toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

New Linux Kernel NFS client and netapp snapshot behavior
by Stephen C. Losen 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

We installed the latest kernel update for Red Hat FC5 (forgot the kernel version number) and we noticed a nifty new NFS client feature. The kernel is "snapshot aware" which means that when you "stat()" something in a snapshot, the device number is different from the live filesystem. Furthermore, different snapshots have different device numbers. I can see where this is a very nice feature, because it solves some difficulties with snapshots. o You can now run "find /mountpoint -mount" (or -xdev) to avoid dropping into the .snapshot tree. o You can now "diff" a live file and a snapshot copy of the file because many versions of diff simply return no differences when two files have the same device and inode number. o You can now "cp" a snapshot copy of a file on top of the live file. This used to fail because cp checks the device and inode number to prevent you from copying a file on top of itself. However, we have some locally written software that expects the live filesystem and snapshot to have the same device number. The person who wrote the software is wondering if this change in NFS behavior is a bug, or fluke, or experimental, or if the Linux developers intend for the Linux kernel to behave this way from now on. Can this behavior be enabled/disabled ? If no one knows offhand, where might I go to find out? Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 434-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

4 6

RE: SnapMirror Bandwidth restrictions
by Holland, William L 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

Take a look at Adjusting the TCP Window Size in http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/ontap/rel705/html/ontap/onlineb k/mirror6.htm It can help you determine the proper setting based on your network needs. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Davies,Matt Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 7:58 AM To: Glenn Walker; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: SnapMirror Bandwidth restrictions Glenn, The snapmirror.conf file is showing 1000 as the limit. Which should equate to just under 8Mb/s Overall the rate does average out for the snapmirror jobs to be below 1000KB/s There was only one snapmirror running at the time of the test I carried out to confirm the rates. Matt -----Original Message----- From: Glenn Walker [mailto:ggwalker@mindspring.com] Sent: 14 November 2006 12:47 To: Davies,Matt; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: SnapMirror Bandwidth restrictions I assume that the snapmirror.conf file is showing 1000 as the limit? This is in KB (kilobyte), not kb(kilobit). Are you sure that there aren't multiple mirrors running simultaneously? Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Davies,Matt Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 5:40 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: SnapMirror Bandwidth restrictions Hi, We have noticed that when a snapmirror runs between our filers with a maximum transfer rate of 1000 KB/s, we are seeing peaks of traffic of around 24Mb/s. This has been confirmed using ethereal, that it is the snapmirror traffic. We have noticed that these peaks are causing excessive amount of dropped packets on the wan interface of the routers between all the site. we have tried a number of difference queuing strategies and bandwidth shaping, but the router cannot buffer all the packets during the peaks and starts dropping them. As we also use these links for both voice and video, we are seeing high jitter rates during these peaks, and need to do something about it. We have a mixture of FAS250's and FAS270's all are showing the same problem Has anyone else experienced this ? Or does anyone have any ideas. Cheers Matt

2 1

RE: simple SAN?!
by Holloway, Chris 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

You may also want to be aware of the limitations as to when and where you can use SnapDrive and SnapManager products with the guest machines. Essentially you can only use SD and SM if you are using a software iSCSI initiator. Any other methods (and as far as I know this includes raw device mapping) and you won't be able to use them. Chris -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of Julio Calderon Sent: Thu 23/11/2006 18:07 To: Willeke, Jochen; Davies,Matt; toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: Subject: RE: simple SAN?! You should be able to levereage nfs for vmware -----Original Message----- From: Willeke, Jochen [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com] Sent: Thu Nov 23 03:25:26 2006 To: Davies,Matt; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: simple SAN?! We already use ISCSI, but we aer thinking about VMWare and VMWare has some nice features (e.g. VCB) which need an FC-SAN. Thanks anyway Jochen ________________________________ From: Davies,Matt [mailto:MDAVIES@generalatlantic.com] Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 11:59 AM To: Willeke, Jochen; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: simple SAN?! If you are looking at low cost san, I would go Iscsi, as long as everything you need on Iscsi is on Gig ethernet ports, it should work fine. Cheers Matt ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Willeke, Jochen Sent: 23 November 2006 10:11 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: simple SAN?! Hi, as we use not too much SAN at our site i am not really used to this topic. Yesterday i read an article about "simple SAN". "Simple SAN" seems to mean as an plug-n-play solution. But what about the components espacially the SAN-switches? Do we see really new (and cheap :D) SAN-switches or only old products "reassembled" as a solution for small companies. Regards Jochen Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Employees of the company are expressly required not to make defamatory statements and not to infringe or authorize any infringement of copyright or any other legal right by email communications. Any such communication is contrary to company policy and outside the scope of the employment of the individual concerned. The company will not accept any liability in respect of such communication, and the employee responsible will be personally liable for any damages or other liability arising.

