toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

RE: SMSQL Config Question
by Hadrian Baron 17 Aug '06

17 Aug '06

Yes... the new version of SME will get rid of the need for a seperate lun. I agree with setting a fractional reserve instead of the full 100%. I'm going to start doing that. Thanks for your help - Hadrian Hadrian Baron Network Engineer VEGAS.com Office: 702-992-4853 Cell: 702-553-5699 _____ From: Eyal Traitel [mailto:etraitel@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:35 PM To: Hadrian Baron Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: SMSQL Config Question Baron, You have to separate SME and SMSQL for this discussion. Latest versions of SME have added an optional disk space savings when combining the logs and SnapInfo directories together on the same lun, using NTFS Hard Links. This can be a great savings feature that answer youe requirement. SMSQL - As far as my experience goes, you have to back it up by design when using SMSQL - the SnapInfo is an integral part of the backup - so in a way - you can compare with backing up the backup catalog of a backup application - it's an additional information that you need to keep track of the backups, so that you can easily browse and perform the recovey. This is the reason you purchased it isn't it? So - if you care about disk space savings, you can still reduce the reservation amount unrelated to my discussion above - you will just have to monitor it more closely. Snapshots will continue to run, and SME and SMSQL will happily leave with that. By the way - most people tend to believe that an "aweful thing" happens if you reduce the space reservation and then a disk write cannot be accepted - but in fact what happens is that the lun is taken offline. It's downtime, but in a way it's a very simple one - you clean up some space, most likely by removing old backups (snapshots) and then take the lun online again, and you're up. Eyal. On 8/17/06, Hadrian Baron <Hadrian.Baron(a)vegas.com> wrote: So I had many replies about creating a separate LUN to store smsql (or sme) log files / installation directory. I had one question though: For this extra smsql LUN, do I need space reservation / snapshotting enabled? Why have a backup of a backup of a backup right? Hadrian Baron Network Engineer VEGAS.com Office: 702-992-4853 Cell: 702-553-5699 -- Yours, Eyal.

2 1

SMSQL Config Question
by Hadrian Baron 17 Aug '06

17 Aug '06

So I had many replies about creating a separate LUN to store smsql (or sme) log files / installation directory. I had one question though: For this extra smsql LUN, do I need space reservation / snapshotting enabled? Why have a backup of a backup of a backup right? Hadrian Baron Network Engineer VEGAS.com Office: 702-992-4853 Cell: 702-553-5699

2 1

RE: So where has all the <<luncheon meat>> gone?
by Hadrian Baron 17 Aug '06

17 Aug '06

Good point. The spam has been annoying. Knocks on wood. Hadrian Baron Network Engineer VEGAS.com Office: 702-992-4853 Cell: 702-553-5699 -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Chris Thompson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 1:17 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: So where has all the <<luncheon meat>> gone? So what happened to the toasters mailing list? With spam approaching 75% of the messages in late July, there was a sudden silence from 2nd - 9th August, and then it started up again with _absolutely_ no spam (cross fingers). I have been able to turn off my holding tank folder for toasters e-mail which I used just to filter out the spam. -- Chris Thompson Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk

1 0

So where has all the <<luncheon meat>> gone?
by Chris Thompson 16 Aug '06

16 Aug '06

So what happened to the toasters mailing list? With spam approaching 75% of the messages in late July, there was a sudden silence from 2nd - 9th August, and then it started up again with _absolutely_ no spam (cross fingers). I have been able to turn off my holding tank folder for toasters e-mail which I used just to filter out the spam. -- Chris Thompson Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk

