would crash/corrupt because of this. rock and a hard place, hours of downtime affecting numerous services may be the only safe way to go. sigh. -- Daniel Leeds Manager, Storage Operations Edmunds, Inc. 1620 26th Street, Suite 400 South Santa Monica, CA 90404 310-309-4999 desk 310-430-0536 cell -----Original Message----- From: George, Andrew [mailto:Andrew.George@anz.com] Sent: Mon 10/15/2007 4:37 PM To: Fox, Adam; Leeds, Daniel; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: removing a loop from running filer I've had mixed results and as Adam said, it's not supported. If you absolutely have to I'd do a storage disable adapter before I uncabled (Oh and turn off Autosupport, you'll get a freaky number of cases generated back at NetApp's if you don't) _____ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Fox, Adam Sent: Tuesday, 16 October 2007 9:00 AM To: Leeds, Daniel; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: removing a loop from running filer I don't believe this is an official supported procedure. There are reports that it has worked, but there are others that it has caused crashes. I would wait until you can take a quick downtime before doing this. -- Adam Fox adamfox(a)netapp.com _____ From: Leeds, Daniel [mailto:dleeds@edmunds.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 4:26 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: removing a loop from running filer I have not done this recently so I was hoping someone on the list has. Basically I need to decomission a loop on an existing filer and migrate the shelves to another filer. I need to do this with the original filer live and running no downtime can be incurred. the aggregate has been destroyed the disks were all zeroed and are now spares i have verified each individual disk resides in the shelfs/loop i need to remove and no data/root disks are in this loop cluster failover will be disabled during this procedure. at this point i should be able to remove the optical loop cabling and the filer will complain but otherwise keep on running correct? thanks for any input in advance -- Daniel Leeds Manager, Storage Operations Edmunds, Inc. 1620 26th Street, Suite 400 South Santa Monica, CA 90404 310-309-4999 desk 310-430-0536 cell "This e-mail and any attachments to it (the "Communication") is, unless otherwise stated, confidential, may contain copyright material and is for the use only of the intended recipient. If you receive the Communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete the Communication and the return e-mail, and do not read, copy, retransmit or otherwise deal with it. Any views expressed in the Communication are those of the individual sender only, unless expressly stated to be those of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ABN 11 005 357 522, or any of its related entities including ANZ National Bank Limited (together "ANZ"). ANZ does not accept liability in connection with the integrity of or errors in the Communication, computer virus, data corruption, interference or delay arising from or in respect of the Communication."

2 1

Upgrade FAS940 from Ontap 6.5.5 to 7.2.3 - any thing I should be aware of?
by Bryano 17 Oct '07

17 Oct '07

Hi, We are looking to upgrade our 2 FAS940's from Ontap 6.5.5 to Ontap 7.2.3. We currently use traditional volumes and want to migrate them all to Flex volumes once Ontap has been upgraded, at present we have approx 4TB of data however we do not have sufficient free space to create new aggregates and flex volumes to copy the data in to before destroying the original trad volumes and converting them to agregates therefore we have purchased 2 additional shelves which will give us space to do this (once the upgrades are finished we plan to attach one of the extra shelfs to each filer), the (abbreviated) plan for each filer is to: 1. shutdown all production services 2. break the synchronous snapmirrors 3. connect the shelves 4. upgrade the disk firmwares to the latest levels 5. upgrade to Ontap 7.2.3 6. create an aggregate on the 2 new shelves 7. as the data in the volumes are in qtrees QSM them to the new aggregate 8. once the data copy is complete, destroy the existing volumes and create the aggregates and new volumes 9. QSM the data back to the new aggregate 10. destroy the volumes on the new shelfs and remove them repeat steps 3 through 9 above for the other Filer remove one of the new shelves reinistialize the synchronous snapmirrors job done? One area I am not sure of is when do I upgrade the root volume (vol0), should this be done at step 6 above?, if so should I just create a new volume called for example vol0_new, copy the contents of vol0 in to it and then rename the orig vol0 to vol0_orig and rename vol0_new to vol0 and then reboot the filer for it to the new volume up before starting step 7? Also does anyone have any rough guidelines on how long it would take to snapmirror 4TB to a new shelf(s)? I am relatively new to NetApp technologies so would appreciate it if you guys would have a look over the steps above and highlight things I may need to be aware of I would appreciate it. Many thanks Bryan -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Upgrade-FAS940-from-Ontap-6.5.5-to-7.2.3---any-thing-… Sent from the Network Appliance - Toasters mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

