toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

weird cifs problem
by Willeke, Jochen 11 Oct '07

11 Oct '07

Hi toasters, i have a weird cifs problem. We have a FAS6070 serving 350gb cifs space to several clients. The filer is about 50% CPU load and stats for the volume look great at all (response times are about 1ms). But the problem is once a user adds this share as an additional drive on his Windows XP the whole systems seems to get slow. I have done some tracing with wireshark and found out that the filer is responding very fast (always about 1ms or less like stats on the filer show as well) but after a request finished the client waits for about 14-70 ms for sending the next request. This seems to be some kind of client prob, but this can only be seen for that specific filer. When using another filer everything works as it is ought to. Has anybody ideas on that?? Rgds Jochen

1 0

Re: FUD?
by Jack Lyons 11 Oct '07

11 Oct '07

Thanks for all the comments. The comments came from a vendor who can't do dedupe, pointer based snapshots, flex clones, etc so they pull out the F(ear) U(ncertainity) and D(oubt) sales tool which says: if you can't beat it throw in something from left field and act as if it is a big deal.

5 4

Re: CIFS share creation security question
by Reinoud Reynders 11 Oct '07

11 Oct '07

Hi Scott, Very difficult question. The only thing what I can see is that you create 2 'root' shares on the 2 volumes. Than you create 2 DFS (distribute filesystem service from microsoft) trees (it's possible that you need two different windowsservers to separate the access control). Each department has full control on their dfs tree. They can create new shares in dfs, and use always the one root share on the filer as mount-path combined with the correct directories. It's a 'crazy' idea, but I think this must work. Good luck, Reinoud Reynders IT-manager Infrastructure & Operations UZ Leuven Belgium ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com <owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com> To: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com <owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com>; toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Wed Oct 10 22:51:31 2007 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.

2 1

RE: CIFS share creation security question
by Kevin Parker 10 Oct '07

10 Oct '07

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

Delete key question on F810
by Oskar Pienkos 06 Oct '07

06 Oct '07

Hello, I have a question regarding the boot sequence on the F810. I want to interrupt the boot sequence and I see on the screen: =============================================== Intel Open Firmware by FirmWorks Copyright 1995-2001 FirmWorks, Network Appliance. All Rights Reserved. Firmware release 3.2_i1 Press Del to abort boot, Esc to skip POST =============================================== Does anyone know what do they mean by "Del" - is it the "Delete" key on the VT-100 terminal? What would be the octal or ASCII equivalent of that, since I need somehow to remap the keys on my PC keyboard? Thanks a lot. -- Oskar

2 1

HTTPS access only to FilerView
by Kevin Parker 29 Sep '07

29 Sep '07

Has anyone had any luck restricting FilerView to *only* https/SSL? Appears that enabling SSL allows https browsing, but does not restrict it to only https, as http is still allowed. Options httpd allow to restrict to certain workstations yes, but appears there's no way to configure it such that only https is allowed, and http browsing will return 404 or something like that. Any ideas? Thanks. KP. ________________________________ 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.

4 3

luns cannot be backup via backup exec
by John Sfetsoris 29 Sep '07

29 Sep '07

hello everybody we have several luns that cannot be backued up from veritas backup exec. These luns are mounted via cifs and had initally security style unix, that recently changed to ntfs (before starting backup proccess), therfore we cannot change the lun share from "none" to"read" in order to make them capable to be backed up (the command returns "read only file system"). Plz note that these luns are snapvault destination (no snapvault destination is running during the backup proccess). Has anyone any knowledge or a workaround in how to make the lun share "read" , and what else needs to be done , to be able to backup the luns thnks in advance John

2 1

RE: luns cannot be backup via backup exec
by Kevin Parker 28 Sep '07

28 Sep '07

Just a thought, but the fact that its snapmirror destination its read only, there for backup program can't flip the archive attribute. Maybe that helps? **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: "John Sfetsoris" <John(a)ivisinfo.gr> To: "toasters(a)mathworks.com" <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: 9/28/2007 10:13 AM Subject: luns cannot be backup via backup exec hello everybody we have several luns that cannot be backued up from veritas backup exec. These luns are mounted via cifs and had initally security style unix, that recently changed to ntfs (before starting backup proccess), therfore we cannot change the lun share from "none" to"read" in order to make them capable to be backed up (the command returns "read only file system"). Plz note that these luns are snapvault destination (no snapvault destination is running during the backup proccess). Has anyone any knowledge or a workaround in how to make the lun share "read" , and what else needs to be done , to be able to backup the luns thnks in advance John ________________________________ 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

NFS and VMware
by Page, Jeremy 28 Sep '07

28 Sep '07

Are any of the toaster folks using NFS for VMware in a production environment? We have about 150 VMs across 12 servers at the moment sitting on an IBM DS4500, but I just got my budget approved to buy a nice 3040 cluster. For ease of backup/restore/DR I really would like to use NFS instead of FCP/iSCSI but I don't know what the performance impact will be. Any comments/experiences? This message (including any attachments) contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended only for the addressee. Any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may constitute a violation of law. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by responding to this e-mail, and delete the message from your system. If you have any questions about this e-mail please notify the sender immediately.

2 1

Re: ONTAP UPGRADE - FEEDBACK REQUEST
by JacekN 27 Sep '07

27 Sep '07

Philip Boyle wrote: > Hi guys, > > > > I'm currently running a number of FAS940 clusters with DATA ONTAP Version > 7.0.4 (Sun Feb 5 00:52:53 PST 2006 ) > > Primarily NFS with some ISCSI. > > > > I'd like to hear back from you re your experiences upgrading to the current > s/w releases available on the NOW Site for the FAS940 > > series system. I have done 7.0.4->7.2.2 on NFS/CIFS FAS270s with Sync SnapMirror (in May) and 7.0.4->7.2.3 on NFS FAS960c. The second one was completely seamless (I had service window so I did not bother myself with NDU). But the first NOT. We have faced two issues, both solved with NetApp support: - After upgrade CPU utilization was significantly higher (even after i2p conversion) than before. The problem applies to FASes with small amount of memory and was solved with some FlexShare settings. - The second one was serious: NTFS file permissions were displayed incorrectly from NFS clients although access rights were enforced properly. Customer's scripts stopped to work so NetApp suggested some setflag workaround. Although it was not in line with manuals and whitepapers NetApp called it feature. Now it is recorded as bug 245785. I have also done several other upgrades on different platforms and from different ONTAP releases including 6.4. No problems at all because all the filers were non-production ones ;-) It was expected behavior basing on Murphy's law ;-) Best regards, Jacek --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 000777-1, 2007-09-26 Tested on: 2007-09-27 23:00:46 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com

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