toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

RE: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate
by Fox, Adam 22 Sep '06

22 Sep '06

That works just fine. Just be aware that if you are using RAID-DP you want to start with 3 disks, not two. -- Adam Fox adamfox(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Sto Rage(c) [mailto:netbacker@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 12:53 PM To: Brosseau, Paul Cc: Jeff Mery; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate On 9/20/06, Brosseau, Paul <Paul.Brosseau(a)netapp.com> wrote: > > > Mixing disk sizes in an aggregate is not a problem as long as you > create RAID groups for each kind of disk. WAFL creates stripes at the > RAID group level. For best results create complete RAID groups each > time you add disks to an aggregate. > > Paulb Paul and others, Is there way to force an aggregate to start a new RAID group when an existing RAID group is not completely full. Here's a situation FAS270 with 2 shelves with 144GB FC drives. RG size is set to 16 for a single aggregate with 26 disks (2 spares). This resulted in 2 RAID groups, 1 with 16 disks and the other with 10. Now we plan to add a 3rd shelf with 300GB FC drives. If we do the regular "aggr add" it will first add the 2 spare 144GB drives, then add 4 new 300GB drives by right sizing them to match the 144GB ones. In order to maximize the capacity on this aggregate, I'd prefer to add 12 of the new drives to a new RAID group but within the same aggregate. Is something like this possible? Haven't tried this as we don't have the new shelf yet, but can I reduce the raidsize option for the aggregate from 16 to 12, then add the 2 existing spares such that that the 2nd raid-group is now full based on raidsize=12 option. Now add the new shelf and run "aggr add aggr0 12" to add 12 new 300GB drive leaving 2 spares? RAID group /aggr0/plex0/rg0 - 16 disks (144GB each) RAID group /aggr0/plex0/rg1 - 12 disks (144GB each) <-- add the existing 2 spares RAID group /aggr0/plex0/rg2 - 12 disks (300GB each) Spares - two new 300GB drives. I think it would work, any comments? -G

1 0

RE: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate
by Glenn Walker 22 Sep '06

