toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

snap shots stop working
by Linux Admin 12 Apr '07

12 Apr '07

After making changes to snap schedule, snapshost are no longer working on the cluster. Veriosn: NetApp Release 7.1.1: #rsh netapp1 snap sched Volume vol0: 0 2 6@8,12,16,20 Volume vol1: 2 9 1@15 No new snap shots for 2 weeks. Manual snapshot creation work fine. Any ideas? Much appreciated. Thanks

3 4

Re: snap shots stop working
by Davies,Matt 11 Apr '07

11 Apr '07

Are you using NDMP and snapmirror ? -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com <owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com> To: NetApp Toasters List <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Wed Apr 11 20:27:53 2007 Subject: snap shots stop working After making changes to snap schedule, snapshost are no longer working on the cluster. Veriosn: NetApp Release 7.1.1: #rsh netapp1 snap sched Volume vol0: 0 2 6@8,12,16,20 Volume vol1: 2 9 1@15 No new snap shots for 2 weeks. Manual snapshot creation work fine. Any ideas? Much appreciated. Thanks _____________________________________________________________ This e-mail (including all attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify us immediately at help(a)generalatlantic.com <mailto:help@generalatlantic.com>. Thank You.

2 1

reallocate experience?
by Philip Boyle 11 Apr '07

11 Apr '07

Hi guys, Has anyone seen any issues with using the reallocate command in relation to a) increase in snap shot usage b) performance impact c) length of time to run the reallocation? I may have a requirement to reduce the raid group size option( currently 28 ) on an existing 12 disk aggregate to 16 and add additional disks, thus potentially creating the presence of 'hot disks' in the primary raid group which will have been increased from 12 to 16 disks. http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/ docs/ontap/rel70rc/html/ontap/cmdref/man1/na_reallocate.1.htm Any feedback on past experience would be useful. I'm running ONTAP 7.0.4 on an FAS940 cluster with legacy LRC modules and 36G disks. Thanks, Philip

3 3

Ontap 7.2.2 or 7.1.2.1
by Davies,Matt 11 Apr '07

11 Apr '07

Morning all, After a considerable number of months running 7.1 without any problems, we finally got hit by a bug.....A problem between snapmirror, NDMP and various wafl scan processes. http://now.netapp.com/NOW/cgi-bin/bol?Type=Detail&Display=165640 Now the best solution seems to be to upgrade, the question is to which release ? The choices are Ontap 7.1.2.1 or 7.2.2 Is anyone out there running either already ? Have you come across any major bugs in either already ? Cheers Matt __________________________________________________ Matt Davies General Atlantic 83 Pall Mall London SW1Y 5ES UK Tel: +44 (0) 20 7484 3203 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7484 2803 Mobile: +44 (0) 77 7559 4265 http://www.generalatlantic.com/ Email: mdavies(a)generalatlantic.com <mailto:mdavies@generalatlantic.com> __________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ This e-mail (including all attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify us immediately at help(a)generalatlantic.com <mailto:help@generalatlantic.com>. Thank You.

4 3

"Unable to send_ errno = No buffer space available" errors on F740
by Greg Earle 10 Apr '07