2 1

Re: NetApp Newbie questions
by dritschel62＠yahoo.com 17 Oct '07

17 Oct '07

Anyone know how to get off this list? Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: "Javier Scanlan" <javier.scanlan(a)syc.com.mx> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:51:53 To:"'Ray Van Dolson'" <rvandolson(a)esri.com>, <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Subject: RE: NetApp Newbie questions That is right, besides 2XXX can be ordered with SAS disks inside. 2XXX systems fill the a gap between 2XX entry level and midrange 30XX. Some other thing that you should focus on is FlexShare (not need to mention SnapShots or SnapRestore), a new Ontap feature (no need to license), that let you establish priorities to volumes from VeryHigh to VeryLow, go to http://www.netapp.com/ftp/flash/flexshare-demo/flexshare_demo.html to see a demo of it. Javier Scanlan -----Mensaje original----- De: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] En nombre de Blake Golliher Enviado el: Martes, 16 de Octubre de 2007 05:12 p.m. Para: Kevin Parker CC: Ray Van Dolson; toasters(a)mathworks.com Asunto: Re: NetApp Newbie questions I'd recommend against the 270 in favor of the 2xxx systems. The 270 is an older design and showing it's age at this point. -Blake On 10/16/07, Kevin Parker <KParker(a)nwnit.com> wrote: > - the 270 is itself a shelf of disks with a shrunken head inside it, with ability to add up to 3 more additional disk shelves to it. > - for clustering, the cluster partner is simply another shrunken head module that slides into the initial shelf that you already purchased. > - licensing cluster involves purcasing the cluster license, and then of course duplicating any license you have on the first unit so all funtionality is assumed in the rare event of a cluster failover. > - as to why to look at the 2xxx series is that a)2xx series will eventually eol and b) pricing on 2xxxx is *very* aggressively good right now. > - tech support is world class. I can't explain why sales would be slow getting back to you...hmmm...never knew a sales rep who didn't want a commission check of some sort...maybe contact a partner/reseller? > Feel free to contact me directly if u have any other questions.. > > **Sent using wireless handheld... > please excuse any typo's or brevity** > Kevin Parker - NWN Corporation > kparker(a)nwnit.com > (m) 919.830.5819 > (o) 919.653.4489 > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Ray Van Dolson" <rvandolson(a)esri.com> > To: "toasters(a)mathworks.com" <toasters(a)mathworks.com> > Sent: 10/16/2007 5:16 PM > Subject: NetApp Newbie questions > > > Hello all, my company is looking at replacing our NFS home directory > storage solution (currently Sun boxes strewn all over the place) with a > centralized storage solution. We're looking at a number of options > (Sun StorageTek, etc) and NetApp is one of them. We've traditionally > been a Sun shop, so there is some comfort there with our relationship > with them and how they do support for us, but NetApp's storage > solutions would appear to be far more mature at this point. > > We'll probably be needing only around 2TB of storage to begin with, but > clearly would like the ability to expand beyond this. I've picked out > the FAS270C as a potential solution for us. > > Questions are as follows: > > With the 270C, do we purchase a "head unit" and then buy a disk shelf > and populate with disks? Or is the head unit and disk shelf one > integrated unit? > > In order to do the clustered failover does this just involve purchasing > a second head unit? Or a complete second set of disks as well? Would > we need to purchase additional software licensing to enable this > functionality? > > Any particularly compelling reason to go to a 2000-series vs the 270C > given our relatively small disk needs at this point? > > How have you all found Network Appliance's support to be? Do you need > to purchase an additional 24x7 support contract or is this included > with your appliance? Do they do on-site service? > > I am a little concerned as I have placed two requests (both via a call > and via web form) on Thursday of last week and as of today (Tuesday) I > have yet to receive a call from a sales rep. If sales is this > non-eager to get back to you -- how will support be? Perhaps if we > were looking to spend a little more $$ the first time around they'd be > more interested in returning my calls? :) > > Thanks in advance for any advice/tips. > > Ray > > Note: This message and any attachments is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, legally privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or return email and destroy or delete this message along with any attachments immediately. > >