22 Sep '06

Technically, doing any of this (mixing drive speeds in RGs or drive sizes in RGs) will work just fine. The only issue is the potential of performance degradation in the future once\if the system is under stress. The drives spinning slowest will take the longest to have writes flushed to them - thusly forcing the CP to take longer and impacting the entire system. This is true within RGs or across multiple RGs in an aggregate. Heck, this is true even if you have multiple aggregates and one is comprised of slower disks than the others (or is slow due to other reasons such as workload, fragmentation, etc) - a write (CP) is a GLOBAL ENTITY and it is atomic in nature: if you have data in a CP for multiple RGs\TradVols\Aggrs and one takes forever to flush to disk, then the WHOLE CP takes forever. That said, all of this 'chicken little\sky falling' stuff is just conjecture. On a lightly loaded system, you'll never see issues. Only under stress will all of this stuff bubble to the surface. Oh - and FWIW, if you write data in a less-than optimal fashion, then subsequent reads will have the same issues (higher latencies), potentially causing performance problems. Remember - all of this could still take place and you could potentially never see the effects depending on the circumstances and how the applications handles increased latencies. I hope all of that is clearly written? Glenn -----Original Message----- From: maclean(a)cs.mcgill.ca [mailto:maclean@cs.mcgill.ca] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 2:41 PM To: Glenn Walker Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate I always thought you would have problems mixing speeds in a raid group. Specifically you would see 'failing servo motor' autosupport messages. Or are you suggesting raid groups segregated by speed and only mixing speeds within an aggregate made up of the speed based raid groups? -Matthew On Thu, September 21, 2006 11:01 am, Glenn Walker wrote: > Exactly :) > > > Consistency is key: always try to keep same disk sizes speeds in > aggregates. I'd feel more comfortable adding disks with faster speeds > than larger sizes - there will be no future performance degradation from > this. > > Glenn > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Crawford, Mark (CBC) [mailto:Mark.Crawford@CapBlueCross.COM] > Sent: Thu 9/21/2006 10:53 AM > To: David Knight; Glenn Walker > Cc: Paul.Brosseau(a)netapp.com; jeff.mery(a)ni.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate > > > When the stripes fill the equivalent of the smaller disks, wafl will > start striping only on the larger disks. This will cause performance > degradation due to "hot" disks. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] > On Behalf Of David Knight > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:44 AM > To: ggwalker(a)mindspring.com > Cc: Paul.Brosseau(a)netapp.com; jeff.mery(a)ni.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate > > > I think wafl stripes across all disks in an aggregate. > I'm not sure how it respond to having one raid group with larger disks - > likely it will not use part of them. I'm pretty sure netapp recommends all > disks in an aggregate be the same size, or, it will assume they are all > the size of the smallest disk. Of course, I could be wrong . . . > > > David > > >> Remember that WAFL still writes across the entire aggregate. Having a >> > >> slower RAID group in an aggregate of faster raid groups would be akin to >> having a slower disk in a RG of faster disks, would it not? >> >> >> >> Glenn >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com >> [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] >> On Behalf Of Brosseau, Paul >> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 8:05 PM >> To: Jeff Mery; toasters(a)mathworks.com >> Subject: RE: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate >> >> >> >> >> Mixing disk sizes in an aggregate is not a problem as long as you >> create RAID groups for each kind of disk. WAFL creates stripes at the > >> RAID group level. For best results create complete RAID groups each >> time you add disks to an aggregate. >> >> >> >> Paulb >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> From: Jeff Mery [mailto:jeff.mery@ni.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:30 PM >> To: toasters(a)mathworks.com >> Subject: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate >> >> >> >> Greetings fellow toasters! >> <Background> >> We're looking at moving our 2 FAS940 systems from tradtional volumes >> to flexvols + aggregates. </Background> >> >> >> It would seem to me that the same rules and guidelines for creating >> traditional volumes now apply directly to the aggregate level (for the > >> most part). By rules and guidelines I mean things like trying not to >> mix disk sizes, try to avoid volumes (now aggregates?) that span FC >> adapters, etc. >> >> Are any of these things still a concern on modern versions of ONTAP >> (7+)? Does anyone have any best practices they'd be willing to share >> in regards to aggregate creation? NOW says "make them as big as possible >> using as many spindles as possible", but that doesn't really > help much. >> We use our filers for unstructured data only; cifs + nfs but no >> databases, no snapmirror, no snapvault, etc.. >> >> TIA, >> Jeff Mery - MCSE, MCP >> National Instruments >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- >> - >> "Allow me to extol the virtues of the Net Fairy, and of all the >> fantastic dorks that make the nice packets go from here to there. Amen." >> TB - Penny Arcade >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- >> - >> >> > > > > Confidentiality Notice: > This e-mail is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the > individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is > privileged, confidential and protected by law. If you are not the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use or disclosure of > this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > message in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail > and delete the original message. Your compliance is appreciated. > > > >

1 0

RE: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate
by Crawford, Mark (CBC) 22 Sep '06

22 Sep '06

When the stripes fill the equivalent of the smaller disks, wafl will start striping only on the larger disks. This will cause performance degradation due to "hot" disks. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of David Knight Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:44 AM To: ggwalker(a)mindspring.com Cc: Paul.Brosseau(a)netapp.com; jeff.mery(a)ni.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate I think wafl stripes across all disks in an aggregate. I'm not sure how it respond to having one raid group with larger disks - likely it will not use part of them. I'm pretty sure netapp recommends all disks in an aggregate be the same size, or, it will assume they are all the size of the smallest disk. Of course, I could be wrong . . . David > Remember that WAFL still writes across the entire aggregate. Having a > slower RAID group in an aggregate of faster raid groups would be akin > to having a slower disk in a RG of faster disks, would it not? > > > > Glenn > > > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com > [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] > On Behalf Of Brosseau, Paul > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 8:05 PM > To: Jeff Mery; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate > > > > Mixing disk sizes in an aggregate is not a problem as long as you > create RAID groups for each kind of disk. WAFL creates stripes at the > RAID group level. For best results create complete RAID groups each > time you add disks to an aggregate. > > > > Paulb > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Jeff Mery [mailto:jeff.mery@ni.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:30 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate > > > Greetings fellow toasters! > <Background> > We're looking at moving our 2 FAS940 systems from tradtional volumes > to flexvols + aggregates. > </Background> > > It would seem to me that the same rules and guidelines for creating > traditional volumes now apply directly to the aggregate level (for the > most part). By rules and guidelines I mean things like trying not to > mix disk sizes, try to avoid volumes (now aggregates?) that span FC > adapters, etc. > > Are any of these things still a concern on modern versions of ONTAP > (7+)? Does anyone have any best practices they'd be willing to share > in regards to aggregate creation? NOW says "make them as big as > possible using as many spindles as possible", but that doesn't really help much. > We use our filers for unstructured data only; cifs + nfs but no > databases, no snapmirror, no snapvault, etc.. > > TIA, > Jeff Mery - MCSE, MCP > National Instruments > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > - > "Allow me to extol the virtues of the Net Fairy, and of all the > fantastic dorks that make the nice packets go from here to there. > Amen." > TB - Penny Arcade > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > - > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use or disclosure of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the original message. Your compliance is appreciated.

