toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

Re: Vista and Netapp??
by Davies,Matt 11 Jan '07

11 Jan '07

Both are in wins. However the one that fails is dynamic and the one that works is a static. Both are in dns. It doesn't seem to help. Cheers Matt -----Original Message----- From: Willeke, Jochen <Jochen.Willeke(a)wincor-nixdorf.com> To: Davies,Matt; Brent Ellis <interi(a)bu.edu>; Callaway, Michael <Mcallaway(a)ntta.org> CC: toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Thu Jan 11 18:18:21 2007 Subject: RE: Vista and Netapp?? Hi, is it possible that the name which does not work is equal to the wins-name, and the second name is not registered with wins? Regards Jochen ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Davies,Matt Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:04 PM To: Brent Ellis; Callaway, Michael Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Vista and Netapp?? I found a way round this problem, or at least it seems to work for me. From a vista machine I am unable to connect to the shares using the filer host name, but we have our filers advertise an additional netbios name (for DR reasons), and for some reason I can connect to the shares by using the additional netbios name. Hope this helps 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> __________________________________________________ ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Brent Ellis Sent: 11 January 2007 16:21 To: Callaway, Michael Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Vista and Netapp?? We currently use this filer in production with windows 2000 and windows xp clients. I have had no user permission problems up until this point. The filer allowed us to join it to our domain and we can access the filer from windows clients and set AD permissions on folders in the file share using windows xp or 2000. I am guessing this is Microsofts way of making windows more secure or maybe a small protocol difference with CIFS in Vista that the filer is not able to deal with. BTW as I said I can connect to the filer with CIFS using accounts I explicitly setup in the filer, just not active directory accounts. Brent Ellis Computing Services Group Boston University 617-358-2486 interi(a)bu.edu cashelp(a)bu.edu On Jan 11, 2007, at 11:14 AM, Callaway, Michael wrote: Can other non-visa clients access this CIFS share in the way you want your vista box to access it? Just because your user is in AD, doesn't give it permissions on the share. You need to make sure that user has access on the filer through group and user permissions as well as the shares have to be given to that user or a group that user is in. I would first make the exact same setup on an XP or 2000 box (whichever you have) and determine if it's a user setup problem or something that can be directly attributed to Vista. -- *--------------------------------------- Michael Callaway (Server Administrator) North Texas Tollway Authority http://www.ntta.org <http://www.ntta.org/> 214-461-2033 o 214-325-5523 m 972-930-2633 f ---------------------------------------- ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Brent Ellis Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:09 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Vista and Netapp?? I am just starting to test Vista against our netapp FAS 3020c filers. We use these machines with the CIFS license for basic file sharing. The shares have Active Directory permissions applied to them and the servers have been added to AD. In Vista, I cannot connect to the servers using an AD account. Only the accounts created on the filer itself will allow me to connect from Vista. Has anyone run into this? Any solutions? Brent Ellis Computing Services Group Boston University 617-358-2486 interi(a)bu.edu cashelp(a)bu.edu ____________________________________________________________ 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. Thank You.

1 0

Vista and Netapp??
by Brent Ellis 11 Jan '07

11 Jan '07

I am just starting to test Vista against our netapp FAS 3020c filers. We use these machines with the CIFS license for basic file sharing. The shares have Active Directory permissions applied to them and the servers have been added to AD. In Vista, I cannot connect to the servers using an AD account. Only the accounts created on the filer itself will allow me to connect from Vista. Has anyone run into this? Any solutions? Brent Ellis Computing Services Group Boston University 617-358-2486 interi(a)bu.edu cashelp(a)bu.edu

3 2

Fwd: Vista and Netapp??
by Brent Ellis 11 Jan '07

11 Jan '07

I forgot to forward this to the group, I thought it might be useful for the rest of you. -Brent > Pat, > > I looked up the article you are talking about. I am running 7.1p1, > apparently this bug affects my version of DataONTAP. I tested it > and I can connect via IP, just not using the DNS Name. Looks like > I need to upgrade the filer. > > Brent Ellis > Computing Services Group > Boston University > > > On Jan 11, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Allen, Pat wrote: > >> What version of ONTAP are you running? I’m still on 6.5 and ran >> into a similar problem when trying to connect to the filers by >> name. But it would let me connect to the shares via IP address. >> Check out this article on NOW: >> http://now.netapp.com/NOW/cgi-bin/bol?Type=Detail&Display=174785 >> >> >> On 1/11/07 7:08 AM, "Brent Ellis" <interi(a)bu.edu> wrote: >> >>> I am just starting to test Vista against our netapp FAS 3020c >>> filers. We use these machines with the CIFS license for basic >>> file sharing. The shares have Active Directory permissions >>> applied to them and the servers have been added to AD. In Vista, >>> I cannot connect to the servers using an AD account. Only the >>> accounts created on the filer itself will allow me to connect >>> from Vista. >>> >>> Has anyone run into this? Any solutions? >>> >>> >>> Brent Ellis >>> Computing Services Group >>> Boston University >>>