1 0

RE: NetApp Newbie questions
by Kevin Parker 16 Oct '07

16 Oct '07

Btw, the answers to your original questions remain the same for the 2xxx series. **Sent using wireless handheld... please excuse any typo's or brevity** Kevin Parker - NWN Corporation kparker(a)nwnit.com (m) 919.830.5819 (o) 919.653.4489 -----Original Message----- From: "Blake Golliher" <thelastman(a)gmail.com> To: "Kevin Parker" <KParker(a)nwnit.com> Cc: "Ray Van Dolson" <rvandolson(a)esri.com>; "toasters(a)mathworks.com" <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: 10/16/2007 6:08 PM Subject: Re: NetApp Newbie questions I'd recommend against the 270 in favor of the 2xxx systems. The 270 is an older design and showing it's age at this point. -Blake On 10/16/07, Kevin Parker <KParker(a)nwnit.com> wrote: > - the 270 is itself a shelf of disks with a shrunken head inside it, with ability to add up to 3 more additional disk shelves to it. > - for clustering, the cluster partner is simply another shrunken head module that slides into the initial shelf that you already purchased. > - licensing cluster involves purcasing the cluster license, and then of course duplicating any license you have on the first unit so all funtionality is assumed in the rare event of a cluster failover. > - as to why to look at the 2xxx series is that a)2xx series will eventually eol and b) pricing on 2xxxx is *very* aggressively good right now. > - tech support is world class. I can't explain why sales would be slow getting back to you...hmmm...never knew a sales rep who didn't want a commission check of some sort...maybe contact a partner/reseller? > Feel free to contact me directly if u have any other questions.. > > **Sent using wireless handheld... > please excuse any typo's or brevity** > Kevin Parker - NWN Corporation > kparker(a)nwnit.com > (m) 919.830.5819 > (o) 919.653.4489 > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Ray Van Dolson" <rvandolson(a)esri.com> > To: "toasters(a)mathworks.com" <toasters(a)mathworks.com> > Sent: 10/16/2007 5:16 PM > Subject: NetApp Newbie questions > > > Hello all, my company is looking at replacing our NFS home directory > storage solution (currently Sun boxes strewn all over the place) with a > centralized storage solution. We're looking at a number of options > (Sun StorageTek, etc) and NetApp is one of them. We've traditionally > been a Sun shop, so there is some comfort there with our relationship > with them and how they do support for us, but NetApp's storage > solutions would appear to be far more mature at this point. > > We'll probably be needing only around 2TB of storage to begin with, but > clearly would like the ability to expand beyond this. I've picked out > the FAS270C as a potential solution for us. > > Questions are as follows: > > With the 270C, do we purchase a "head unit" and then buy a disk shelf > and populate with disks? Or is the head unit and disk shelf one > integrated unit? > > In order to do the clustered failover does this just involve purchasing > a second head unit? Or a complete second set of disks as well? Would > we need to purchase additional software licensing to enable this > functionality? > > Any particularly compelling reason to go to a 2000-series vs the 270C > given our relatively small disk needs at this point? > > How have you all found Network Appliance's support to be? Do you need > to purchase an additional 24x7 support contract or is this included > with your appliance? Do they do on-site service? > > I am a little concerned as I have placed two requests (both via a call > and via web form) on Thursday of last week and as of today (Tuesday) I > have yet to receive a call from a sales rep. If sales is this > non-eager to get back to you -- how will support be? Perhaps if we > were looking to spend a little more $$ the first time around they'd be > more interested in returning my calls? :) > > Thanks in advance for any advice/tips. > > Ray > > Note: This message and any attachments is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, legally privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or return email and destroy or delete this message along with any attachments immediately. > > Note: This message and any attachments is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, legally privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or return email and destroy or delete this message along with any attachments immediately.

