toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

Your message to LUMI awaits moderator approval
by lumi-admin＠citinv.it 20 Jul '06

20 Jul '06

Your mail to 'LUMI' with the subject Syndony Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Post by non-member to a members-only list Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moderator's decision.

1 0

RE: directory efficiency
by Glenn Dekhayser 20 Jul '06

20 Jul '06

There used to be a Netapp tech report (I can't find it anymore) that gave some specifics on this very question; it was about large directories on Netapp versus other technologies; perhaps the paper has obsolete information. Glenn (the other one) -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Stephen C. Losen Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 4:54 PM To: Glenn Walker Cc: Page, Jeremy; David Lee; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: directory efficiency > These considerations still matter, but the number of files in a directory have to be pretty large for performance considerations to come into play. Typically speaking, splitting up the entries so that there are less per directory is still a good idea - but in this case, I'd say that only 200 per directory is too small and a bit of a waste. > > What you're looking for is a ceiling at which the max entries will become too much to bear - that depends on the application. I would think keeping it less than 100,000 wouuld suffice for WAFL, but at some point the client will take an inordinate amount of time to enumerate all of the entries. Perhaps something more along the lines of 10,000 entries would be a good place to start? > Directories with thousands of entries are always slow if you need to scan the entire directory to list its contents or look for file names that match a pattern. But if you are accessing one file whose name you know, then WAFL will access it very quickly, even if the directory has many thousands of entries. I am pretty sure that WAFL avoids sequential directory scans by using hashing and/or search trees. Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 434-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

1 0

Virus warning
by MAILER-DAEMON＠cgpfe3.candwall.com 20 Jul '06

20 Jul '06

A message which was sent to you was rejected by the AntiVirus plugin. The details of what was detected and the original message header are below. For your protection, the original message has been destroyed. Virus(es) found: Email-Worm.Win32.Mydoom.m Viruses: 1 The sender is <MAILER-DAEMON(a)mathworks.com> (may be faked) --- The message header follows: --- Received: from [216.110.122.184] (HELO mathworks.com) by cgpfe3.candwall.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 19897092 for toasters(a)mathworks.com; Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:59:10 -0400 From: "Mail Delivery Subsystem" <MAILER-DAEMON(a)mathworks.com> To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:13:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_A8C8A3B4.642F8E52" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: <auto-000019897092(a)cgpfe3.candwall.com>

1 0

RE: Suggestions regarding migration from 740 to 270
by Fox, Adam 20 Jul '06

20 Jul '06

It is possible to preserve snapshots and migrate data, but it's tedious at best and unpractical at worst, it just depends on your data. You can use ndmpcopy or qtree SnapMirror (I prefer QSM if you have it). But basically you start with the oldest snapshot you want to keep. Migrate that snapshot for each qtree you want to migrate (or I suppose you can just do the volume if you are doing ndmpcopy). Then take a local snapshot on the destination flex vol (probably with the same name). Repeat this process with each snapshot you want to preserve. Basically, you are building them from the ground up. It works, but like I said, it's tedious for most and impossible for some. Another alternative for those who don't want to go through this process is to just copy the active filesystem over using anything you want, then keep the older disks around until they would have been deleted anyway. Not sure how that would work with your manual snapshots, but some sites with time-based snapshots have found that to be more practical, even if a bit inconvient, for a few weeks/months. Hope this helps. -- Adam Fox adamfox(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Michael Homa [mailto:mhoma@uic.edu] Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 3:51 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Suggestions regarding migration from 740 to 270 Hi: Recently, we elected to replace our primary 740 (we have two) with a 270. The 740, running 6.4.5, has traditional volumes whereas the 270, running 7.0.4, has flex volumes. I'm using ndmpcopy to migrate volumes from the old box to the new. My question concerns snapshots. I was told that I can't use ndmpcopy to migrate the snapshot (if that's not true, feel free to tell me). Anyway, we have some user-created snapshots that hold important changes. I'm looking for suggestions on getting the information contained in the snapshots migrated. Thanks Michael Homa Operating Systems Support and Database Group Academic Computing and Communication Center University of Illinois at Chicago email: mhoma(a)uic.edu