1 0

RE: add bigger disk into raidgroup with smaller disks
by Glenn Walker 11 Jan '07

11 Jan '07

The great Will Stroh has provided the following link: http://now.netapp.com/Knowledgebase/solutionarea.asp?id=kb17958 Explains it perfectly! Maybe the rest of you lot will get some use out of the example as well :) (Thanks Will and Adam) Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Walker Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 5:07 PM To: Willeke, Jochen; tmac; Fox, Adam Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: add bigger disk into raidgroup with smaller disks I can't seem to shake the memory of one other rule - if you add a 3rd disk of larger size, the extra space DOES get used. At least it used to be like that in the past, and I assume WAFL hasn't changed. For Example 100GB DP 100GB P 50GB D 50GB D Then add another 100GB data disk and it _should_ look like: 100GB DP 100GB P 100GB D 50GB D 50GB D Can anyone confirm this? Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Willeke, Jochen Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:19 PM To: tmac; Fox, Adam Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: add bigger disk into raidgroup with smaller disks Hi, thanks...what you said is exactly what my tests showed. If the parity and DP are big enough you can run disks with different size in a raidgroup and use the whole size but this does not work if a small disk becomes replaced via a bigger one. thanks and best regards Jochen -----Original Message----- From: tmac [mailto:tmacmd@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 10:14 PM To: Fox, Adam Cc: Willeke, Jochen; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: add bigger disk into raidgroup with smaller disks Sorry Adam, I used the wrong verbiage. I meant when the disk is added...not replaced. For now, ONTAP does indeed right-size a disk down to the size of the disk that it is replacing. thanks. On 1/10/07, Fox, Adam <Adam.Fox(a)netapp.com> wrote: > No. You can't replace disks in an aggregate that way. If you do, > they will sized down to the size of the disk they replaced. > > > -- Adam Fox > adamfox(a)netapp.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Willeke, Jochen [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 3:12 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: add bigger disk into raidgroup with smaller disks > > > Hi toasters, > > currently i am testing with my simulator and searching for a way to do > the following: > > - have a raidgroup with 5 disks > - the two parity-disks plus one data-disk are 100 MB (net) > - two other data-disks are 35 MB (net) > > I want to replace the 35MB-disks with bigger ones, but everything i > tried left the "new" disk in the raidgroup with a used size of 35MB. > > Is there a way to replace a small disk with a bigger one and use the > complete size of the disk without destroying the whole raidgroup? > > Regards and thanks in advance > > Jochen > > -- --tmac RedHat Certified Engineer #804006984323821

1 0

RE: add bigger disk into raidgroup with smaller disks
by Glenn Walker 11 Jan '07

11 Jan '07

Agreed. -----Original Message----- From: Fox, Adam [mailto:Adam.Fox@netapp.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 5:31 PM To: Glenn Walker; Willeke, Jochen; tmac Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: add bigger disk into raidgroup with smaller disks Yes, I can confirm that. But that doesn't *replace* any of the 50GB disks, which is what I understood as the original question. The rules are different if you add a disk vs. fail out a disk. If you were to fail out one of the 50GB disks in your scenario, and only a 100GB disk was available, WAFL would only use 50GB of the 100GB disk and even if you failed out both 50GB disks, the two 100GB disks that replaced them would still be 50GB. That's the catch. -- Adam Fox NGS Tools Developer adamfox(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Glenn Walker [mailto:ggwalker@mindspring.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 5:07 PM To: Willeke, Jochen; tmac; Fox, Adam Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: add bigger disk into raidgroup with smaller disks I can't seem to shake the memory of one other rule - if you add a 3rd disk of larger size, the extra space DOES get used. At least it used to be like that in the past, and I assume WAFL hasn't changed. For Example 100GB DP 100GB P 50GB D 50GB D Then add another 100GB data disk and it _should_ look like: 100GB DP 100GB P 100GB D 50GB D 50GB D Can anyone confirm this? Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Willeke, Jochen Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:19 PM To: tmac; Fox, Adam Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: add bigger disk into raidgroup with smaller disks Hi, thanks...what you said is exactly what my tests showed. If the parity and DP are big enough you can run disks with different size in a raidgroup and use the whole size but this does not work if a small disk becomes replaced via a bigger one. thanks and best regards Jochen -----Original Message----- From: tmac [mailto:tmacmd@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 10:14 PM To: Fox, Adam Cc: Willeke, Jochen; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: add bigger disk into raidgroup with smaller disks Sorry Adam, I used the wrong verbiage. I meant when the disk is added...not replaced. For now, ONTAP does indeed right-size a disk down to the size of the disk that it is replacing. thanks. On 1/10/07, Fox, Adam <Adam.Fox(a)netapp.com> wrote: > No. You can't replace disks in an aggregate that way. If you do, > they will sized down to the size of the disk they replaced. > > > -- Adam Fox > adamfox(a)netapp.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Willeke, Jochen [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 3:12 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: add bigger disk into raidgroup with smaller disks > > > Hi toasters, > > currently i am testing with my simulator and searching for a way to do > the following: > > - have a raidgroup with 5 disks > - the two parity-disks plus one data-disk are 100 MB (net) > - two other data-disks are 35 MB (net) > > I want to replace the 35MB-disks with bigger ones, but everything i > tried left the "new" disk in the raidgroup with a used size of 35MB. > > Is there a way to replace a small disk with a bigger one and use the > complete size of the disk without destroying the whole raidgroup? > > Regards and thanks in advance > > Jochen > > -- --tmac RedHat Certified Engineer #804006984323821