1 0

RE: NetApp Newbie questions
by Kevin Parker 16 Oct '07

16 Oct '07

- the 270 is itself a shelf of disks with a shrunken head inside it, with ability to add up to 3 more additional disk shelves to it. - for clustering, the cluster partner is simply another shrunken head module that slides into the initial shelf that you already purchased. - licensing cluster involves purcasing the cluster license, and then of course duplicating any license you have on the first unit so all funtionality is assumed in the rare event of a cluster failover. - as to why to look at the 2xxx series is that a)2xx series will eventually eol and b) pricing on 2xxxx is *very* aggressively good right now. - tech support is world class. I can't explain why sales would be slow getting back to you...hmmm...never knew a sales rep who didn't want a commission check of some sort...maybe contact a partner/reseller? Feel free to contact me directly if u have any other questions.. **Sent using wireless handheld... please excuse any typo's or brevity** Kevin Parker - NWN Corporation kparker(a)nwnit.com (m) 919.830.5819 (o) 919.653.4489 -----Original Message----- From: "Ray Van Dolson" <rvandolson(a)esri.com> To: "toasters(a)mathworks.com" <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: 10/16/2007 5:16 PM Subject: NetApp Newbie questions Hello all, my company is looking at replacing our NFS home directory storage solution (currently Sun boxes strewn all over the place) with a centralized storage solution. We're looking at a number of options (Sun StorageTek, etc) and NetApp is one of them. We've traditionally been a Sun shop, so there is some comfort there with our relationship with them and how they do support for us, but NetApp's storage solutions would appear to be far more mature at this point. We'll probably be needing only around 2TB of storage to begin with, but clearly would like the ability to expand beyond this. I've picked out the FAS270C as a potential solution for us. Questions are as follows: With the 270C, do we purchase a "head unit" and then buy a disk shelf and populate with disks? Or is the head unit and disk shelf one integrated unit? In order to do the clustered failover does this just involve purchasing a second head unit? Or a complete second set of disks as well? Would we need to purchase additional software licensing to enable this functionality? Any particularly compelling reason to go to a 2000-series vs the 270C given our relatively small disk needs at this point? How have you all found Network Appliance's support to be? Do you need to purchase an additional 24x7 support contract or is this included with your appliance? Do they do on-site service? I am a little concerned as I have placed two requests (both via a call and via web form) on Thursday of last week and as of today (Tuesday) I have yet to receive a call from a sales rep. If sales is this non-eager to get back to you -- how will support be? Perhaps if we were looking to spend a little more $$ the first time around they'd be more interested in returning my calls? :) Thanks in advance for any advice/tips. Ray Note: This message and any attachments is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, legally privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or return email and destroy or delete this message along with any attachments immediately.

2 1

RE: CIFS share creation security question
by scott.belisle＠americas.bnpparibas.com 16 Oct '07

