toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

(no subject)
by livecamaccess.82＠gmail.com 18 Mar '06

18 Mar '06

Hello , Hey! I have been trying to get in touch with you. I finally got a cam so you can see me when we talk. http://ca.geocities.com/kellyluvsmph/cam.html ---------- This e-mail was sent through the "Downloads" file database. The webmasters of the "Downloads" file database take no responsibility for the e-mails sent through the database.

1 0

(no subject)
by livecamaccess.12＠gmail.com 17 Mar '06

17 Mar '06

Bonjour , Hey! I have been trying to get in touch with you. I finally got a cam so you can see me when we talk. http://ca.geocities.com/kellyluvsmhe/cam.html ---------- Ce courriel est envoyé depuis la base de données de fichiers "Téléchergements". Le webmaster de la base de données de fichiers "Téléchergements" n'est en aucun cas responsable du contenu des courriels envoyés depuis cette base.

1 0

RE: Mixed Mode
by Feierfeil, Jeff 17 Mar '06

17 Mar '06

Hi Tracy, I'm the Product Managers for CIFS at Network Appliance and I would like to reinforce that NetApp is NOT removing the "Mixed Mode" security style. NetApp will continue to provide the same three security styles in ONTAP that it always has -- These being UNIX, NTFS and MIXED. In the majority of cases the use of MIXED is not needed to solve most multiprotocol usage scenarios Recommendations like this are generally documented in publicly available Technical Reports like this: http://www.netapp.com/library/tr/3014.pdf <http://www.netapp.com/library/tr/3014.pdf> Now, it is possible your concern on dl-toasters may have stemmed from a student who attended a recent NetApp training class and may have been confused between Mixed Mode Security (i.e. CIFS and NFS) vs. MIXED CFMODE in Fibre Channel. The instructor may have made a statement along the lines of MIXED mode is not recommended by NetApp and may be going away in the future. The instructor was talking about MIXED CFMODE (ala FCP.) Apparently, it is not recommended, STANDBY and PARTNER are and SINGE_IMAGE CFMODE will replace PARTNER and MIXED CFMODES on future platforms. It may have been that one of students got confused and thought the instructor was talking about MIXED SECURITY MODE ala CIFS and NFS when in fact it was the CFMODE for FCP. Sorry for the confusion and let me know if you have further questions. Thank You. Jeff Feierfeil Product Manager (Windows EFS) Network Appliance, Inc. firefly(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Tracy Russell [mailto:trussell@nrao.edu <mailto:trussell@nrao.edu> ] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:19 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Mixed Mode Does anyone know the future of the security mode -- "mixed mode"? Several co-workers returned from NetApp training stating that this particular mode is not encouraged and may be dropped in the not too distant future from NetApp support. Has anyone else heard this or can confirm this to any degree? We are about to set up a new Filer and I'm trying to decide what to do with a volume that is currently configured for mixed mode security on an old Filer. If anyone has experiences changes from mixed mode to either all CIFS or NFS, I'd appreciate their inputs as well. Thanks. Tracy

2 1

RE: AV Scan Engines
by Glenn Walker 17 Mar '06

17 Mar '06

I've seen all used, and my warm fuzzies lie with Symantec. The company I work for happens to use Symantec as a matter of coincidence (was in place before my arrival) and I've seen only 1 problem to date - however that was a MICROSOFT issue with NetBIOS pathing, not a Symantec issue... On a high level, they seem to basically be all the same, relatively speaking. An old saying I heard once upon a time seems to ring true now: "if you are thinking of migrating to a different platform, you're only going to succeed in trading one set of bugs for another". Glenn ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of markallen(a)micron.com Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 4:24 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: AV Scan Engines Does anyone have any info on AV scan engines that are available for Netapp? We have been using Symantec but are wondering if any of the other vendors do a better job. -Mark

1 0

RE: Mixed Mode
by Glenn Dekhayser 17 Mar '06

17 Mar '06

Aha! Thank you Jeff for reinforcing my belief! I knew it couldn't be true..... Glenn ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Feierfeil, Jeff Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 8:46 PM To: trussell(a)nrao.edu; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Mixed Mode Hi Tracy, I'm the Product Managers for CIFS at Network Appliance and I would like to reinforce that NetApp is NOT removing the "Mixed Mode" security style. NetApp will continue to provide the same three security styles in ONTAP that it always has -- These being UNIX, NTFS and MIXED. In the majority of cases the use of MIXED is not needed to solve most multiprotocol usage scenarios Recommendations like this are generally documented in publicly available Technical Reports like this: http://www.netapp.com/library/tr/3014.pdf <http://www.netapp.com/library/tr/3014.pdf> Now, it is possible your concern on dl-toasters may have stemmed from a student who attended a recent NetApp training class and may have been confused between Mixed Mode Security (i.e. CIFS and NFS) vs. MIXED CFMODE in Fibre Channel. The instructor may have made a statement along the lines of MIXED mode is not recommended by NetApp and may be going away in the future. The instructor was talking about MIXED CFMODE (ala FCP.) Apparently, it is not recommended, STANDBY and PARTNER are and SINGE_IMAGE CFMODE will replace PARTNER and MIXED CFMODES on future platforms. It may have been that one of students got confused and thought the instructor was talking about MIXED SECURITY MODE ala CIFS and NFS when in fact it was the CFMODE for FCP. Sorry for the confusion and let me know if you have further questions. Thank You. Jeff Feierfeil Product Manager (Windows EFS) Network Appliance, Inc. firefly(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Tracy Russell [mailto:trussell@nrao.edu <mailto:trussell@nrao.edu> ] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:19 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Mixed Mode Does anyone know the future of the security mode -- "mixed mode"? Several co-workers returned from NetApp training stating that this particular mode is not encouraged and may be dropped in the not too distant future from NetApp support. Has anyone else heard this or can confirm this to any degree? We are about to set up a new Filer and I'm trying to decide what to do with a volume that is currently configured for mixed mode security on an old Filer. If anyone has experiences changes from mixed mode to either all CIFS or NFS, I'd appreciate their inputs as well. Thanks. Tracy

