toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13545 discussions

NSO-153 storage networking exam
by kunle windapo 06 Sep '07

06 Sep '07

hi guys, has anyone taken the new nso-153 storage networking exam? i need to know if the questions are similar to what we have in nso-121, nso-131 and nso-151 exams. thank you. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&…

1 0

No spare disks for root
by coolhand2120 06 Sep '07

06 Sep '07

I have a netapp F760 with 4 FC shelves, because I'm ignorant of how these things work I added all my disks (28x72gb) to my root volume. Now I have no spare disks, and no room in any shelf to add disks. What do I do? I don't care about the information on the filer, I just want a root volume with 2 disks! I promise not to use all the disks on a single root volume again! I have a /etc directory on a NFS host. I don't have NFS license though so I can't copy files onto the filer via NFS, I have a CIFS license but for some reasons it says "access denied" when a CIFS client tries to access it. I have console access and telnet access, I'm so frustrated I took the filer home so I have physical access. I don't however have a support contract with netapp or an account on their site (pending their review of my application). I can't create any new volumes because all the disks are assigned to the root volume vol0. Is there anyway to fix this? -Coolhand2120 -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/No-spare-disks-for-root-tf4380728.html#a12487751 Sent from the Network Appliance - Toasters mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

3 3

RE: No spare disks for root
by Alan McLachlan 05 Sep '07

05 Sep '07

Hi Coolhand, Why do you feel that having the small amount of root info in the /etc directory in the same volume as your data is a problem? Having all the disks on the root volume isn't really a problem. I installed many filers in the days before NetApp started recommending people dedicate two disks for the root volume, and never had any issues with using the root vol for data. In fact most of my customers for five years or so when I worked as an SE for a NetApp reseller user vol0 for data such as user homedirs and workgroup directories and no-one even really thought about it. A second volume is needed only where you want to change volume level options ("minra", "noatimeupdate" etc), or have a separate volume for database tablespace files or iSCSI/FCP LUN's. Qtree quotas can deal with most space restriction requirements. Also you will want multiple volumes if you're doing bare-metal backups ("snapmirror to tape") or DR replication for application data volumes with differing RTO's/RPO's. The only real advantage to be gained by dedicating disks for the root volume in earlier versions (before Ontap 7 with FlexVols with it's obvious additional benefits) is that the disks for a dedicated non-root data volume can be moved as a set to another filer and that data volume is then available on the second filer as a foreign volume without having to do extra steps after boot. Any other issues are about configuration and administration and are easy to deal with if you know what you're doing. The obvious major disadvantage to dedicating two disks for the root volume is the vast waste of storage space* at least in Ontap 7 with FlexVol you can have a dedicated root vol for administrative separation purposes without wasting space, although you now if you move physical disk sets all volumes in the same aggregate are visible on the filer you move the disks to. The administrative issues you mentioned are easily fixed. Just rerun CIFS setup and reconfigure to give yourself access. Or if you don't want to change an existing domain configuration you can modify the security information in /etc via the "rdfile" and "wrfile" commands with cut-and-paste, i.e. add the SID for the windows user to the "Administrators" group in lclgroups.cfg and/or add a mapping for the Windows user to "root" in usermap.cfg. Another thing to check is the security style on the volume and the permissions on the /etc directory. One handy thing to do is make the /etc directory a qtree: Filer> qtree create etcnew Copy the contents of /etc to /etcnew Rename /etc to /etcold (from Windows) Rename /etcnew to /etc Then you can delete the /etcold directory or keep it there for a backup. The advantage of doing this is it allows you to separate out /etc for quota management purposes. Also, for a CIFS-only filer in a large domain environment where you want to restrict access to /etc to only specific filer admins you can set the security style on /etc to "unix" then create mappings to "root" in usermap.cfg for specific Windows admin accounts while locking the rest of the "domain admins" out of /etc. You can edit the UNIX permissions on the new /etc qtree using the free SecureShare Access". I've done this on a couple of CIFS-only sites where they had lots of domain admins but wanted only specifically trained filer admins to have access to /etc and it works a treat. Hope this helps. If you need any more information send me an email to my personal address, AlanMac"at"technologist.com ^ (to avoid spambots when this post goes to the toasters archive web page) Regards, Alan McLachlan Technical Consultant EBM-2 Project Queensland Health Ph. +61 7 31311618 Mobile +61 428 655644 _____________________________________________ From: coolhand2120 [mailto:tony@claydesign.com] Sent: Wednesday, 5 September 2007 9:34 AM To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Subject: No spare disks for root I have a netapp F760 with 4 FC shelves, because I'm ignorant of how these things work I added all my disks (28x72gb) to my root volume. Now I have no spare disks, and no room in any shelf to add disks. What do I do? I don't care about the information on the filer, I just want a root volume with 2 disks! I promise not to use all the disks on a single root volume again! I have a /etc directory on a NFS host. I don't have NFS license though so I can't copy files onto the filer via NFS, I have a CIFS license but for some reasons it says "access denied" when a CIFS client tries to access it. I have console access and telnet access, I'm so frustrated I took the filer home so I have physical access. I don't however have a support contract with netapp or an account on their site (pending their review of my application). I can't create any new volumes because all the disks are assigned to the root volume vol0. Is there anyway to fix this? -Coolhand2120 -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/No-spare-disks-for-root-tf4380728.html#a12487751 Sent from the Network Appliance - Toasters mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ***************************************************************** This email, including any attachments sent with it, is confidential and for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). This confidentiality is not waived or lost, if you receive it and you are not the intended recipient(s), or if it is transmitted/ received in error. Any unauthorised use, alteration, disclosure, distribution or review of this email is strictly prohibited. The information contained in this email, including any attachment sent with it, may be subject to a statutory duty of confidentiality if it relates to health service matters. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or if you have received this email in error, you are asked to immediately notify the sender by telephone collect on Australia +61 1800 198 175 or by return email. You should also delete this email, and any copies, from your computer system network and destroy any hard copies produced. If not an intended recipient of this email, you must not copy, distribute or take any action(s) that relies on it; any form of disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this email is also prohibited. Although Queensland Health takes all reasonable steps to ensure this email does not contain malicious software, Queensland Health does not accept responsibility for the consequences if any person's computer inadvertently suffers any disruption to services, loss of information, harm or is infected with a virus, other malicious computer programme or code that may occur as a consequence of receiving this email. Unless stated otherwise, this email represents only the views of the sender and not the views of the Queensland Government. ****************************************************************