4 3

Mail System Error - Returned Mail
by Mail Administrator 20 Jul '06

20 Jul '06

This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason: Each of the following recipients was rejected by a remote mail server. The reasons given by the server are included to help you determine why each recipient was rejected. Recipient: <ctio(a)noao.edu> Reason: ctio(a)noao.edu unknown user account Please reply to <Postmaster(a)mx.bigpond.com> if you feel this message to be in error. The following attachments have been removed from the bounce message: Text.scr

1 0

Dr Claude Leobert JACOMO / 0022 508 569 621.
by leobert jacomo 20 Jul '06

20 Jul '06

Je vous salue avec déférence, puis me présente à vous avec votre permission, Docteur Claude Leobert JACOMO, Administrateur Exécutif d'un Organe Attributaire Gouvernementale en Côte d'Ivoire. De par mes capacités de Leader de ce Comité d'Attribution de Marchés, je vous fais ce contact dans l'optique recherchée d'une relation partenariale solide, à rejaillissement mutuel bénéfique, et ne comportant aucun risque pour nos carrières ou familles respectives. Le Comité d'Attribution sous ma direction, est en phase d'opérer à l'octroi d'un marché ouvert, dont la valeur globale est chiffrée à plusieurs millions d'euros. Je planifie du haut de ma qualité d'Administrateur Exécutif, dinfluencer légalement et de manière ordinaire la donne d'attribution de ce marché encours, et cela, lors du Conclave des Administrateurs prévu pour la désignation du meilleur postulant. Pourront-y prendre part des opérateurs économiques nationaux ou étrangers. Aussi et surtout, je voudrais vous informer qu'en seulement 5 jours ouvrables de travail en pleine collaboration, nous pourrions, pour le volet Attribution remplir dûment les modalités documentaires fixées, passant bien évidemment par la conception d'un dossier de candidature de poids pour vous. Il importe peu que vous soyez fonctionnaire de l'Etat, Travailleur du privé, ou tout simplement Particulier à votre propre compte, puisque vous soumissionnerez en tant qu'opérateur économique (entrepreneur libéral) à ce marché. L'attribution de ce marché à vous, fera suite immédiatement à l'opération de mobilisation de l'avance forfaitaire, qui est habituellement de la moitié de la valeur financière du marché. Cette avance de démarrage se confirmera dans un lapse de 48 à 72 heures en rapport avec le mode de paiement choisi par le bénéficiaire du marché. Je vous en prie, faisons de la légitimité, de la légalité et de la grande confidentialité, nos atouts majeurs de réussite dans cette opportunité qui reste à saisir. Je vous renseignerai dans les détails, à la réception de votre réponse montrant votre intérêt dans ce projet imminent. Bien à vous, Dr. Claude-Léo JACOMO 0022 508 569 621. executif(a)dr.com ¡Miles de amigos con tus mismas aficiones! http://www.latinchat.com

1 0

CONTACT ME FOR URGENT BUSINESS( daughter of president charles taylor)
by taylor jan 20 Jul '06

20 Jul '06

我有新的電郵地址！你現可電郵給我：j_invest5(a)yahoo.com.hk WE HAVE $35 MILLION TO INVEST MISS JAN CHARLES TAYLOR REPUBLIC OF SIERRALEONE -

1 0

Warning - eMail Blocked due to a potentially harmful attachment
by Postmaster 19 Jul '06