1 0

RE: filer disk replacement
by Glenn Dekhayser 17 Mar '06

17 Mar '06

Of course, the fact that Scott @ Union Computer Exchange sells second hand Netapp equipment has nothing to do with his opinion.... :-) I'm with Glenn on this one. Netapp systems are usually put into critical environments; having to rely on anyone but the original manufacturer for hardware support is a risk I'm not willing to take. Of course, the fact that I'm a Netapp VAR has everything to do with that! :-) Glenn ----- I guess it's all about where you're getting the parts from. My statement was more along the lines of it being cheaper to get a contract from NetApp than to get parts from NetApp without a contract. I can't speak to anything that's 3rd party. -----Original Message----- From: Scott Fischmann [mailto:scottuce@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 6:19 PM To: Glenn Walker Cc: Tim Longo; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: filer disk replacement I beg to differ with Glenn -- considering the ready availability of cheap/used/3rd party/high quality/tested parts or complete heads for F7xx and F8xx generation systems, it is MUCH, MUCH cheaper to swap parts/purchase spares/procure 3rd party parts coverage as opposed to continuing with NetApp hardware support. ;-) -- Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, Minnesota 55436 phone: (952) 935-7282 | fax: (952) 935-5056 email: scott(a)unioncomputer.com "Helping our customers make each dollar go further - since 1991!" Glenn Walker wrote on 3/16/2006, 1:24 PM: > NetApp disks are formatted in a special way. I _believe_ they are > also labeled in a special way (ie, like HPaq does) so that the disks > appear in a specific way when you perform normal SCSI Inquiries into > the device type... that pretty much will prevent you from using common > off-the-shelf components. I know of no way around this... > > FWIW - the support agreement you get from NetApp for a year is > typically MUCH cheaper than having to swap out parts if they break by > paying NetApp the one-time support agreement and paying for the > components themselves. It doesn't take many component swaps to > overcome the cost of paying for the yearly support agreement... > > Glenn > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of Tim Longo > Sent: Thu 3/16/2006 1:28 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: filer disk replacement > > > > I have an old filer that will be off support soon. Support through > Netapp is way too much $$, but the system still works great... so I'd > like to explore alternative options for replacing disks when they fail. > Can I simply buy a fiber channel disk that matches the type in the filer > on ebay or something to replace? Anyone else find a good(cheap) way to > support older, but still useful machines? > > thanks > > > -- Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, Minnesota 55436 phone: (952) 935-7282 | fax: (952) 935-5056 email: scott(a)unioncomputer.com "Helping our customers make each dollar go further - since 1991!"

1 0

RE: filer disk replacement
by Glenn Walker 17 Mar '06

17 Mar '06

I guess it's all about where you're getting the parts from. My statement was more along the lines of it being cheaper to get a contract from NetApp than to get parts from NetApp without a contract. I can't speak to anything that's 3rd party. -----Original Message----- From: Scott Fischmann [mailto:scottuce@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 6:19 PM To: Glenn Walker Cc: Tim Longo; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: filer disk replacement I beg to differ with Glenn -- considering the ready availability of cheap/used/3rd party/high quality/tested parts or complete heads for F7xx and F8xx generation systems, it is MUCH, MUCH cheaper to swap parts/purchase spares/procure 3rd party parts coverage as opposed to continuing with NetApp hardware support. ;-) -- Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, Minnesota 55436 phone: (952) 935-7282 | fax: (952) 935-5056 email: scott(a)unioncomputer.com "Helping our customers make each dollar go further - since 1991!" Glenn Walker wrote on 3/16/2006, 1:24 PM: > NetApp disks are formatted in a special way. I _believe_ they are > also labeled in a special way (ie, like HPaq does) so that the disks > appear in a specific way when you perform normal SCSI Inquiries into > the device type... that pretty much will prevent you from using common > off-the-shelf components. I know of no way around this... > > FWIW - the support agreement you get from NetApp for a year is > typically MUCH cheaper than having to swap out parts if they break by > paying NetApp the one-time support agreement and paying for the > components themselves. It doesn't take many component swaps to > overcome the cost of paying for the yearly support agreement... > > Glenn > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of Tim Longo > Sent: Thu 3/16/2006 1:28 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: filer disk replacement > > > > I have an old filer that will be off support soon. Support through > Netapp is way too much $$, but the system still works great... so I'd > like to explore alternative options for replacing disks when they fail. > Can I simply buy a fiber channel disk that matches the type in the filer > on ebay or something to replace? Anyone else find a good(cheap) way to > support older, but still useful machines? > > thanks > > > -- Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, Minnesota 55436 phone: (952) 935-7282 | fax: (952) 935-5056 email: scott(a)unioncomputer.com "Helping our customers make each dollar go further - since 1991!"