10 Apr '07

Greetings, fellow Toaster-ites. Hopefully this will distract you from the previous l1nux4411 "I'm 16 and Linux r00lz" troll-fest ... We've got a creaky old F740 running 6.3.1R1 that's performed yeoman duty for us for many years. All of a sudden it's having regular (at least once an hour) issues with "No buffer space available" errors that cause temporary NFS mount hiccup issues. I'm not sure how bad the situation is but it hasn't happened to us before (we also had our first panic on the F740 the other day, too) and more to the point, a reboot didn't fix the problem - it came right back shortly thereafter. Which is what worries me - a reboot should've fixed the issue, at least for awhile. I'm also troubled that there doesn't seem to be any tunable options parameter to increase the number of kernel buffers (or kernel buffer space in general) to deal with this issue. Has any other Toaster-ite run into this before? Here's the configuration and the error messages below. Thanks, - Greg Earle ------- Begin Forwarded Message ===== SYSCONFIG-A ===== NetApp Release 6.3.1R1: Thu Feb 20 04:06:12 PST 2003 System ID: 00XXXXXXXX (toaster) System Serial Number: XXXXX (toaster) slot 0: System Board (NetApp System Board V N4) Model Name: F740 Serial Number: NNNNNN Firmware release: 2.8_a2 Processors: 1 Memory Size: 512 MB Apr 9 17:12:59 notatoaster1 automount[27576]: >> mount: toaster:/vol/ vol1/local failed, reason given by server: Permission denied Apr 9 17:12:59 toaster Mon Apr 9 17:12:59 PDT [nis_main:warning]: Bound to preferred NIS server NNN.NN.NN.69_n Apr 9 17:12:59 toaster Mon Apr 9 17:12:59 PDT [nis_poll:error]: Cannot send NIS binding request to NNN.NN.NN.70 : No buffer space available Apr 9 17:12:59 toaster Mon Apr 9 17:12:59 PDT [nis_poll:error]: Cannot send NIS binding request to NNN.NN.NN.69 : No buffer space available Apr 9 17:12:59 toaster Mon Apr 9 17:12:59 PDT [mountd_main:warning]: yp_match: clnt_call: RPC: Unable to send_ errno = No buffer space available Apr 9 17:12:59 toaster Mon Apr 9 17:12:59 PDT [nis_main:warning]: Preferred NIS Server NNN.NN.NN.69 not responding_n Apr 9 17:12:59 toaster Mon Apr 9 17:12:59 PDT [nis_main:info]: NIS server(s) not available Apr 9 17:12:59 toaster Mon Apr 9 17:12:59 PDT [nis_poll:info]: NIS server(s) not available Apr 9 17:12:59 notatoaster automount[27576]: mount(nfs): nfs: mount failure toaster:/vol/vol1/local on /usr/local Apr 9 17:12:59 toaster Mon Apr 9 17:12:59 PDT [nis_poll:warning]: Bound to preferred NIS server NNN.NN.NN.70_n Apr 9 17:14:19 notatoaster2 automount[15953]: >> mount: mount to NFS server 'toaster' failed: timed out (retrying). Apr 9 17:15:38 toaster Mon Apr 9 17:15:38 PDT [mountd_main:warning]: yp_match: clnt_call: RPC: Unable to send_ errno = No buffer space available Apr 9 17:15:38 toaster Mon Apr 9 17:15:38 PDT [nis_main:warning]: Preferred NIS Server NNN.NN.NN.70 not responding_n Apr 9 17:15:38 toaster Mon Apr 9 17:15:38 PDT [nis_main:warning]: Bound to preferred NIS server NNN.NN.NN.69_n Apr 9 17:15:38 toaster Mon Apr 9 17:15:38 PDT [nis_poll:error]: Cannot send NIS binding request to NNN.NN.NN.70 : No buffer space available Apr 9 17:15:38 toaster Mon Apr 9 17:15:38 PDT [nis_poll:error]: Cannot send NIS binding request to NNN.NN.NN.69 : No buffer space available Apr 9 17:15:38 toaster Mon Apr 9 17:15:38 PDT [nis_main:warning]: Preferred NIS Server NNN.NN.NN.69 not responding_n Apr 9 17:15:38 toaster Mon Apr 9 17:15:38 PDT [nis_main:info]: NIS server(s) not available Apr 9 17:15:38 toaster Mon Apr 9 17:15:38 PDT [nis_poll:info]: NIS server(s) not available Apr 9 17:15:40 toaster Mon Apr 9 17:15:40 PDT [nis_poll:warning]: Bound to preferred NIS server NNN.NN.NN.70_n

3 3

Re: "Unable to send_ errno = No buffer space available" errors on F740
by Greg Earle 10 Apr '07

10 Apr '07

tmac wrote: > Have you thought about upgrading the current release? > like 6.5.7something? I can't even find where the latest release is. I think our support contract may have expired (our F740 is obviously EOL'ed and frankly, we had expected to be completely moved off of it and onto our SAN by now, but the wheels of industry grind slowly around here), so I don't know what the status is of that. We keep getting the NetApp Field Alerts, but I don't know if that indicates we still have a valid service contract or not. (And the guy who used to handle our NOW account left and moved down to Costa Rica) Other than knowing that ONTAP 7.x doesn't run on an F740, what's the latest version that does? (Assuming I can find out whether we're still entitled/able to get ahold of it) - Greg

2 1

Linux on netapp filers
by linux4ever＠hushmail.com 10 Apr '07

10 Apr '07

Hello, we received a couple netapp filers and have some questions about upgrading them. 1) what version of linux will run on these filers (preferably gentoo) and what is the upgrade procedure? 2) setting up volumes does not allow me to format them with EXT3 or ReiserFS currently so i will need to know how that is done for increased filesystem performance and reliability 3) what brand/type of off the shelf disks will work with these systems? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Linux is the choice of a GNU generation -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- Click for free info on online degrees and make $150K/ year http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/CAaCXv1WBTAcV0HTxGkWPENUHMqa3zaJ/