1 0

RE: Data Ontap 7.2
by Fox, Adam 14 Aug '06

14 Aug '06

This was put there for early testers of FlexShare. Those folks were supported by Engineering directly during the testing. I would not recommend using the 7.1 FlexShare code in production as it is not supported at all now that the production FlexShare code is released. So use at your own risk. -- Adam Fox adamfox(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Filip Sneppe [mailto:filip.sneppe@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 12:04 PM To: Reinoud Reynders Cc: ggwalker(a)mindspring.com; thelastman(a)gmail.com; markallen(a)micron.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Data Ontap 7.2 On 8/13/06, Reinoud Reynders <reinoud.reynders(a)uz.kuleuven.ac.be> wrote: > > Flexshare is indeed the 'commercial' name of gardrail, availible in 7.2. > It's indeed a great killer ap. > Hi, Note that the "priority" command is already available from ONTAP 7.1 from "priv set advanced" mode, eg: na-demo01*> priority show volume Volume Priority Relative Sys Priority Service Priority (vs User) iscsi_luns on High Medium na-demo01*> sysconfig NetApp Release 7.1.1: Sun Jun 25 03:57:55 PDT 2006 I don't know if it is actually already fully supported on 7.1 systems, and if there are any differences between 7.1 and 7.2 flexshare features. (it is enabled on a test system in our environenment) Regards, Filip

1 0

Re: Data Ontap 7.2
by Reinoud Reynders 13 Aug '06

13 Aug '06

Flexshare is indeed the 'commercial' name of gardrail, availible in 7.2. It's indeed a great killer ap. See also the latest techontap: there's a nice demo. Reinoud UZ leuven Belgium -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com <owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com> To: Blake Golliher <thelastman(a)gmail.com> CC: markallen(a)micron.com <markallen(a)micron.com>; toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Sun Aug 13 00:32:29 2006 Subject: RE: Data Ontap 7.2 Blake, Flexshare - is this the 'guardrail' technology that enables QoS of particular datasets? Or is that 'future' at the moment? Glenn -----Original Message----- From: Blake Golliher [mailto:thelastman@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:46 PM To: Glenn Walker Cc: markallen(a)micron.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Data Ontap 7.2 We are testing it as well. FlexShare looks to be some killer technology we are excited to look at. But the mutliproc changes I think are key to this release. Which almost makes me want to wait until 7.2.2 or 7.2.3 before thinking about it seriously. Because if it's good now, wait until they perfect it! -Blake On 8/11/06, Glenn Walker <ggwalker(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > > > > > Not yet tested, but they did fix CIFS running on only 1 proc at a time (now > multithreaded and shouldn't be an issue with competing for resources from > WAFL anymore). Looking forward to that, especially with changenotify and > other issues that can cause problems on older systems! > > > > Glenn > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On > Behalf Of markallen(a)micron.com > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:43 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Data Ontap 7.2 > > > > > I noticed that Netapp GA'd 7.2 on the 3rd of August. I did a bug fix report > and noticed that a lot of CIFS bugs were fixed between the GD release 7.04 > and 7.2. I also noticed the same thing when I compared 7.1.1 and 7.2. I've > also heard that CIFS performs a lot better on multiproc systems with this > OS. Has anyone tested this out under a load and does the OS provide better > CIFS performance without any reliability side affects or impact to other > protocols such as NFS? I have it installed on a test system but I don't > really have a load on it yet. > > Thanks > > -Mark >

2 1

RE: Data Ontap 7.2
by Glenn Walker 13 Aug '06

13 Aug '06

That's exactly what I wanted to hear!!!! Now to let 7.2 cook a bit longer :-) (the Access-Based Enumeration for Windows is also another great feature, FYI) ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Reinoud Reynders Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 2:35 AM To: Glenn Walker; thelastman(a)gmail.com Cc: markallen(a)micron.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Data Ontap 7.2 Flexshare is indeed the 'commercial' name of gardrail, availible in 7.2. It's indeed a great killer ap. See also the latest techontap: there's a nice demo. Reinoud UZ leuven Belgium -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com <owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com> To: Blake Golliher <thelastman(a)gmail.com> CC: markallen(a)micron.com <markallen(a)micron.com>; toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Sun Aug 13 00:32:29 2006 Subject: RE: Data Ontap 7.2 Blake, Flexshare - is this the 'guardrail' technology that enables QoS of particular datasets? Or is that 'future' at the moment? Glenn -----Original Message----- From: Blake Golliher [mailto:thelastman@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:46 PM To: Glenn Walker Cc: markallen(a)micron.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Data Ontap 7.2 We are testing it as well. FlexShare looks to be some killer technology we are excited to look at. But the mutliproc changes I think are key to this release. Which almost makes me want to wait until 7.2.2 or 7.2.3 before thinking about it seriously. Because if it's good now, wait until they perfect it! -Blake On 8/11/06, Glenn Walker <ggwalker(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > > > > > Not yet tested, but they did fix CIFS running on only 1 proc at a time (now > multithreaded and shouldn't be an issue with competing for resources from > WAFL anymore). Looking forward to that, especially with changenotify and > other issues that can cause problems on older systems! > > > > Glenn > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On > Behalf Of markallen(a)micron.com > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:43 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Data Ontap 7.2 > > > > > I noticed that Netapp GA'd 7.2 on the 3rd of August. I did a bug fix report > and noticed that a lot of CIFS bugs were fixed between the GD release 7.04 > and 7.2. I also noticed the same thing when I compared 7.1.1 and 7.2. I've > also heard that CIFS performs a lot better on multiproc systems with this > OS. Has anyone tested this out under a load and does the OS provide better > CIFS performance without any reliability side affects or impact to other > protocols such as NFS? I have it installed on a test system but I don't > really have a load on it yet. > > Thanks > > -Mark >

