toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

Delayed Mail (still being retried)
by MAILER-DAEMON＠defer02.ocn.ad.jp 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

This is the Postfix program at host defer02.ocn.ad.jp. #################################################################### # THIS IS A WARNING ONLY. YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE. # #################################################################### Your message could not be delivered for 4 hours. It will be retried until it is 1 day old. For further assistance, please contact <support(a)ocn.ad.jp> The following sentences are Japanese. #################################################################### # これは単なる注意です。メールを再送信する必要はありません。 # #################################################################### あなたのメールは 4 時間の間、配信できませんでした。 1 日間経つまで、配信は繰り返し続けられます。エラーメッセージの原因や対処法については下記のサイトでご案内しております。 http://www.ocn.ne.jp/0/faq/mail/errormail/ 上記のサイトでも解決できない場合は、<support(a)ocn.ad.jp> へご連絡ください。 -------------------------------------------------------- <info-inventor-dev(a)oss.sgi.com>: host oss.sgi.com[192.48.170.157] said: 451 4.7.1 Please try again later (TEMPFAIL)

1 0

Dear Friend,
by Owen David 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

Dear Friend, We are happy to let you know that, your email have been selected for one of our UK NATIONAL PROMOTION held on july 2006, so you are in position to clam the sum of (Two Million, Thirty-nine thousand, Five hundred and Six pounds sterling), contact back for information on how to proceed for your clam, i am looking forward to hear from you as soon as possible to enable me forward the full details inculding the application which you will fill with your full information and apply to our headquarter here in LONDON for your claim. Comply immediately Mr. David Owen. EURO-ASIAN Zonal Coordinator

1 0

FROM FRANKLUX GORDON
by franklux＠gordon.as 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

My Dear Good Friend, How are you today? Sorry for any inconveniences. Well, I just want to use this medium to thank you very much for your earlier assistance to help me in receiving the inheritance funds, without any positive outcome.I am obliged to inform you that I have succeeded in receiving the funds with the help of a new partner from SPAIN. Everything was perfectly done because we strike a deal with one of the Lady accountant who works with the Remittance Department of the Federal Ministry of Finance (FMF)and she rendered a tremendous help to us. My new partner initiated this idea and everything worked out successfully.In appreciation of your earlier assistance to me in receiving the Funds, I have decided to compensate you with the sum of $850,000 in a Cashier's cheque (Eight Hundred and FiftyThousand United States Dollars). This is from my own share of $10.5m, I did this simply to show you that it is good to do good things to the right people always. Presently, I am in SPAIN for investment project with my own share under the advice of my partner Mr. Mathew Paul. Meanwhile,I didn't forget your past efforts and attempts to assist me in transferring those funds despite that it failed us somehow. I will be sending you mail to know if you have received your share or not. Now contact my personal assistant in Benin Republic. His name is Mr.David Mark send him your contact address where you want the cheque to be sent to you. His e-mail addres is:( davide_marks(a)yahoo.it ) Please do let me know immediately you receive the money so that we can share the joy together after all the suffering at that time. In the moment, I'm very busy here in chile because of the investment projects, which the new partner and I are having at hand. So feel free to get in touch with Mr. David Mark to send the cheque to you without any delay. With My Best Regards, Honourable Franklux Gordon

1 0

RE: Storage space overheads!
by Bokkelkamp, Ernst 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