1 0

RE: Net app support
by admin＠berkcom.net 10 Jan '07

10 Jan '07

1 0

RE: add bigger disk into raidgroup with smaller disks
by Fox, Adam 10 Jan '07

10 Jan '07

Yes, I can confirm that. But that doesn't *replace* any of the 50GB disks, which is what I understood as the original question. The rules are different if you add a disk vs. fail out a disk. If you were to fail out one of the 50GB disks in your scenario, and only a 100GB disk was available, WAFL would only use 50GB of the 100GB disk and even if you failed out both 50GB disks, the two 100GB disks that replaced them would still be 50GB. That's the catch. -- Adam Fox NGS Tools Developer adamfox(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Glenn Walker [mailto:ggwalker@mindspring.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 5:07 PM To: Willeke, Jochen; tmac; Fox, Adam Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: add bigger disk into raidgroup with smaller disks I can't seem to shake the memory of one other rule - if you add a 3rd disk of larger size, the extra space DOES get used. At least it used to be like that in the past, and I assume WAFL hasn't changed. For Example 100GB DP 100GB P 50GB D 50GB D Then add another 100GB data disk and it _should_ look like: 100GB DP 100GB P 100GB D 50GB D 50GB D Can anyone confirm this? Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Willeke, Jochen Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:19 PM To: tmac; Fox, Adam Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: add bigger disk into raidgroup with smaller disks Hi, thanks...what you said is exactly what my tests showed. If the parity and DP are big enough you can run disks with different size in a raidgroup and use the whole size but this does not work if a small disk becomes replaced via a bigger one. thanks and best regards Jochen -----Original Message----- From: tmac [mailto:tmacmd@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 10:14 PM To: Fox, Adam Cc: Willeke, Jochen; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: add bigger disk into raidgroup with smaller disks Sorry Adam, I used the wrong verbiage. I meant when the disk is added...not replaced. For now, ONTAP does indeed right-size a disk down to the size of the disk that it is replacing. thanks. On 1/10/07, Fox, Adam <Adam.Fox(a)netapp.com> wrote: > No. You can't replace disks in an aggregate that way. If you do, > they will sized down to the size of the disk they replaced. > > > -- Adam Fox > adamfox(a)netapp.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Willeke, Jochen [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 3:12 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: add bigger disk into raidgroup with smaller disks > > > Hi toasters, > > currently i am testing with my simulator and searching for a way to do > the following: > > - have a raidgroup with 5 disks > - the two parity-disks plus one data-disk are 100 MB (net) > - two other data-disks are 35 MB (net) > > I want to replace the 35MB-disks with bigger ones, but everything i > tried left the "new" disk in the raidgroup with a used size of 35MB. > > Is there a way to replace a small disk with a bigger one and use the > complete size of the disk without destroying the whole raidgroup? > > Regards and thanks in advance > > Jochen > > -- --tmac RedHat Certified Engineer #804006984323821

1 0

Looking for Beta Testers
by Harry McIntosh 10 Jan '07

10 Jan '07

Hi Toasters: We have a new software product for use with filers, and we are looking for beta testers for it. We can offer a free license for the product to a limited number of beta testers. The product is named Folderscape, and is a combination of Windows Explorer and FilerView. For details, please visit our website at Folderscape.com. Although future versions of Folderscape will include Unix functionality, the current version works only with NTFS volumes. If you have NTFS volumes, and would like to beta test the software, please let me know. Thanks, Harry McIntosh PAC Software, Inc. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Looking-for-Beta-Testers-tf2955517.html#a8267591 Sent from the Network Appliance - Toasters mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

