toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

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

Assymetrical ipspace on cluster
by JacekN 27 Sep '07

27 Sep '07

IHAC who is using vfilers in non-default ipspaces on the cluster. Simplified configuration is like this: - node1: vfiler vf1 in ipspace ips1 - node2: ipspace defined but no vfiler uses it In both cases ipspaces includes single mode vif (I am not sure if it is significant in this problem). The configuration does not work during takeover of node1 by node2: there is no interface active for partner takeover (because no vfiler is defined in the ipspace ips1). I reproduced this problem on the simulator and found workaround: to create dummy vfiler on the node2 in the ipspace ips1. Is there any more elegant solution? Is it a bug or a feature? Best regards, Jacek Nogala --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 000776-1, 2007-09-24 Tested on: 2007-09-25 22:33:37 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com

1 1

Re: NFS and VMware
by Doucet, Hugo 27 Sep '07

27 Sep '07

Jeremy I suggest you consult this weeks posts on Dave Hitz blog (NetApp founder) and people's comments. The blog can be found via a link right pane on www.netapp.com Hugo (NetApp employee) -----Original Message----- From: Page, Jeremy <jeremy.page(a)gilbarco.com> To: toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Thu Sep 27 14:26:47 2007 Subject: NFS and VMware 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.

6 6

Keeping CIFS from autostarting
by Nils Vogels 26 Sep '07

26 Sep '07

Hi! Is there any known way of keeping CIFS from autostarting upon reboot, once CIFS has been configured? Greets, Nils -- Simple guidelines to happiness: Work like you don't need the money, Love like your heart has never been broken and Dance like no one can see you.

8 9

Time issue
by David McWilliams 26 Sep '07

26 Sep '07

I'm have weird stuff going on, it seems like it may be related to the timezone thingy, but I can't think why. We have a FAS250 running 7.0.4. Timed is configured and is pulling the time from the domain controller. The times appear to be in sync (confirmed in the messages file). We cannot mount the shares, it refuses due to the times being more than 5mins apart. The timezone is being reported as EST. When we changed the timezone to US/Michigan and rebooted. It now reports the time as exactly one hour ahead and the timezone is EDT. Right now I have disabled timed and set the time manually - all is well... for now. Does anyone have any ideas? -- Sláinte, David Get a safer, faster, better web browser @ http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

3 2

RE: ONTAP UPGRADE - FEEDBACK REQUEST
by Borzenkov, Andrey 26 Sep '07

26 Sep '07

As you have clusters, I would recommend first updating to 7.0.6 and then – if required – to 7.2.3 or whatever version is available at this time. Then both of them are NDU. NDU between major releases are supported first starting with 7.2.3 and minimal base release is 7.0.6. Personally I do not see any point jumping through 7.1 additionally. Otherwise update from 7.0.4 directly to 7.2.3 was quite straightforward. С уважением / With best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüβen --- Andrey Borzenkov Senior system engineer ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Philip Boyle Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 9:19 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: ONTAP UPGRADE - FEEDBACK REQUEST 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. http://now.netapp.com/NOW/cgi-bin/software?product=Data+ONTAP&platform=FAS9…. Our immediate options are to take a small step to 7.0.6, move up a little further to 7.1.2.1 or go for the latest and greatest, 7.2.3. Have you guys seen any issues along the upgrade path to any of the above releases? Looking at the stats there are a decent number of systems running 7.2.3, however the average run-time days per system is quite low. Feedback appreciated. Thanks, Philip

5 5

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