1 0

scsitarget.ispfct ?!?
by Willeke, Jochen 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

Hi toasters, we had a strange errormessage a few days ago on one of our FAS3050: scsitarget.ispfct.lunReset:CRITICAL]: FCP Target: LUN Reset (from port 10000000c93bde26), aborting all SCSI commands on lun 0 Does anybody know what this means? I was not able to find out with the help of NOW. Nevertheless we did not hear anything from our colleagues who use the luns on that filer. Regards and thanks in advance Jochen

2 1

RE: simple SAN?!
by Julio Calderon 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

You should be able to levereage nfs for vmware -----Original Message----- From: Willeke, Jochen [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com] Sent: Thu Nov 23 03:25:26 2006 To: Davies,Matt; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: simple SAN?! We already use ISCSI, but we aer thinking about VMWare and VMWare has some nice features (e.g. VCB) which need an FC-SAN. Thanks anyway Jochen ________________________________ From: Davies,Matt [mailto:MDAVIES@generalatlantic.com] Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 11:59 AM To: Willeke, Jochen; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: simple SAN?! If you are looking at low cost san, I would go Iscsi, as long as everything you need on Iscsi is on Gig ethernet ports, it should work fine. Cheers Matt ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Willeke, Jochen Sent: 23 November 2006 10:11 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: simple SAN?! Hi, as we use not too much SAN at our site i am not really used to this topic. Yesterday i read an article about "simple SAN". "Simple SAN" seems to mean as an plug-n-play solution. But what about the components espacially the SAN-switches? Do we see really new (and cheap :D) SAN-switches or only old products "reassembled" as a solution for small companies. Regards Jochen

1 0

(SOLVED) Problem mounting NFS from a Fedora Core 6 machine
by Gustavo Chaves 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

>>>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:43:20 -0800, "Learmonth, Peter" <Peter.Learmonth(a)netapp.com> said: > Check out options ip.fastpath.enable. It's in the man pages. > Peter Thanks, Peter. We tried that but it didn't work for us. However, a friend of mine found a solution. If I specify the option "-o proto=tcp" in the mount command the problem is solved. We found out that by default Fedora tries to use NFS over UDP. When it has to ask the filer's portmapper for the NFS UDP port it sends a UDP packet and receives a UDP response comming from a different interface. When we specify the option "proto=tcp" for the mount command, it connects to the portmapper via TCP and asks the for the NFS TCP port. Since it's a TCP connection, the filer must use the same interface to send the response packets. What's interesting is that the "proto=tcp" option affects not only the protocol NFS uses but also the protocol the mount command uses to talk to the portmapper. I investigated why my Ubuntu machine doesn't have this problem. It asks for NFS over TCP by default. Thank you all for thinking about the problem. Gustavo.