5 5

RE: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate
by Glenn Walker 22 Sep '06

22 Sep '06

Right. Pretty much all of this very long discussion centers on one concept: the old adage "as strong as the weakest link". Only in this case, it's as fast as the slowest link. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: maclean(a)cs.mcgill.ca [mailto:maclean@cs.mcgill.ca] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 5:00 PM To: Stephen C. Losen Cc: maclean(a)cs.mcgill.ca; Glenn Walker; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate > Actually Netapp told us it's not a problem to replace a slower drive > with a faster one. It's not good if you have a RG of fast drives to > replace one with a slower drive, because that drags down the whole RG. Yeah a read would have to wait for the slower disk to spin around to the proper block while all the faster disks have already provided the data. -Matthew

1 0

RE: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate
by Glenn Walker 21 Sep '06

21 Sep '06

More FCAL adapters are better - spread the workload out as much as possible, but as Myles said, you're not going to see a workload go beyond the limit of a single adapter (typically). That said, if you have a large enough workload, you might see the head run out of resources before the FCAL loop does. When not using cluster, MPIO is a great way to go to help spread the load pretty evenly across adapters. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Myles Uyema Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 12:25 PM To: Jeff Mery Cc: David Knight; Glenn Walker; Paul.Brosseau(a)netapp.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate Most workloads are not going to reach 2gbit fibrechannel saturation, except with the occasional disk reconstruction. With that in mind, you'll want to spread your raidgroups across as many loops as possible and within budget. Concerning different sized 10k rpm disks, just realize that since 144GB disks are larger than 72GB disks, you will eventually have more data on the 144GB raid group, so generally you will see more I/O toward that set of disks, but the RPM is the same, and the performance characteristics are basically identical. On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Jeff Mery wrote: Thanks for the responses everyone. Just to confirm... ...WAFL does indeed stripe each flexvol across all disks in the aggregate. If you have a flexvol that's 5% of your total aggregate space, it's safe to conclude that it's using 5% of each disk in your aggregate (assuming aggregate disks are all the same size). This was the impression I got from the documentation and then confirmed by the group. ...We don't have any mixed performance disks in our system (everything is 10K RPM), just mixed sizes. Creating a separate RG for each disk size is a good idea; this prevents wasting any larger disks on parity for smaller ones. Thanks for the suggestion. It seems we still have some confusion around what happens with performance in this mixed-disk scenario as well as the impact of a single aggregate spanning multiple FC adapters. Can anyone from NetApp clarify these for us? Jeff Mery - MCSE, MCP National Instruments ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - "Allow me to extol the virtues of the Net Fairy, and of all the fantastic dorks that make the nice packets go from here to there. Amen." TB - Penny Arcade ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - David Knight <knight(a)atmos.albany.edu> 09/21/2006 08:43 AM To ggwalker(a)mindspring.com (Glenn Walker) cc Paul.Brosseau(a)netapp.com, jeff.mery(a)ni.com, toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject Re: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate I think wafl stripes across all disks in an aggregate. I'm not sure how it respond to having one raid group with larger disks - likely it will not use part of them. I'm pretty sure netapp recommends all disks in an aggregate be the same size, or, it will assume they are all the size of the smallest disk. Of course, I could be wrong . . . David > Remember that WAFL still writes across the entire aggregate. Having a > slower RAID group in an aggregate of faster raid groups would be akin to > having a slower disk in a RG of faster disks, would it not? > > > > Glenn > > > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] > On Behalf Of Brosseau, Paul > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 8:05 PM > To: Jeff Mery; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate > > > > Mixing disk sizes in an aggregate is not a problem as long as you create > RAID groups for each kind of disk. WAFL creates stripes at the RAID > group level. For best results create complete RAID groups each time you > add disks to an aggregate. > > > > Paulb > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Jeff Mery [mailto:jeff.mery@ni.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:30 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate > > > Greetings fellow toasters! > <Background> > We're looking at moving our 2 FAS940 systems from tradtional volumes to > flexvols + aggregates. > </Background> > > It would seem to me that the same rules and guidelines for creating > traditional volumes now apply directly to the aggregate level (for the > most part). By rules and guidelines I mean things like trying not to > mix disk sizes, try to avoid volumes (now aggregates?) that span FC > adapters, etc. > > Are any of these things still a concern on modern versions of ONTAP > (7+)? Does anyone have any best practices they'd be willing to share in > regards to aggregate creation? NOW says "make them as big as possible > using as many spindles as possible", but that doesn't really help much. > We use our filers for unstructured data only; cifs + nfs but no > databases, no snapmirror, no snapvault, etc.. > > TIA, > Jeff Mery - MCSE, MCP > National Instruments > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > - > "Allow me to extol the virtues of the Net Fairy, and of all the > fantastic > dorks that make the nice packets go from here to there. Amen." > TB - Penny Arcade > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > - >

1 0

RE: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate
by Glenn Walker 21 Sep '06

21 Sep '06

Remember that WAFL still writes across the entire aggregate. Having a slower RAID group in an aggregate of faster raid groups would be akin to having a slower disk in a RG of faster disks, would it not? Glenn ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Brosseau, Paul Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 8:05 PM To: Jeff Mery; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate Mixing disk sizes in an aggregate is not a problem as long as you create RAID groups for each kind of disk. WAFL creates stripes at the RAID group level. For best results create complete RAID groups each time you add disks to an aggregate. Paulb ________________________________ From: Jeff Mery [mailto:jeff.mery@ni.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:30 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate Greetings fellow toasters! <Background> We're looking at moving our 2 FAS940 systems from tradtional volumes to flexvols + aggregates. </Background> It would seem to me that the same rules and guidelines for creating traditional volumes now apply directly to the aggregate level (for the most part). By rules and guidelines I mean things like trying not to mix disk sizes, try to avoid volumes (now aggregates?) that span FC adapters, etc. Are any of these things still a concern on modern versions of ONTAP (7+)? Does anyone have any best practices they'd be willing to share in regards to aggregate creation? NOW says "make them as big as possible using as many spindles as possible", but that doesn't really help much. We use our filers for unstructured data only; cifs + nfs but no databases, no snapmirror, no snapvault, etc.. TIA, Jeff Mery - MCSE, MCP National Instruments ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - "Allow me to extol the virtues of the Net Fairy, and of all the fantastic dorks that make the nice packets go from here to there. Amen." TB - Penny Arcade ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -

5 4

Mixed disk sizes within a single aggregate
by Jeff Mery 20 Sep '06

20 Sep '06

Greetings fellow toasters! <Background> We're looking at moving our 2 FAS940 systems from tradtional volumes to flexvols + aggregates. </Background> It would seem to me that the same rules and guidelines for creating traditional volumes now apply directly to the aggregate level (for the most part). By rules and guidelines I mean things like trying not to mix disk sizes, try to avoid volumes (now aggregates?) that span FC adapters, etc. Are any of these things still a concern on modern versions of ONTAP (7+)? Does anyone have any best practices they'd be willing to share in regards to aggregate creation? NOW says "make them as big as possible using as many spindles as possible", but that doesn't really help much. We use our filers for unstructured data only; cifs + nfs but no databases, no snapmirror, no snapvault, etc.. TIA, Jeff Mery - MCSE, MCP National Instruments ------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Allow me to extol the virtues of the Net Fairy, and of all the fantastic dorks that make the nice packets go from here to there. Amen." TB - Penny Arcade -------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: Performance Indicators
by Glenn Walker 15 Sep '06