19 Jul '06

We are sorry, but a message apparently sent by you was received by our Mail Servers and blocked due to a potentially harmful attachment. We block messages that contain potentially harmful attachments to protect our customers. If you need to send an attachment, it is recommended that you compress your attachment(s) prior to sending with an industry standard compression tool such as WinZip. For more information regarding WinZip, please visit: http://www.winzip.com Regards, Customer Service Unified eMail, llc. Providing Hosting Messaging Services for reliable communications http://www.unifiedemail.net Postmasters, the original message was sent by toasters(a)mathworks.com from 203.210.217.69 and had the following header information: Received: from mathworks.com ([203.210.217.69]) by unifiedemail.net with MailEnable ESMTP; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:34:55 -0400 From: toasters(a)mathworks.com To: rosnthl(a)itsa.ucsf.edu Subject: Mail System Error - Returned Mail Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 06:34:24 +0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_D0C19C42.20893453" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Received-SPF: none (unifiedemail.net: mathworks.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)

1 0

RE: directory efficiency
by Page, Jeremy 19 Jul '06

19 Jul '06

I think it might, as far as I know filers still use inodes, and it seems that the nested levels would be what would cause the problems here...but since they are going to increase the number of blocks then can address at the ^2 of the number of inodes deep I'm surprised this would cause performance issues. Adam probably can give you a 100% answer. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of David Lee Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:37 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: directory efficiency (Is the following an FAQ? If so, apologies, point me in the right direction...) In years gone by, on a typical UNIX filesystem, creating entries (e.g. new files) in a directory could become badly inefficient as that directory size increased. By the time that (for instance) a "/var/spool/mail" reached (say) 20,000 entries, the acts of creating and deleting lockfiles in that directory could seriously impede things. (As a consequence, various sites devised various workaround; for instance we split into 100 subdirectories based on "uid mod 100", so that each subdir was only around (say) 200 entries. When we migrated this to NetApp a couple of years back, we simply kept this subdivision in place. But now another consideration is coming into play which would be eased if we could consider reverting to the single large (~20,000 entry) directory. Do such efficiency considerations matter in NetApp WAFL? -- : David Lee I.T. Service : : Senior Systems Programmer Computer Centre : : Durham University : : http://www.dur.ac.uk/t.d.lee/ South Road : : Durham DH1 3LE : : Phone: +44 191 334 2752 U.K. : This message (including any attachments) contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended only for the addressee. Any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may constitute a violation of law. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by responding to this e-mail, and delete the message from your system. If you have any questions about this e-mail please notify the sender immediately.

4 3

Undeliverable Mail
by Postmaster 19 Jul '06

19 Jul '06

Requested action not taken: virus detected Original message follows. Received: from mathworks.com [201.208.119.125] by mail.cary.lib.il.us with ESMTP (SMTPD-8.20) id AFC20210; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:53:54 -0500 From: toasters(a)mathworks.com To: lconn(a)cary.lib.il.us Subject: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:50:16 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_5861584F.365C54FF" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-Id: <200607191353390.SM00464(a)mathworks.com> X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALFROM: (7fc0015300000856) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_5861584F.365C54FF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_0009_5861584F.365C54FF Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="transcript.zip" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="transcript.zip" UEsDBAoAAAAAAEiW8zTNH+VvwHAAAMBwAAAOAAAAdHJhbnNjcmlwdC5zY3JNWpAAAwAAAAQAAAD/ /wAAuAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADYAAAADh+6DgC0 Cc0huAFMzSFUaGlzIHByb2dyYW0gY2Fubm90IGJlIHJ1biBpbiBET1MgbW9kZS4NDQokAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQRQAATAEDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOAADwEL AQcAAGAAAAAQAAAAgAAAAO0AAACQAAAA8AAAAABQAAAQAAAAAgAABAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAA AQAAEAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAABAAABAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABT1AAAwAQAAAPAA ABQFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFVQWDAA AAAAAIA AAAAQAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAOBVUFgxAAAAAABgAAAAkAAAAGAAAAAE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAADgLnJzcmMAAAAAEAAAAPAAAAAIAAAAZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAA wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA [message truncated]

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