16 Oct '07

Ya, tried this out, and while it does remove them from the admin group, they can still add/remove shares from other volumes. We do have multistore licensed, so we are looking to go down that route. Thanks for the suggestions all! Thanks, Scott Internet rkumar2(a)ugs.com Sent by: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com 10/11/2007 12:13 AM To KParker, Scott BELISLE, owner-toasters, toasters cc Subject RE: CIFS share creation security question Try putting them in Power User Group of the filer From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Parker Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:07 AM To: scott.belisle(a)americas.bnpparibas.com; owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS share creation security question Not without V-filer/multistore. **Sent using wireless handheld... please excuse any typo's or brevity** Kevin Parker - NWN Corporation kparker(a)nwnit.com (m) 919.830.5819 (o) 919.653.4489 -----Original Message----- From: "scott.belisle(a)americas.bnpparibas.com" <scott.belisle(a)americas.bnpparibas.com> To: "owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com" <owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com>; "toasters(a)mathworks.com" <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: 10/10/2007 5:38 PM Subject: CIFS share creation security question Quick question, is there anyway to allow AD users/groups the ability to create or delete cifs shares on specific volumes, but not others? Say we have an HR and Sales volume on the same filer. Each has their own IT personnel that create shares on each specific volume, but not each other's. Right now they are in the local admin group so they can theoretically do whatever they please, but we are looking for a more granular way to lock this down. Any suggestions? Thx! This message and any attachments (the "message") is intended solely for the addressees and is confidential. If you receive this message in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender. Any use not in accord with its purpose, any dissemination or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited except formal approval. The internet can not guarantee the integrity of this message. BNP PARIBAS (and its subsidiaries) shall (will) not therefore be liable for the message if modified. Please note that certain functions and services for BNP Paribas may be performed by BNP Paribas RCC, Inc. ________________________________ Note: This message and any attachments is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, legally privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or return email and destroy or delete this message along with any attachments immediately.

1 0

Re: Microsoft DFS participation and Virtual File Manager
by Mike Partyka 16 Oct '07

16 Oct '07

Hmm, interesting, I haven¹t had any experience with MS DFS yet so my terminology if off. Thanks for all the great responses! On 10/14/07 8:44 AM, "Andre M. Clark" <Andre.Clark(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > Well this is not 100% complete. With the use of VFM, you can create a filer > hosted DFS root. Let me see if I can clear up a few things. > > By using VFM and a ³Namespace Availability² policy, you can replicate a > Stand-Alone (server based) DFS root to a filer and thus create another > Stand-Alone based root. What is generated on the filer, as Adam mentioned, > are widelinks that would correspond to the DFS targets required. > > Now, this does require at least one windows server to host the original DFS > root and to make namespace updates. However, with the use of the availability > policy, the changes can be updated every x¹ minutes. > > AC > > > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On > Behalf Of Jeff Mery > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:33 > To: Mike Partyka > Cc: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Microsoft DFS participation and Virtual File Manager > > > The answer you got from NetApp is part right and part wrong. It's correct in > that a filer cannot host a DFS root. It also cannot do some of the cooler DFS > features like DFS-R (DFS Replication) with 2003 R2 systems. However, it's > also incorrect because a filer *can* participate in DFS as a target device to > which DFS links. > > As an example, I can create a domain-based DFS root and point links within > that root at my filer with no problems. > > IIRC - VFM doesn't replace DFS, but acts more as a "manager" of DFS and gives > you some extra features from a management perspective, but you're still > required to implement DFS for VFM to work. It's been a while since we've > looked at VFM so the details are a bit fuzzy. > > Jeff Mery - MCSE, MCP > National Instruments > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Allow me to extol the virtues of the Net Fairy, and of all the fantastic > dorks that make the nice packets go from here to there. Amen." > TB - Penny Arcade > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Mike Partyka <mpartyka(a)acmn.com> > Sent by: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com 10/11/2007 09:32 AM > To "toasters(a)mathworks.com" <toasters(a)mathworks.com> > cc > Subject Microsoft DFS participation and Virtual File Manager > > > > > > > Hello All, > > I¹ve seen some posts recently talking about using the filer to participate in > a DFS schema. I asked NetApp support if a filer could participate in MS DFS > and was told no, and referred to Virtual File Manager which seems to replace > the DFS schema not allow the filer to participate. What is required from a > NetApp storage perspective to participate in MS DFS? Also does anyone have > familiarity with VFM and whether if has any advantages over VFM? > > Thx -- Michael Partyka - Technical Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Applied Communications of MN 3496 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN, 55348 o. 952 .471 .8558 c. 612 .669 .8268 e. mpartyka(a)acmn.com