2 1

Re: simple SAN?!
by Fred Grieco 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

I'm pretty sure you can use FC to the VMs if you use virtual ports or NPIV. http://storagemagazine.techtarget.com/magLogin/1,291245,sid35_gci1228666,00… This is a little like "NAT" for fibre channel. It also requires sophisticated cards and switches. Fred ----- Original Message ---- From: "Davies,Matt" <MDAVIES(a)generalatlantic.com> To: "Willeke, Jochen" <Jochen.Willeke(a)wincor-nixdorf.com>; toasters(a)mathworks.com Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 6:24:50 AM Subject: RE: simple SAN?! On the VMware side, as far as I understand you can only use FC to the physical machine, not to a virtual machine, as the VM's do not support FC. I believe you can still use VCB with Iscsi, it just needs a bit more scripting, I would check out the VMware discussion groups on the VMware website, I have always found them very helpful. Cheers Matt From: Willeke, Jochen [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com] Sent: 23 November 2006 11:07 To: Davies,Matt; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: simple SAN?! We already use ISCSI, but we aer thinking about VMWare and VMWare has some nice features (e.g. VCB) which need an FC-SAN. Thanks anyway Jochen From: Davies,Matt [mailto:MDAVIES@generalatlantic.com] Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 11:59 AM To: Willeke, Jochen; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: simple SAN?! If you are looking at low cost san, I would go Iscsi, as long as everything you need on Iscsi is on Gig ethernet ports, it should work fine. Cheers Matt From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Willeke, Jochen Sent: 23 November 2006 10:11 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: simple SAN?! Hi, as we use not too much SAN at our site i am not really used to this topic. Yesterday i read an article about "simple SAN". "Simple SAN" seems to mean as an plug-n-play solution. But what about the components espacially the SAN-switches? Do we see really new (and cheap :D) SAN-switches or only old products "reassembled" as a solution for small companies. Regards Jochen __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: Problem mounting NFS from a Fedora Core 6 machine
by Gustavo Chaves 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

>>>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:45:37 +0100, Åke Beckman <Ake.Beckman(a)proact.se> said: > I suppose the clients that aren't directly connected will specify > the interface that the netapp uses as its default route for their > mount requests, in which case the reply will always come back from > that interface too. Hence, there shouldn't be a problem? The reply comes from the same router, but the source IP address is different. Gustavo.

1 0

RE: simple SAN?!
by Davies,Matt 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

On the VMware side, as far as I understand you can only use FC to the physical machine, not to a virtual machine, as the VM's do not support FC. I believe you can still use VCB with Iscsi, it just needs a bit more scripting, I would check out the VMware discussion groups on the VMware website, I have always found them very helpful. Cheers Matt ________________________________ From: Willeke, Jochen [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com] Sent: 23 November 2006 11:07 To: Davies,Matt; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: simple SAN?! We already use ISCSI, but we aer thinking about VMWare and VMWare has some nice features (e.g. VCB) which need an FC-SAN. Thanks anyway Jochen ________________________________ From: Davies,Matt [mailto:MDAVIES@generalatlantic.com] Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 11:59 AM To: Willeke, Jochen; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: simple SAN?! If you are looking at low cost san, I would go Iscsi, as long as everything you need on Iscsi is on Gig ethernet ports, it should work fine. Cheers Matt ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Willeke, Jochen Sent: 23 November 2006 10:11 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: simple SAN?! Hi, as we use not too much SAN at our site i am not really used to this topic. Yesterday i read an article about "simple SAN". "Simple SAN" seems to mean as an plug-n-play solution. But what about the components espacially the SAN-switches? Do we see really new (and cheap :D) SAN-switches or only old products "reassembled" as a solution for small companies. Regards Jochen

2 1

RE: simple SAN?!
by Davies,Matt 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

If you are looking at low cost san, I would go Iscsi, as long as everything you need on Iscsi is on Gig ethernet ports, it should work fine. Cheers Matt ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Willeke, Jochen Sent: 23 November 2006 10:11 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: simple SAN?! Hi, as we use not too much SAN at our site i am not really used to this topic. Yesterday i read an article about "simple SAN". "Simple SAN" seems to mean as an plug-n-play solution. But what about the components espacially the SAN-switches? Do we see really new (and cheap :D) SAN-switches or only old products "reassembled" as a solution for small companies. Regards Jochen

2 1

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