toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13529 discussions

Get ripe for summer
by royce 19 Mar '06

19 Mar '06

Heya has somthing to ask for ya. U still scrutinizing on disappearing those extra pounds. I am for sure, I came by www.susrl.org/wj/. I know that sometimes we all go through these times, but this place is who I used. er. Not only that, but the narrator is telling the reader about a book which was never ributed to the non-uniform Internet services that are available throughout the world. This . and earned him the reputation of an artist. Many scientists have said that Einstein's work contained an im. You can thank me later, barrett

1 0

(no subject)
by livecamaccess＠gmail.com 19 Mar '06

19 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/kellyxa321/cam.html ---------- This e-mail was sent through the "The Sound Emporium" file database. The webmasters of the "The Sound Emporium" file database take no responsibility for the e-mails sent through the database.

1 0

RE: iSCSI on RHEL 4: Unknown Type
by Ben Rockwood 18 Mar '06

18 Mar '06

I solved the problem... it makes no sense, but its fixed: I changed the initiator name from the default supplied by cisco (iqn.1987-05.com.cisco:01.6eedbebee39f) to my own (iqn.1987-05.com.cisco:webmail1), then re-created the igroups and mappings and it all worked. In the process I found that this "unknown type" is a general sort of way that the initiator says "I see _something_. but the hell if I know what". I tested this by whipping out the LUN mapping and the igroups completely and trying again, and seeing exactly the same thing as noted below. So my big mistake was thinking that I was actually seeing the LUN properly but not getting some peice of the puzzle, in fact that mapping was BS all along. Very strange. benr. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of Ben Rockwood Sent: Sat 3/18/2006 11:20 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: Subject: iSCSI on RHEL 4: Unknown Type Hello Toasters, I'm getting killed by this problem. I've got a bunch of systems ready to deploy except that iSCSI isn't working (nor has it ever on these boxes). Here's what I see on the RHEL boxes (dmesg): iscsi-sfnet: Loading iscsi_sfnet version 4:0.1.11-2 iscsi-sfnet: Control device major number 254 iscsi-sfnet:host4: Session established scsi4 : SFNet iSCSI driver scsi: unknown device type 31 Vendor: NETAPP Model: LUN Rev: 0.2 Type: Unknown ANSI SCSI revision: 04 The Filer shows the connection of the initiator, the igroups and mapping are correct, but when the type returns as "unknown" I don't get a LUN to actually use, so while I'm connected I can't actually do anything. I'm not using security for iSCSI, I fixed problems relating to RHEL and multiple network cards on the filer, and my iscsi.conf should be fine: Continuous=no HeaderDigest=never DataDigest=never ImmediateData=yes ConnFailTimeout=180 Username=benr Password=fakepass DiscoveryAddress=10.10.2.240 Does anyone have any ideas? I thought the type issue might be related to OS Type when creatnig the LUNs and the Groups, but I've tried both as Linux and Default with the same result. I'm currently using this filer for iSCSI on Solaris and it works wonderfully, so its just RHEL. I've upgraded to RHEL4 U3 and patched and everything, but thats not fixing anything. I desprately could use some insite. I called the problem into NetApp last night and the tech gave up on the call. Thanks. benr.

1 0

iSCSI on RHEL 4: Unknown Type
by Ben Rockwood 18 Mar '06

18 Mar '06

Hello Toasters, I'm getting killed by this problem. I've got a bunch of systems ready to deploy except that iSCSI isn't working (nor has it ever on these boxes). Here's what I see on the RHEL boxes (dmesg): iscsi-sfnet: Loading iscsi_sfnet version 4:0.1.11-2 iscsi-sfnet: Control device major number 254 iscsi-sfnet:host4: Session established scsi4 : SFNet iSCSI driver scsi: unknown device type 31 Vendor: NETAPP Model: LUN Rev: 0.2 Type: Unknown ANSI SCSI revision: 04 The Filer shows the connection of the initiator, the igroups and mapping are correct, but when the type returns as "unknown" I don't get a LUN to actually use, so while I'm connected I can't actually do anything. I'm not using security for iSCSI, I fixed problems relating to RHEL and multiple network cards on the filer, and my iscsi.conf should be fine: Continuous=no HeaderDigest=never DataDigest=never ImmediateData=yes ConnFailTimeout=180 Username=benr Password=fakepass DiscoveryAddress=10.10.2.240 Does anyone have any ideas? I thought the type issue might be related to OS Type when creatnig the LUNs and the Groups, but I've tried both as Linux and Default with the same result. I'm currently using this filer for iSCSI on Solaris and it works wonderfully, so its just RHEL. I've upgraded to RHEL4 U3 and patched and everything, but thats not fixing anything. I desprately could use some insite. I called the problem into NetApp last night and the tech gave up on the call. Thanks. benr.

1 0

Dating site for naughty people
by Aaron Diggs 18 Mar '06

18 Mar '06

We offer a service that helps people get laid! So many sexaddicts are in your neighbourhood, looking to get laid! No cheezy pickup lines... no gifts... no walks on the beach... people here only want to have sex ;) And just to let you know, about 60% of our members have already gotten laid! http://www.find-the-one.com/

1 0

(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

Jump to page:

2026

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