"I wish NetApp had Raid5, this could have eliminated some issues like using 2 dual-parity drives." Why ? Somehow I get the impression, looking at the last few messages, that the majority does not understand raid_dp and the differences to raid_4. For practical purposes raid5 + some filesystem is "like" raid4 + wafl, particulary when you compare the data : parity disk ratio. Comparing raid4 to raid_dp you should notice that raid_dp provides a better protection with equal overhead when used on large volumes/aggregates. Large aggregates use the same number of parity disks but the raid_dp parity disks protect twice as many data disks compared to raid4. Sometimes the cost of one drive can be justified to provide additional protection on small volumes/aggregates, if not than you can always use raid4 instead. Btw: there is an interesting document on WAFL in the knowledgebase - it is definitely worthwile to understand the principles behind WAFL to understand the benefits of raid4 and raid_dp. Ernie -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of margesimpson(a)hushmail.com Sent: Montag, 31. Juli 2006 02:19 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Storage space overheads! Hi all, Thank you very much. It seems out of 100GB, what usable space I can have is 55GB (55%). I feel yauk! But it seems at this point of time, its the only solution. I wish NetApp had Raid5, this could have eliminated some issues like using 2 dual-parity drives. Thank you again for your responses about SATA and FC disks. Cheers, Marge. On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:19:08 +1000 "Holland, William L" <HollandWL(a)state.gov> wrote: >We have a R200 which has 168 ATA drives. I expected a high failure >rate on these as ATA drives are not rated for continuous duty. I have >been surprised, and pleased, that failure rate has been very low - >perhaps 3 drives in a year. Not sure about the SATA. The way I am >moving is to use (S)ATA for my NAS (user shares) and FC drives for >hosting my iSCSI LUNs. Databases need the higher performance of FC, >simple file shares do not. > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner- >toasters(a)mathworks.com] On Behalf Of margesimpson(a)hushmail.com >Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:00 PM >To: toasters(a)mathworks.com >Subject: RE: Storage space overheads! > >Hi Glenn D, Glenn W, Andrew, Michael, Holland and Holland, Thank you >all for your feeback. > >To summarize, the following is true (i.e., about storage >sacrifice): >- Disk are right sized (realigning size in blocks from different >vendors...eg., for 72GB we get 68GB) before using by NetApp. >- dual parity (2 disks on RG of 16 => 14D+2P) >- spare disk/s >- WAFL & RAID overhead (~ 5%). >- aggr reserve 5% default >- vol snapshot reserve 20% default > - for LUNs: 50% for base snapshot + extra space 20% of remaining data >space >- user data should always be below 90% to avoid performance bottleneck >and defrag issues. > >That's sounds bad to me, but if you all feel to be true then its must >be a solution. > >How about putting SATA disks on the primary filers to save costs? >Whats are the problems in replacing FC disks with SATA? >Whats record about SATA disks, I heard they are terrible? (Failure >rates >is abnormal) > >Thanks again for feedback. >Marge. > > > > >Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no >account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 > >Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail >https://www.hushssl.com?l=485 Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485

1 0

RE: Storage space overheads!
by Glenn Walker 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

Marge... I'd much rather have RAID-DP than RAID5 - RAID-DP affords for faster read\write access and the ability to lose TWO drives without losing data (raid5 can only lose one). If you feel strongly about not wanting to use multiple disks for parity, use traditional RAID4 - still faster read\write access when compared to RAID5, but obviously you won't have as much resiliency to failure. That will surely boost your usable space as well. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of margesimpson(a)hushmail.com Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 8:19 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Storage space overheads! Hi all, Thank you very much. It seems out of 100GB, what usable space I can have is 55GB (55%). I feel yauk! But it seems at this point of time, its the only solution. I wish NetApp had Raid5, this could have eliminated some issues like using 2 dual-parity drives. Thank you again for your responses about SATA and FC disks. Cheers, Marge. On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:19:08 +1000 "Holland, William L" <HollandWL(a)state.gov> wrote: >We have a R200 which has 168 ATA drives. I expected a high >failure rate >on these as ATA drives are not rated for continuous duty. I have >been >surprised, and pleased, that failure rate has been very low - >perhaps 3 >drives in a year. Not sure about the SATA. The way I am moving >is to >use (S)ATA for my NAS (user shares) and FC drives for hosting my >iSCSI >LUNs. Databases need the higher performance of FC, simple file >shares >do not. > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner- >toasters(a)mathworks.com] >On Behalf Of margesimpson(a)hushmail.com >Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:00 PM >To: toasters(a)mathworks.com >Subject: RE: Storage space overheads! > >Hi Glenn D, Glenn W, Andrew, Michael, Holland and Holland, Thank >you >all for your feeback. > >To summarize, the following is true (i.e., about storage >sacrifice): >- Disk are right sized (realigning size in blocks from different >vendors...eg., for 72GB we get 68GB) before using by NetApp. >- dual parity (2 disks on RG of 16 => 14D+2P) >- spare disk/s >- WAFL & RAID overhead (~ 5%). >- aggr reserve 5% default >- vol snapshot reserve 20% default > - for LUNs: 50% for base snapshot + extra space 20% of remaining >data space >- user data should always be below 90% to avoid performance >bottleneck >and defrag issues. > >That's sounds bad to me, but if you all feel to be true then its >must be >a solution. > >How about putting SATA disks on the primary filers to save costs? >Whats are the problems in replacing FC disks with SATA? >Whats record about SATA disks, I heard they are terrible? (Failure >rates >is abnormal) > >Thanks again for feedback. >Marge. > > > > >Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no >account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 > >Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail >https://www.hushssl.com?l=485 Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485

1 0

Warning: E-mail viruses detected
by MailScanner 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

Our e-mail content detector has just been triggered by a message you sent: To: hlinda(a)ratree.psu.ac.th, linda.h(a)mail.psu.ac.th Subject: Mail System Error - Returned Mail Date: Mon Jul 31 08:20:27 2006 One or more of the attachments (document.com) are on the list of unacceptable attachments for this site and will not have been delivered. Consider renaming the files to avoid this constraint. The virus detector said this about the message: Report: MailScanner: Executable DOS/Windows programs are dangerous in email (document.com) -- MailScanner Email Virus Scanner Prince Of Songkhla University www.psu.ac.th MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support

