toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

RE: CF Disk Configuration Question
by Holland, William L 18 Dec '06

18 Dec '06

Worse case, put a fiber loopback plug in any vacant fiber ports. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Willeke, Jochen Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 8:59 AM To: Stephen C. Losen; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CF Disk Configuration Question Hi, we never run this configuration over a long time, but during cluster updates we had this configuration several times, even it was only for a couple of minutes. From the technical point of view it works perfectly. But i do not know if it is an supported scenario from netapp. Best Regards Jochen -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Stephen C. Losen Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 1:33 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: CF Disk Configuration Question We have a 3050c clustered pair where both filers have 4 shelves of 144G FC disks each. We want to add two shelves of 500G SATA drives to one filer. We are not allowed to mix FC and SATA on the same FC Loop, so the two new shelves must be on a separate loop. Since this is a CF configuration, we will connect these shelves to both filers. The filer that owns the shelves will connect using the "A" port of its adapter while the partner filer will use its "B" port. But since we are not adding any shelves to the partner filer, this leaves us with a vacant "B" port on the filer that owns the shelves and a vacant "A" port on the partner. Does anyone know if this is a problem? Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 434-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

1 0

CF Disk Configuration Question
by Stephen C. Losen 18 Dec '06

18 Dec '06

We have a 3050c clustered pair where both filers have 4 shelves of 144G FC disks each. We want to add two shelves of 500G SATA drives to one filer. We are not allowed to mix FC and SATA on the same FC Loop, so the two new shelves must be on a separate loop. Since this is a CF configuration, we will connect these shelves to both filers. The filer that owns the shelves will connect using the "A" port of its adapter while the partner filer will use its "B" port. But since we are not adding any shelves to the partner filer, this leaves us with a vacant "B" port on the filer that owns the shelves and a vacant "A" port on the partner. Does anyone know if this is a problem? Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 434-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

2 1

RE: iSCSI Cluster help
by Glenn Walker 16 Dec '06

16 Dec '06

Yeah - the default SCSI timeout in windows is 10 seconds - that should be increased to at least 180 seconds as a failback could take up to 3 minutes. If you have snapdrive, it does this for you automatically. FYI - leaving it at only 10 seconds could be REALLY bad if you have a performance hungry application like Exchange (verification plus normal operation could create havoc with undersized spindle count). Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of rob-7704(a)austin.rr.com Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 7:31 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: iSCSI Cluster help Hey you iSCSI wizards, We are just getting into iSCSI for winders and have the following scenario happen today: We had a failover on a cluster member that host test/infrastructure systems today, due to a faulty ESH2 (that was triggered by a background FW update, but that is a different discussion). This filer also has an iSCSI volume on a test window server. During a failover, it reported errors, but the iSCSI reconnected. However, during a giveback (after NetApp replaced the faulty ESH2), the iSCSI connection gave errors and lost the connection altogether. We had to reboot that test windows box to recover the iSCSI volume. We are working with NetApp to learn more about this. But just from browsing on the NOW site about iSCSI, there are recommendations about increasing the timeout values from the default 10 sec to at least 60 sec, and other registry tunings for iSCSI to make it more robust. http://now.netapp.com/Knowledgebase/solutionarea.asp?id=ntapcs16249 http://now.netapp.com/Knowledgebase/solutionarea.asp?id=ntapcs17115 Anybody been there and done this or other tunings with success ? TIA -Rob

1 0

iSCSI Cluster help
by rob-7704＠austin.rr.com 16 Dec '06

16 Dec '06

Hey you iSCSI wizards, We are just getting into iSCSI for winders and have the following scenario happen today: We had a failover on a cluster member that host test/infrastructure systems today, due to a faulty ESH2 (that was triggered by a background FW update, but that is a different discussion). This filer also has an iSCSI volume on a test window server. During a failover, it reported errors, but the iSCSI reconnected. However, during a giveback (after NetApp replaced the faulty ESH2), the iSCSI connection gave errors and lost the connection altogether. We had to reboot that test windows box to recover the iSCSI volume. We are working with NetApp to learn more about this. But just from browsing on the NOW site about iSCSI, there are recommendations about increasing the timeout values from the default 10 sec to at least 60 sec, and other registry tunings for iSCSI to make it more robust. http://now.netapp.com/Knowledgebase/solutionarea.asp?id=ntapcs16249 http://now.netapp.com/Knowledgebase/solutionarea.asp?id=ntapcs17115 Anybody been there and done this or other tunings with success ? TIA -Rob

1 0

Re:AFS
by Rohit 15 Dec '06

15 Dec '06

Hi Mike GX maybe the AFS flavor from NetApp. http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/TechTalk/?permalink=ONTAP-GX-151-Past-and-Futu… On the other hand, if you're looking for something _free_, try http://www.openafs.org/. AFS is killer replacement for NFS if you have lots of many small files that get constantly updated. Of course, not to mention, doing away with stale file handles as well. regards rohit Sphar, Mike wrote: > Just throwing a question out there curious to hear people's thoughts or > experiences. Every time I end up dealing with hundreds of stale file > handles because of a server move/change I become increasingly annoyed by > the stateless nature of NFS and think to myself "Maybe this time I'll > finally start seriously looking at AFS." > > Other than lots of other ways an AFS deployment could be complicated, I > wonder how if at all a Netapp can be part of an AFS deployment? > > Also feel free to tell me how using AFS is crazy in general and I should > just accept my stale file handles. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Online Criminal Justice Programs Criminal Justice careers are booming. Education-Advancement offers... http://tagline.bidsystem.com/fc/BgLEQfJAsToxV9QXVIZNjpNvgdu5bRXkSF30/

5 4

Netapp NearStore VTL700 & EMC/Legato Networker experience
by John Stoffel 14 Dec '06