1 0

RE: add bigger disk into raidgroup with smaller disks
by Glenn Walker 10 Jan '07

10 Jan '07

I can't seem to shake the memory of one other rule - if you add a 3rd disk of larger size, the extra space DOES get used. At least it used to be like that in the past, and I assume WAFL hasn't changed. For Example 100GB DP 100GB P 50GB D 50GB D Then add another 100GB data disk and it _should_ look like: 100GB DP 100GB P 100GB D 50GB D 50GB D Can anyone confirm this? Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Willeke, Jochen Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:19 PM To: tmac; Fox, Adam Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: add bigger disk into raidgroup with smaller disks Hi, thanks...what you said is exactly what my tests showed. If the parity and DP are big enough you can run disks with different size in a raidgroup and use the whole size but this does not work if a small disk becomes replaced via a bigger one. thanks and best regards Jochen -----Original Message----- From: tmac [mailto:tmacmd@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 10:14 PM To: Fox, Adam Cc: Willeke, Jochen; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: add bigger disk into raidgroup with smaller disks Sorry Adam, I used the wrong verbiage. I meant when the disk is added...not replaced. For now, ONTAP does indeed right-size a disk down to the size of the disk that it is replacing. thanks. On 1/10/07, Fox, Adam <Adam.Fox(a)netapp.com> wrote: > No. You can't replace disks in an aggregate that way. If you do, > they will sized down to the size of the disk they replaced. > > > -- Adam Fox > adamfox(a)netapp.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Willeke, Jochen [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 3:12 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: add bigger disk into raidgroup with smaller disks > > > Hi toasters, > > currently i am testing with my simulator and searching for a way to do > the following: > > - have a raidgroup with 5 disks > - the two parity-disks plus one data-disk are 100 MB (net) > - two other data-disks are 35 MB (net) > > I want to replace the 35MB-disks with bigger ones, but everything i > tried left the "new" disk in the raidgroup with a used size of 35MB. > > Is there a way to replace a small disk with a bigger one and use the > complete size of the disk without destroying the whole raidgroup? > > Regards and thanks in advance > > Jochen > > -- --tmac RedHat Certified Engineer #804006984323821

1 0

RE: Net app support
by Glenn Walker 10 Jan '07

10 Jan '07

So berkcom.net redirects to zerowait - a 3rd party netapp reseller (used stuff?)... and the guy that emailed me\the list in response to the query just _happens_ to know a vendor? Convenient! Sounds like a sales pitch :-) Glenn ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Timothy Naple Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:26 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Net app support This post by "Jack" (admin(a)berkcom.net) has nothing to do with us here at Berkeley Communications. I didn't even know there was a berkcom.net <http://www.berkcom.net> site that redirects to the company Zerowait until I saw that email and checked it out. Just to be clear and for the record, Berkeley Communications and Zerowait have no affiliation whatsoever. Thank you, Tim Timothy Naple tnaple(a)berkcom.com (510) 644-1599 x308 Berkeley Communications Corporation ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of admin(a)berkcom.net Sent: Wed 1/10/2007 12:59 PM To: Glenn Walker Cc: Toaster Admins; Chris Shenton; Coder,James (STP) Subject: RE: Net app support The vendor I am familiar with on hardware support will overnight hardware replacements or have a on-site spares kit to pull from. For sales usually the next business day, as all equipment is tested again before it goes out the door. Email me direct for the name of this vendor if you are interested as I don't want this to turn into a big sales pitch pissing match! Jack -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Net app support From: "Glenn Walker" <ggwalker(a)mindspring.com> Date: Wed, January 10, 2007 1:32 pm To: "Chris Shenton" <chris.shenton(a)nasa.gov>, "Coder, James (STP)" <James.Coder(a)guidant.com> Cc: "Toaster Admins" <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Out of curiosity, what type of turn-around time do all of these 3rd party vendors offer? Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Chris Shenton Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:38 PM To: Coder, James (STP) Cc: Toaster Admins Subject: Re: Net app support On Jan 10, 2007, at 09:56, Coder, James (STP) wrote: > > Looking at other options other than netapp for hardware / software > support - was wondering who others on the list are using - both > stateside and outside the US (OUS). Net app seems a little too > rigid in > their pricing / support structure. I've had good experience with ZeroWait.com back in the dot-com days and for a system here we built out. They know their products and are responsive, both on purchasing and parts/support. For systems, their quotes were significantly lower than NetApp's and their advice was right-on -- no sleazy overselling. Hooked us up with a spare head on-site for less than a kit o' parts, which will make swapping out a lot faster in the event of a serious failure. Nice folks to work with.

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