1 0

RE: Storage space overheads!
by margesimpson＠hushmail.com 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

Hi all, Thank you very much. It seems out of 100GB, what usable space I can have is 55GB (55%). I feel yauk! But it seems at this point of time, its the only solution. I wish NetApp had Raid5, this could have eliminated some issues like using 2 dual-parity drives. Thank you again for your responses about SATA and FC disks. Cheers, Marge. On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:19:08 +1000 "Holland, William L" <HollandWL(a)state.gov> wrote: >We have a R200 which has 168 ATA drives. I expected a high >failure rate >on these as ATA drives are not rated for continuous duty. I have >been >surprised, and pleased, that failure rate has been very low - >perhaps 3 >drives in a year. Not sure about the SATA. The way I am moving >is to >use (S)ATA for my NAS (user shares) and FC drives for hosting my >iSCSI >LUNs. Databases need the higher performance of FC, simple file >shares >do not. > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner- >toasters(a)mathworks.com] >On Behalf Of margesimpson(a)hushmail.com >Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:00 PM >To: toasters(a)mathworks.com >Subject: RE: Storage space overheads! > >Hi Glenn D, Glenn W, Andrew, Michael, Holland and Holland, Thank >you >all for your feeback. > >To summarize, the following is true (i.e., about storage >sacrifice): >- Disk are right sized (realigning size in blocks from different >vendors...eg., for 72GB we get 68GB) before using by NetApp. >- dual parity (2 disks on RG of 16 => 14D+2P) >- spare disk/s >- WAFL & RAID overhead (~ 5%). >- aggr reserve 5% default >- vol snapshot reserve 20% default > - for LUNs: 50% for base snapshot + extra space 20% of remaining >data space >- user data should always be below 90% to avoid performance >bottleneck >and defrag issues. > >That's sounds bad to me, but if you all feel to be true then its >must be >a solution. > >How about putting SATA disks on the primary filers to save costs? >Whats are the problems in replacing FC disks with SATA? >Whats record about SATA disks, I heard they are terrible? (Failure >rates >is abnormal) > >Thanks again for feedback. >Marge. > > > > >Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no >account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 > >Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail >https://www.hushssl.com?l=485 Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485

1 0

RE: Data Classification
by Glenn Walker 30 Jul '06

30 Jul '06

Eyal is speaking of the IS1200 solution - we're looking at it also as a potential solution for just this problem. Glenn ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Eyal Traitel Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 11:22 AM To: netster Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Data Classification Hi ! 1. You can use "df -i" command to know how many inodes you have. This would be higher than the number of files (since it'll represent directories as well) but would be a good estimate for the ceiling. 2. Look at Kazeon - NetApp resells them. Eyal. On 7/30/06, netster <netster_cooper(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Hi! I have several NetApp filers with close to 25TBs of user data stored on them (Best guess is that there is some 50 million files, but we aren't sure as our backup software only backups the current data set, not the snapshots). We are looking to consolidate down the environment given the latest storage capacities and thought I would ask the community here what tools that they used to understand what data needed to be migrate, what data needed to be destroyed, and what the data costs in terms of per user and department? We have the costing for the storage down to a per $ fee per MB/GB. Any thoughts? We have tried some freeware and shareware programs, but they require weeks, if not months of personnel time to make sense out of the data that they collect. We are looking for a packaged solution. Thank you for your help. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Data-Classification-tf2023386.html#a5563372 Sent from the Network Appliance - Toasters forum at Nabble.com. -- Yours, Eyal.

2 1

Greetings!
by MR. JOHN FISHER 30 Jul '06

30 Jul '06

Dear Friend, I work as the Head of Fund Manager Executive with Fidelity Investment UK, the World Leading Investment & Fund Management Institution based in UK/Channel Island. I have an Investor under my portfolio with a closing balance of $42.870m as his first initial deposit. This Investor died three years ago leaving no WILL or AUTHORIZATION for re-transfer of his Investment and its proceeds to the INHERITOR.I have personally carried out an Investigation on the subject matter that took me 12 months to finalize and was made to understand that the Family or Relatives of the Investor knows nothing about his Investment with Fidelity and none have any records of all his deposits and investment with us leaving an avenue for claiming of the said funds with its accrued interest on presentation of a trustworthy person that can stand as the INHERITOR to the deceased . If you are interested, I can present you as the INHERITOR with proper documentation that will qualify you to have the funds claimed and on doing this, our establishment will not question the release of the funds to you as I will make sure that we comply with the laid down rules and laws of claiming the Investment of a deceased Investor in our Establishment. Our sharing ratio will be 50:50.Please contacted me for more detail breakdown if interested. Looking forward to hearing from you shortly. Sincerely. Mr.John Fisher. www.fidelity.co.uk

1 0

GREETINGS
by MR. JOHN FISHER 30 Jul '06

30 Jul '06

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