14 Dec '06

Hi all, Has any one else out there dropped a NearStore VTL700 (or other model) into an existing NetApp/Legato Networker environment? We're thinking about doing this, but we'd love to hear people's experiences with it. Currently, we have SDLT 320 drives connceted via SCSI to the backup server, which talks over Gigabit to the Filers and other clients. In the new plan, we've have FibreChannel connecting the Filers, VTL and Backup server, with the tape library connected to the VTL only. Some of our concerns how we're going to be able to restore legacy Networker backup tapes? Will the VTL handle tapes it doesn't know anything about and allow them to be imported? We're also thinking of finally making the move to NDMP as well from NFS backups, but we're quite concerned about the limitations of DAR (Direct Access Restore) allowing us to restore large chunks of NDMP backups without having to manually break it into chunks due to Networker/NetApp limits? Thanks, John John Stoffel - Senior Staff Systems Administrator - System LSI Group Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. - http://www.toshiba.com/taec john.stoffel(a)taec.toshiba.com - 508-486-1087

2 2

AFS
by Sphar, Mike 14 Dec '06

14 Dec '06

Just throwing a question out there curious to hear people's thoughts or experiences. Every time I end up dealing with hundreds of stale file handles because of a server move/change I become increasingly annoyed by the stateless nature of NFS and think to myself "Maybe this time I'll finally start seriously looking at AFS." Other than lots of other ways an AFS deployment could be complicated, I wonder how if at all a Netapp can be part of an AFS deployment? Also feel free to tell me how using AFS is crazy in general and I should just accept my stale file handles. -- Michael W. Sphar - IS&T - Lead Systems Administrator SMBU Engineering Support Services, BMC Software

4 3

DFM & Debian GNU Linux ?
by Aurélien Beaujean 13 Dec '06

13 Dec '06

Hi, I tried to install DFM3.3R1 on a Debian. Firsh the binary tests the validity of /etc/redhat-release so i gave him "Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES release 3". Second i transformed NTAPdfm.i386.rpm to a debian package with alien. The package were succesfully installed but i think the database has not been setup: not database/tables created. When i launch "dfm service start" i get this message: Dec 12 17:49:40 [dfm:ERROR]: Could not get valid status after attempting to start sql server. NOTE: This machine could be configured for failover as a stand by. Sql services will not be started on a stand by machine. If this machine is not configured for failover, the server may already be running. Please use the following system command to verify: "ps -e | grep dbsrv9" I think i have to launch dbsrv8 with thoses options: dbsrv9 -n MonitorDB_leia2 -o "/opt/NTAPdfm/log/sybase.log" -os 10000000 -gd all -gl all -gk all -gp 8192 -ct- -x SharedMemory,tcpip -ud /opt/NTAPdfm/data/monitordb.db but it says me "Could not open/read file: /opt/NTAPdfm/data/monitordb.db". Someone already had this problem ? How can i setup this db, creates the tables it needs and launch it ? -- Auré

2 1

RE: AFS
by Sphar, Mike 12 Dec '06

12 Dec '06

Mostly because my budget for this sort of thing is somewhere between zero and zero + 15%. I'm happy to hear about more expensive solutions for future reference though, just to know how other people deal with similar problems. For example, in the last 10 years, we've had to re-ip our entire networks four or five times, couple of times due to acquisitions, others because the network infrastructure team decided things would be better if we re-architected everything. I've also dealt with about 4 or 5 server room moves in the same time period. Ironically, CIFS is never a problem in these scenarios, but NFS is frequently the cause of weeks of trickling-in problem reports and complaints. -- Michael W. Sphar - IS&T - Lead Systems Administrator SMBU Engineering Support Services, BMC Software -----Original Message----- From: Shawn Stephens [mailto:shawn174@houston.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 4:14 PM To: Sphar, Mike; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: AFS If you're tired of the stale file handles, why not virtualize your storage behind an Acopia switch? http://www.acopia.com Shawn On 12/12/06 1:00 PM, "Sphar, Mike" <Mike_Sphar(a)bmc.com> wrote: > Just throwing a question out there curious to hear people's thoughts or > experiences. Every time I end up dealing with hundreds of stale file > handles because of a server move/change I become increasingly annoyed by > the stateless nature of NFS and think to myself "Maybe this time I'll > finally start seriously looking at AFS." > > Other than lots of other ways an AFS deployment could be complicated, I > wonder how if at all a Netapp can be part of an AFS deployment? > > Also feel free to tell me how using AFS is crazy in general and I should > just accept my stale file handles.

1 0

Re: MySQL or PostgreSQL with Filer storage?
by slinkymax0r 09 Dec '06

09 Dec '06

> We'd like to have our database storage resident on a Filer with > NFS. Do any of you have experience or insight into this for MySQL or > PostgreSQL? I understand Oracle's happy to work like this but my > google searches seem to indicate it's a bad idea to use NFS storage > for PostgreSQL or MySQL. As long as you're not sharing the data files between multiple database servers, this should work fine, with the understanding that it "won't be as fast" (greater latency) necessarily as local/block disk. The normal caveats for DB stuff applies, no softmounts, use TCP, Use GbE etc. etc. etc. Regards, Max > > Thanks. > > http://www.postgresql.org/files/documentation/books/aw_pgsql/hw_performance… > > NFS and other remote file systems are not recommended for use by > POSTGRESQL. NFS does not have the same file system semantics as a > local file system, and these inconsistencies can cause data > reliability or crash recovery problems. > > http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/multiple-servers.html > > The warning against sharing a data directory among servers also > applies in an NFS environment. Allowing multiple MySQL servers to > access a common data directory over NFS is a very bad idea. > > * The primary problem is that NFS is the speed bottleneck. It is > not meant for such use. >

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