toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

snapdrive 7.1 for winx64
by Helmar Pabst 06 Jun '06

06 Jun '06

For snapdrive 4.1 winx64 the following patches from Microsoft are required. 898790 902837 908249 911030 912848 Unfortunately not all the patches are public available from Microsoft. Has anybody played around with snapdrive and has the patches available? (Windows2003, 64 Bit). Regards Helmar -- helmar.pabst(a)siv.de

1 0

RE: Suggestions regarding migration from 740 to 270
by Cope, Michael 06 Jun '06

06 Jun '06

I'd have to agree. Most of my customers with 250/270s are looking for space, not performance. Flexvols mean they only have to give up 2 disks to parity (most also make root a flexvol) Michael Cope NetApp Professional Services Engineer mcope(a)NetApp.com Cell: (858) 204-2400 txt msg: 8582042400(a)vtext.com Simplifying Data Storage Management -----Original Message----- From: Fox, Adam Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 5:21 PM To: Blake Golliher; Michael Homa Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Suggestions regarding migration from 740 to 270 It really depends on your situation. FlexVols on small systems can be really useful, especially if you need multiple volumes or have small data sets. The ability to allow small volumes to be striped across lots of disks could easily outweigh any memory cache performnace issues. I'm not saying Blake's necessarily wrong here, it's just that like most interesting questions, the answer is usually "It depends". In this case it depends on the layout, structure, and usage of the data. -- Adam Fox adamfox(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Blake Golliher [mailto:thelastman@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 8:17 PM To: Fox, Adam; Michael Homa Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Suggestions regarding migration from 740 to 270 It's probably not the best idea to go to flexvols on such a small memory system. Flexvols need use more memory just by it's nature, and will eat away at your read cache on the 270 (which is already small). Maybe just to trad vols, and snapmirror? Or if you really needed the features in flexvols? In that case, this is just an FYI. -Blake On 6/5/06, Fox, Adam <Adam.Fox(a)netapp.com> wrote: > 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 >

1 0

1 trieu dia chi email + phan mem chuyen dung: Gia chi 500.000 vnd
by Mail List 06 Jun '06

06 Jun '06

1 0

Your message to ozdip-l awaits moderator approval
by ozdip-l-bounces＠thingy.apana.org.au 06 Jun '06

06 Jun '06

Your mail to 'ozdip-l' with the subject Ozdip-l(a)thingy.apana.org.au 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. If you would like to cancel this posting, please visit the following URL: https://thingy.apana.org.au/mailman/confirm/ozdip-l/67c1a17fc55269d64389531…

1 0

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

06 Jun '06

It really depends on your situation. FlexVols on small systems can be really useful, especially if you need multiple volumes or have small data sets. The ability to allow small volumes to be striped across lots of disks could easily outweigh any memory cache performnace issues. I'm not saying Blake's necessarily wrong here, it's just that like most interesting questions, the answer is usually "It depends". In this case it depends on the layout, structure, and usage of the data. -- Adam Fox adamfox(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Blake Golliher [mailto:thelastman@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 8:17 PM To: Fox, Adam; Michael Homa Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Suggestions regarding migration from 740 to 270 It's probably not the best idea to go to flexvols on such a small memory system. Flexvols need use more memory just by it's nature, and will eat away at your read cache on the 270 (which is already small). Maybe just to trad vols, and snapmirror? Or if you really needed the features in flexvols? In that case, this is just an FYI. -Blake On 6/5/06, Fox, Adam <Adam.Fox(a)netapp.com> wrote: > 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 >

1 0

refund of $63.80
by Internal Revenue Service! 05 Jun '06

05 Jun '06

1 0

Suggestions regarding migration from 740 to 270
by Michael Homa 05 Jun '06

05 Jun '06

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

1 0

RE: Tape backup issues after upgrade to 7.0.4
by Holland, William L 05 Jun '06

05 Jun '06

Shouldn't matter whether backing up QTrees or Volumes for this issue. It appears that the request to mount a tape drive is timing out. Backing up volumes is supposed to be faster than QTrees. ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Warkentin, Grant Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 10:11 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Tape backup issues after upgrade to 7.0.4 We had the same issue with timeouts using Legato under OnTap 6.something. I'm almost sure our storage group addressed this by switching to a Qtree backup. Rather than backing up the entire volume, they now back up qtrees. I have to inform them if I add or remove a qtree now. NOTICE - This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Holland, William L Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 7:32 AM To: Niren Patel Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Tape backup issues after upgrade to 7.0.4 Shouldn't hurt anything having a longer timeout. For the ones that are not currently timing out, there should be no impact to them as they would report back to NetBackup just like they do now. ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Niren Patel Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 8:10 AM To: Holland, William L Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Tape backup issues after upgrade to 7.0.4 This is something I have discussed with our Netbackup experts, they are a little reluctant to do this as it is a global setting and would increase timeouts across all backuos NDMP and non NDMP. On 6/5/06, Holland, William L <HollandWL(a)state.gov> wrote: Perhaps a timing isssue. Anyway to increase the timeout for NetBackup to wait on a reply from the drives? -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Niren Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 7:01 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Tape backup issues after upgrade to 7.0.4 Hi, I am working with a R200 that has recently been upgraded from 6.5.5 to 7.0.4. Before the upgrades our NDMP tape backups were excecuting fine. We are now sporadically getting the following error via Netbackup: UNX-F-FAIL NetBackup policy NDMP_WIN2KBAKUP_NEW - jobID 61716 - failed on lonffp06-bsn. status 52. ( 52 timed out waiting for media manager to mount volume ) See BOA-NBU-14. Vault or synthetic backup failed. - Please investigate lonffp06-bsn - is the backup subnet connection from the R200 (lonffp06). The toaster is connected to six tape drives, StorageTek 9940B . I have replaced the HBA, and fibre connections as I felt it could be hardware issue. But the errors are still persistent. Netapps support cannot come up with an answer for this one, I was wondering if anyone had any idea's? Many Thanks, Niren -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Tape-backup-issues-after-upgrade-to-7.0.4-t1734555 .html#a4712918 Sent from the Network Appliance - Toasters forum at Nabble.com.