1 0

RE: Data Ontap 7.2
by Glenn Walker 12 Aug '06

12 Aug '06

Blake, Flexshare - is this the 'guardrail' technology that enables QoS of particular datasets? Or is that 'future' at the moment? Glenn -----Original Message----- From: Blake Golliher [mailto:thelastman@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:46 PM To: Glenn Walker Cc: markallen(a)micron.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Data Ontap 7.2 We are testing it as well. FlexShare looks to be some killer technology we are excited to look at. But the mutliproc changes I think are key to this release. Which almost makes me want to wait until 7.2.2 or 7.2.3 before thinking about it seriously. Because if it's good now, wait until they perfect it! -Blake On 8/11/06, Glenn Walker <ggwalker(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > > > > > Not yet tested, but they did fix CIFS running on only 1 proc at a time (now > multithreaded and shouldn't be an issue with competing for resources from > WAFL anymore). Looking forward to that, especially with changenotify and > other issues that can cause problems on older systems! > > > > Glenn > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On > Behalf Of markallen(a)micron.com > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:43 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Data Ontap 7.2 > > > > > I noticed that Netapp GA'd 7.2 on the 3rd of August. I did a bug fix report > and noticed that a lot of CIFS bugs were fixed between the GD release 7.04 > and 7.2. I also noticed the same thing when I compared 7.1.1 and 7.2. I've > also heard that CIFS performs a lot better on multiproc systems with this > OS. Has anyone tested this out under a load and does the OS provide better > CIFS performance without any reliability side affects or impact to other > protocols such as NFS? I have it installed on a test system but I don't > really have a load on it yet. > > Thanks > > -Mark >

1 0

RE: Data Ontap 7.2
by Glenn Walker 12 Aug '06

12 Aug '06

Not yet tested, but they did fix CIFS running on only 1 proc at a time (now multithreaded and shouldn't be an issue with competing for resources from WAFL anymore). Looking forward to that, especially with changenotify and other issues that can cause problems on older systems! Glenn ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of markallen(a)micron.com Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:43 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Data Ontap 7.2 I noticed that Netapp GA'd 7.2 on the 3rd of August. I did a bug fix report and noticed that a lot of CIFS bugs were fixed between the GD release 7.04 and 7.2. I also noticed the same thing when I compared 7.1.1 and 7.2. I've also heard that CIFS performs a lot better on multiproc systems with this OS. Has anyone tested this out under a load and does the OS provide better CIFS performance without any reliability side affects or impact to other protocols such as NFS? I have it installed on a test system but I don't really have a load on it yet. Thanks -Mark

2 1

Data Ontap 7.2
by markallen＠micron.com 11 Aug '06

11 Aug '06

I noticed that Netapp GA'd 7.2 on the 3rd of August. I did a bug fix report and noticed that a lot of CIFS bugs were fixed between the GD release 7.04 and 7.2. I also noticed the same thing when I compared 7.1.1 and 7.2. I've also heard that CIFS performs a lot better on multiproc systems with this OS. Has anyone tested this out under a load and does the OS provide better CIFS performance without any reliability side affects or impact to other protocols such as NFS? I have it installed on a test system but I don't really have a load on it yet. Thanks -Mark

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