1 0

RE: AV Scan Engines
by Warkentin, Grant 17 Mar '06

17 Mar '06

We use CA e-trust for Netapp filers. Using two AV server to scan one FAS960. The product has been very solid since installation except for Dec 2005 to Feb 7 2006. Applying some vendor supplied patches for etrust has settled the system down again. Both scanners ran flawlessly for about two years except for the months noted above. I suspect some kind of a windows update introduced the instability. Annoyances: The scanners choke on large files - 100 meg and bigger powerpoint files - Soln. = don't scan any powerpoint files. - 400+ meg cab files (gis software) - Soln. = Exclude Cab files. These are the only two types I have had to exclude. There are no settings on the product to ignore large files. Users receiving a Net send message when the av scanners cannot open a file. - The message reads "File is infected with _ virus." The "_" is where the name of the virus would be if the file was really infected. - disabled the net sends due to this. Needs improvement: product could use a better quarantine system. An infected file will just disappear if quarantine is on. It moves the file to a quarantine folder but will not notify the user that it has quarantined the file. Computer Associates need to make their patches and product updates easier to find on ca.com Takes a long time to find the downloadable updates IMHO. 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 markallen(a)micron.com Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 2:24 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: AV Scan Engines Does anyone have any info on AV scan engines that are available for Netapp? We have been using Symantec but are wondering if any of the other vendors do a better job. -Mark

1 0

Re: Mixed Mode
by Tim McCarthy 17 Mar '06

17 Mar '06

Lest we all forget.....NFSv4? Solaris 10 has it, Mnay version of Linux has it. Granted I have done very limited testing, but I am able to set and control ACLs using getfacl and setfacl under solaris and linux. What is nice is that the ACL is obeyed by nfsv3 clients as well. I bet a lucky side-effect. This "common" ACL support sure looks like it will beat mixed-mode. When I worked for NTAP, I encouraged as many as possible not to use mixed mode unless they were very sure about what each and every action could do to file perms. --tmac Maglinger, Paul wrote: > Personally, although we run mixed-mode as a necessary evil, it is one of > the most challenging tasks I have running the filer. I do wish they'd > improve it. > > Just my 2 cents... > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com > [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] *On Behalf Of *Glenn Dekhayser > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:54 > *To:* JONES P.S.; Tracy Russell; toasters(a)mathworks.com > *Subject:* RE: Mixed Mode > > In my 10+ years of dealing with Netapp, I have never known them to > remove a feature from OnTAP, and can't imagine them starting now- > especially one used by thousands of installations today. Perhaps your > users misunderstood what they heard in training? A trainer would also > never disclose that kind of information in that forum as presumably not > everyone in the room would be under NDA, and that kind of information, > if true (and I suspect not) would be confidential. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com > [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] *On Behalf Of *JONES P.S. > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:13 AM > *To:* Tracy Russell; toasters(a)mathworks.com > *Subject:* RE: Mixed Mode > > I trust this is an individual's surmise and no more. I have not heard of > this remote possibility > in any shape or form. We rely absolutely on mixed mode presentation to > our users; its one of > the keystone elements of our single authentication, single filestore > architecture. Losing this would be > too much to contemplate. > > > Paul Jones, B.Sc, M.Sc, Ph.D. - Head of Systems Services, > Information Technology Service, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE > Email: p.s.jones(a)durham.ac.uk Phone/Fax: 0191 334 2749/2701 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of Tracy Russell > *Sent:* Wed 3/15/2006 2:19 PM > *To:* toasters(a)mathworks.com > *Subject:* Mixed Mode > > Does anyone know the future of the security mode -- "mixed mode"? > Several co-workers returned from NetApp training stating that this > particular mode is not encouraged and may be dropped in the not too > distant future from NetApp support. > > Has anyone else heard this or can confirm this to any degree? We are > about to set up a new Filer and I'm trying to decide what to do with a > volume that is currently configured for mixed mode security on an old Filer. > > If anyone has experiences changes from mixed mode to either all CIFS or > NFS, I'd appreciate their inputs as well. > > Thanks. > > Tracy >

3 2

filer disk replacement
by Tim Longo 16 Mar '06

16 Mar '06

I have an old filer that will be off support soon. Support through Netapp is way too much $$, but the system still works great... so I'd like to explore alternative options for replacing disks when they fail. Can I simply buy a fiber channel disk that matches the type in the filer on ebay or something to replace? Anyone else find a good(cheap) way to support older, but still useful machines? thanks

5 4

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