1 0

synchronous snapmirror on Ontap 7.2.3
by Bryano 16 Oct '07

16 Oct '07

Hi, I am looking to upgrade from Ontap 6.5 to Ontap 7.2.3 on our FAS 940's an R270's and heard that synchronous snapmirrors are not fully supported on aggregate volumes yet and will not be until Ontap 7.3, can any one confirm this? Thanks -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/synchronous-snapmirror-on-Ontap-7.2.3-tf4589460.html#… Sent from the Network Appliance - Toasters mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

6 5

RE: removing a loop from running filer
by Leeds, Daniel 15 Oct '07

15 Oct '07

i got a suggestion to do a disk remove of all the spares on the loop first and then down the loop interface as well. i realize this is not supported or recommended but this environment would take hours to bring down and back up and even for the 70 seconds or so it would take to reboot many apps are not graceful and would crash/corrupt because of this. rock and a hard place, hours of downtime affecting numerous services may be the only safe way to go. sigh. -- Daniel Leeds Manager, Storage Operations Edmunds, Inc. 1620 26th Street, Suite 400 South Santa Monica, CA 90404 310-309-4999 desk 310-430-0536 cell -----Original Message----- From: George, Andrew [mailto:Andrew.George@anz.com] Sent: Mon 10/15/2007 4:37 PM To: Fox, Adam; Leeds, Daniel; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: removing a loop from running filer I've had mixed results and as Adam said, it's not supported. If you absolutely have to I'd do a storage disable adapter before I uncabled (Oh and turn off Autosupport, you'll get a freaky number of cases generated back at NetApp's if you don't) _____ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Fox, Adam Sent: Tuesday, 16 October 2007 9:00 AM To: Leeds, Daniel; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: removing a loop from running filer I don't believe this is an official supported procedure. There are reports that it has worked, but there are others that it has caused crashes. I would wait until you can take a quick downtime before doing this. -- Adam Fox adamfox(a)netapp.com _____ From: Leeds, Daniel [mailto:dleeds@edmunds.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 4:26 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: removing a loop from running filer I have not done this recently so I was hoping someone on the list has. Basically I need to decomission a loop on an existing filer and migrate the shelves to another filer. I need to do this with the original filer live and running no downtime can be incurred. the aggregate has been destroyed the disks were all zeroed and are now spares i have verified each individual disk resides in the shelfs/loop i need to remove and no data/root disks are in this loop cluster failover will be disabled during this procedure. at this point i should be able to remove the optical loop cabling and the filer will complain but otherwise keep on running correct? thanks for any input in advance -- Daniel Leeds Manager, Storage Operations Edmunds, Inc. 1620 26th Street, Suite 400 South Santa Monica, CA 90404 310-309-4999 desk 310-430-0536 cell "This e-mail and any attachments to it (the "Communication") is, unless otherwise stated, confidential, may contain copyright material and is for the use only of the intended recipient. If you receive the Communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete the Communication and the return e-mail, and do not read, copy, retransmit or otherwise deal with it. Any views expressed in the Communication are those of the individual sender only, unless expressly stated to be those of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ABN 11 005 357 522, or any of its related entities including ANZ National Bank Limited (together "ANZ"). ANZ does not accept liability in connection with the integrity of or errors in the Communication, computer virus, data corruption, interference or delay arising from or in respect of the Communication."

1 0

removing a loop from running filer
by Leeds, Daniel 15 Oct '07

15 Oct '07

I have not done this recently so I was hoping someone on the list has. Basically I need to decomission a loop on an existing filer and migrate the shelves to another filer. I need to do this with the original filer live and running no downtime can be incurred. the aggregate has been destroyed the disks were all zeroed and are now spares i have verified each individual disk resides in the shelfs/loop i need to remove and no data/root disks are in this loop cluster failover will be disabled during this procedure. at this point i should be able to remove the optical loop cabling and the filer will complain but otherwise keep on running correct? thanks for any input in advance -- Daniel Leeds Manager, Storage Operations Edmunds, Inc. 1620 26th Street, Suite 400 South Santa Monica, CA 90404 310-309-4999 desk 310-430-0536 cell

3 2

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