2 1

Re: No spare disks for root.
by Alan McLachlan 05 Sep '07

05 Sep '07

Sorry about that last post being so full of typos - it was rushed as I'm at work and didn't want to waste much time on it. Adam is obviously correct that you'll need to restart from scratch now if you need to reconfigure your volume layout, which will require a backup and restore if there's any real data there. Just carefully consider whether you really need a second or third volume from the perspective of your data profile, not just because of the general recommendation for a separate root volume. Not only will you lose most of one disk's worth of space, you're wasting another drive for parity. As long as you have your backup and restore procedures nailed down so you don't risk overwriting your active /etc directory on a full volume restore it's really not worth it. You can always keep a copy of your /etc config files on other media for quick recovery just in case anyway. regards, Alan McLachlan Technical Consultant EBM-2 Project Queensland Health Ph. +61 7 31311618 Mobile 0428 655644 ***************************************************************** This email, including any attachments sent with it, is confidential and for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). This confidentiality is not waived or lost, if you receive it and you are not the intended recipient(s), or if it is transmitted/ received in error. Any unauthorised use, alteration, disclosure, distribution or review of this email is strictly prohibited. The information contained in this email, including any attachment sent with it, may be subject to a statutory duty of confidentiality if it relates to health service matters. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or if you have received this email in error, you are asked to immediately notify the sender by telephone collect on Australia +61 1800 198 175 or by return email. You should also delete this email, and any copies, from your computer system network and destroy any hard copies produced. If not an intended recipient of this email, you must not copy, distribute or take any action(s) that relies on it; any form of disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this email is also prohibited. Although Queensland Health takes all reasonable steps to ensure this email does not contain malicious software, Queensland Health does not accept responsibility for the consequences if any person's computer inadvertently suffers any disruption to services, loss of information, harm or is infected with a virus, other malicious computer programme or code that may occur as a consequence of receiving this email. Unless stated otherwise, this email represents only the views of the sender and not the views of the Queensland Government. ****************************************************************

1 0

CIFS & Cluster Failover
by Carl Howell 31 Aug '07

31 Aug '07

If I'm running CIFS on node 1 of a cluster, and I failover node 2 to node 1, will it disrupt the CIFS connections on node 1? Thanks, --Carl

3 2

RE: CIFS & Cluster Failover
by Kevin Parker 31 Aug '07

31 Aug '07

Nope. Other way around would present a short disruption, but cf way yuo're going is fine. **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: "Carl Howell" <chowell(a)uwf.edu> To: "toasters(a)mathworks.com" <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: 8/31/2007 12:22 PM Subject: CIFS & Cluster Failover If I’m running CIFS on node 1 of a cluster, and I failover node 2 to node 1, will it disrupt the CIFS connections on node 1? Thanks, --Carl ________________________________ 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

Customer Support Bulletin CSB-0708-03: Critical Upgrade – AT-FCX FW to v34
by Philip Boyle 30 Aug '07

30 Aug '07

Hi guys, Has anyone had any issues with this firmware upgrade? http://now.netapp.com/NOW/products/csb/csb0708-03.shtml Thanks, Philip

9 10

Dump
by David McWilliams 29 Aug '07

29 Aug '07

I know this is a little 'non-NetApp' related, but please bear with me. I am in the process of trying to troubleshoot a Veritas NDMP backup problem on a filer. I have been asked to try using the dump command on the filer to see if I can backup successfully, thus taking NetBackup out of the picture. I would appear to have an NDMP three-way config, is using the dump command to check this config valid? -- Sláinte, David Get a safer, faster, better web browser @ http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

4 6

clarion cx3-20 vs. netapp
by Willeke, Jochen 28 Aug '07

28 Aug '07

Hi toasters, has anyone a clue to which netapp modell the clarion cx3-20 can be compared?? I have read an older toasters-post where it is put in the ring with a fas270c. Is this really a good competitor? What do you think? Best Regards and thanks for your opinion Jochen

5 5

Cifs ACL reporting
by Jon Hill 26 Aug '07

26 Aug '07

We have a requirement to audit our cifs share security on a monthly basis. For my windows servers I use a vbscript leveraging WMI and the Win32_LogicalShareSecuritySetting. The filers don't respond to the WMI calls, so I thought I'd use plink to execute a cifs shares command. The problem is the formatting of the output of that command is atrocious - basically machine-unreadable. If I grep for "Domain Users," for example, I miss the shares that the group has access to. Plus the description field is usually separated from the path by a single space, which means there's no way for a script to tell where the path ends and the description begins (our paths include spaces). FilerView produces exactly the same output. I thought DFM might help but after reviewing the documentation it doesn't look like it applies. Has anyone come up with a good way to generate a useful (preferably tab-delimited) report on a filer's share permissions? If not I can ignore the description and path fields and kludge together the output I need. I was just hoping for a better way.

3 4

Jump to page:

2026

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