15 Sep '06

I believe that this is more along the lines of QoS (though not true QoS and not guaranteed). What Jochen is looking for is a bit difficult: you can't really guarantee performance on the head due to workload differences. Each of the machines Jochen listed is a very capable machine - but selling IOPS to a user is not easy. Each workload is different, each application would require a different amount of IOPS in order to facilitate functionality (hard to define these sometimes), you can't easily segregate workloads and adding workload from one user\system would definitely affect existing workloads. For example: CIFS typically requires about 5 IOPS to open a file as a minimum - if you add some newer functionality from 2k3\XP and MS Office, you could be talking about hundreds of IOPS to open a file (pulling file metadata). Perhaps the best thing to do is to talk to sales to get actual numbers, but simply list the capabilities of the filer and manage how the workload is spread among them. One last point: when you speak of performance, you mentioned IOPS - this is workload, not performance. Performance is more a measure of latency at a particular level of work: ie, how much latency for a given amount of IOPS. If I stated that the R200 was capable of about 12000 IOPS (CIFS) per second, that would be true - but I could also position it as being capable of higher if the latencies of the workload were to increase (still the same amount of work, but response time would decrease). You could speak to the user-base about performance in terms of latency and IOPS. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Wischer, Sebastian Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 5:18 AM To: Willeke, Jochen; NetApp Toasters List Subject: RE: Performance Indicators HI Jochen, have you think about FlexCache?? There you give volumes priorities. I know it is not exactly what you are looking for but perhaps with the help of FlexCache you can sell categories to your departments. Here is a small summary from a NetApp slideset regarding FlexCache: FlexShare(tm) is enabled when there are system bottlenecks CPU NVRAM Disk Control of priority by volume Five priority levels Sebastian -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Willeke, Jochen Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 10:32 AM To: NetApp Toasters List Subject: Performance Indicators Hi Toasters, right now i am thinking about any kind of performance indicator for my fileservice. We do supply storage to other departments of our company. Of course one thing i can sell is space. But there is another indicator which is performance. Has anybody good ideas how to define the performance i can grant to a special service? I was thinking about I/O's per second but do not know what a good number would be. Has anybody ever had to work out those values and can give me something to think about? I am interesting in any experience you had with this topic... I/O's, data-throughput, responsetime....And what are good values which i can grant with netapp systems? We use R200, FAS960 and FAS3050. Thanks in advance Jochen

2 1

Need Advice for changing qtree from Unix to NTFS security style
by Stephen C. Losen 15 Sep '06

15 Sep '06

We have a filer that serves files in a qtree with both NFS and CIFS. The file security style is currently Unix. The qtree has about 7000 files using about 150G. CIFS authentication is done via a Windows DC and we have a Unix passwd NIS map for converting the Windows users to Unix users. There are over 100 folks using this share. Each one owns a directory (not a home directory -- just storage) and each one wants to be able to grant some of the 100 other users access to their folder. Plus they have an admin who needs to be able to manipulate access rights on everything. Obviously Unix security style isn't going to cut it. So we want to switch the qtree to NTFS security style. We switched a test qtree from Unix to NTFS style and discovered that no one (not even a Windows user with admin privs in the domain) has "modify" or "full control" rights on any file or folder that already exists. So it looks like we can't change the ACLs on anything that already exists. If a Windows user creates a new folder or file, then he has the ability to change the ACL. Has anyone else switched a qtree from Unix to NTFS style? Is there anything we can do either before or after we switch the security style to make it possible to set ACLs on files that already exist? I didn't try logging in to CIFS as a local filer user. Is that the secret? I suppose we could create a new empty qtree with NTFS style and copy the files from the old qtree to the new one. But I would really like to avoid that if possible. Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 434-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

2 2

Re: Need Advice for changing qtree from Unix to NTFS security style
by Stephen C. Losen 15 Sep '06

15 Sep '06

> > We switched a test qtree from Unix to NTFS style and discovered that no > one (not even a Windows user with admin privs in the domain) has "modify" > or "full control" rights on any file or folder that already exists. So > it looks like we can't change the ACLs on anything that already exists. > If a Windows user creates a new folder or file, then he has the ability > to change the ACL. > Ooops. Looks like I was wrong here. The owner of the file or folder does have full control. So I guess I can chown everything to me and then from my Windows account I can set all the ACLs. I'll check and see if the local filer "administrator" user can do it. Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 434-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

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