4 3

Re: Linux on netapp filers
by linux4ever＠hushmail.com 09 Apr '07

09 Apr '07

to use anything but 100% open source in the enterprise is a moral crime. no company should pay money for closed source evil platforms that do not strive to increase the common good. plus linux outperforms just about anything on the market when you do it right. why would we want to support microsoft or companies that engage in the killing of third world people and put profits in front of mankind? we dont want a linux server just a nice appliance that we can put linux on and use proven technologies like ext3 or reiserfs and serve up our open source content. i strongly doubt WAFFLE is as robust or fast as similar linux raid filesystems. perhaps if netapp switched to linux they could also help the environment and help companies too but i dont know much about if they care about the people >On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 10:04:30 -0700 Blake Golliher ><thelastman(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>Installing linux on an awesome box like a 940 is pretty insane >>dude. >>As a server, you might find it underpowered. It's got 6g of >>memory, >>and 1.6 P4 Zeon processor (two I think). While you can get a >>modern >>Dell 1950 with a dual core Intel proc and 8g of ram for around >6k. >>Maybe you got a smokin' deal on the 940? Maybe you have no >>support, >>or any licenses on this box? I'm not sure you are going to get >>what >>you want out of this. A 940 is an awesome OnTap platform, for >NFS >>block storage. As a platform for Linux or BSD, it might not be >>the >>best of choices. >> >>Good luck, >> >>-Blake -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- Click for free info on online degrees and make $150K/ year http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/CAaCXv1S7Yc7BMeOuIymzf7zQymAMmSx/

8 7

Re: Linux on netapp filers
by Blake Golliher 09 Apr '07

09 Apr '07

Installing linux on an awesome box like a 940 is pretty insane dude. As a server, you might find it underpowered. It's got 6g of memory, and 1.6 P4 Zeon processor (two I think). While you can get a modern Dell 1950 with a dual core Intel proc and 8g of ram for around 6k. Maybe you got a smokin' deal on the 940? Maybe you have no support, or any licenses on this box? I'm not sure you are going to get what you want out of this. A 940 is an awesome OnTap platform, for NFS block storage. As a platform for Linux or BSD, it might not be the best of choices. Good luck, -Blake On 4/9/07, linux4ever(a)hushmail.com <linux4ever(a)hushmail.com> wrote: > they say 940. we really need to know how to get open source linux > on them to make them useable and expandable for our needs. running > anything that is closed source is a completely reprehensible > situation and not something a moral netizen would wish to do. > > we tried redhat and debian but so far have not been able to netboot > or load linux yet. any help to get a valid open source solution > with linux would be great. > > yours in tux > > On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 09:21:48 -0700 Blake Golliher > <thelastman(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >What kind of filers are these? Some old 540's or 760's? What's > >the > >model type? > > > >On 4/9/07, linux4ever(a)hushmail.com <linux4ever(a)hushmail.com> > >wrote: > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> we received a couple netapp filers and have some questions about > >> upgrading them. > >> > >> 1) what version of linux will run on these filers (preferably > >> gentoo) and what is the upgrade procedure? > >> > >> 2) setting up volumes does not allow me to format them with EXT3 > >or > >> ReiserFS currently so i will need to know how that is done for > >> increased filesystem performance and reliability > >> > >> 3) what brand/type of off the shelf disks will work with these > >> systems? > >> > >> > >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > >> Linux is the choice of a GNU generation > >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > >> > >> -- > >> Click for free info on online degrees and make $150K/ year > >> http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/CAaCXv1WBTAcV0HTxGkWPENUHMqa3zaJ/ > >> > >> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Linux is the choice of a GNU generation > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > -- > Click for top financial advice. Reduce debt & save for retirement > http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/CAaCXv1QQTm54fVMu2LpyMddKqQsRx5P/ > >

1 0

number of disks in an aggregate ?
by John Foley 09 Apr '07

09 Apr '07

Hi all, I wanted to ask the collective wisdom out there about how many disks to put in an aggregate. I have an F825 with 2 DS14 shelves, currently set up as 1 aggregate (so 28 disks in the aggregate), double parity, and 2 spares. I will be adding another DS14 shelf, identical disks as the other 2 shelves. My preference is to just extend the existing aggregate to 42 disks, and set up another volume for the new data that will be going on there - but I believe NetApp says that 28 disks is the max for an aggregate. So, question is - anyone out there using more than 28 (like 42 !) disks in an aggregate ? Is it possible ? recommended ? I thought that the more disks the better in an aggregate for performance reasons, but I thought I'd see what you all say ! Thanks, John -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ John Foley < johnf(a)comm.mot.com > sent from Windows using Thunderbird

3 4

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