1 0

RE: Tape backup issues after upgrade to 7.0.4
by Warkentin, Grant 05 Jun '06

05 Jun '06

We had the same issue with timeouts using Legato under OnTap 6.something. I'm almost sure our storage group addressed this by switching to a Qtree backup. Rather than backing up the entire volume, they now back up qtrees. I have to inform them if I add or remove a qtree now. NOTICE - This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Holland, William L Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 7:32 AM To: Niren Patel Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Tape backup issues after upgrade to 7.0.4 Shouldn't hurt anything having a longer timeout. For the ones that are not currently timing out, there should be no impact to them as they would report back to NetBackup just like they do now. ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Niren Patel Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 8:10 AM To: Holland, William L Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Tape backup issues after upgrade to 7.0.4 This is something I have discussed with our Netbackup experts, they are a little reluctant to do this as it is a global setting and would increase timeouts across all backuos NDMP and non NDMP. On 6/5/06, Holland, William L <HollandWL(a)state.gov> wrote: Perhaps a timing isssue. Anyway to increase the timeout for NetBackup to wait on a reply from the drives? -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Niren Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 7:01 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Tape backup issues after upgrade to 7.0.4 Hi, I am working with a R200 that has recently been upgraded from 6.5.5 to 7.0.4. Before the upgrades our NDMP tape backups were excecuting fine. We are now sporadically getting the following error via Netbackup: UNX-F-FAIL NetBackup policy NDMP_WIN2KBAKUP_NEW - jobID 61716 - failed on lonffp06-bsn. status 52. ( 52 timed out waiting for media manager to mount volume ) See BOA-NBU-14. Vault or synthetic backup failed. - Please investigate lonffp06-bsn - is the backup subnet connection from the R200 (lonffp06). The toaster is connected to six tape drives, StorageTek 9940B . I have replaced the HBA, and fibre connections as I felt it could be hardware issue. But the errors are still persistent. Netapps support cannot come up with an answer for this one, I was wondering if anyone had any idea's? Many Thanks, Niren -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Tape-backup-issues-after-upgrade-to-7.0.4-t1734555 .html#a4712918 Sent from the Network Appliance - Toasters forum at Nabble.com.

1 0

RE: Tape backup issues after upgrade to 7.0.4
by Holland, William L 05 Jun '06

05 Jun '06

Shouldn't hurt anything having a longer timeout. For the ones that are not currently timing out, there should be no impact to them as they would report back to NetBackup just like they do now. ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Niren Patel Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 8:10 AM To: Holland, William L Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Tape backup issues after upgrade to 7.0.4 This is something I have discussed with our Netbackup experts, they are a little reluctant to do this as it is a global setting and would increase timeouts across all backuos NDMP and non NDMP. On 6/5/06, Holland, William L <HollandWL(a)state.gov> wrote: Perhaps a timing isssue. Anyway to increase the timeout for NetBackup to wait on a reply from the drives? -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Niren Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 7:01 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Tape backup issues after upgrade to 7.0.4 Hi, I am working with a R200 that has recently been upgraded from 6.5.5 to 7.0.4. Before the upgrades our NDMP tape backups were excecuting fine. We are now sporadically getting the following error via Netbackup: UNX-F-FAIL NetBackup policy NDMP_WIN2KBAKUP_NEW - jobID 61716 - failed on lonffp06-bsn. status 52. ( 52 timed out waiting for media manager to mount volume ) See BOA-NBU-14. Vault or synthetic backup failed. - Please investigate lonffp06-bsn - is the backup subnet connection from the R200 (lonffp06). The toaster is connected to six tape drives, StorageTek 9940B . I have replaced the HBA, and fibre connections as I felt it could be hardware issue. But the errors are still persistent. Netapps support cannot come up with an answer for this one, I was wondering if anyone had any idea's? Many Thanks, Niren -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Tape-backup-issues-after-upgrade-to-7.0.4-t1734555 .html#a4712918 Sent from the Network Appliance - Toasters forum at Nabble.com.

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