toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

RE: Mixed Mode
by Maglinger, Paul 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

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

1 0

SATA Performance Data
by Carl Howell 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

Does anyone have any SATA performance data? I know that there are many variables when measuring disk i/o, so any information would be appreciated. Thanks, -Carl

2 2

RE: CPU Stats on multi-proc filers
by markallen＠micron.com 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

I received a lot of good information from a lot of people and I'm still unclear as to what direction I should head. I can configure patrol to capture the appropriate data using sysstat -m but I still have the inconsistency with snmp using DFM and MRTG. It sounds like Netapp needs to be more consistent across the board on CPU stats. I haven't heard from any Netapp folks regarding this issue. What is Netapp doing to make this more consistent across the board? Thanks -Mark ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Colby, Michael Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:50 AM To: Brian Parent; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CPU Stats on multi-proc filers You'd think: -----Original Message----- From: Brian Parent [mailto:bparent@calvin.ucsd.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:47 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: CPU Stats on multi-proc filers Since sysstat has the -m option which allows viewing AVG as well as individual CPU performance, it seems reasonable that the same data should be made available via SNMP.

1 0

access to NOW site
by Linux Admin 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

Dear toasters, colleagues, and NetAPP employees, I have recently lost my access to NOW site and no longer able to download PDF's for product research, self educations, staying in tune, etc.,etc. How da heck do some of the unfortunate netappsterers like me get the documentation. Will anyone will be willing to e-mail me the PDF's? Thanks you very much in advance.

1 0

Recall: CPU Stats on multi-proc filers
by Colby, Michael 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

Colby, Michael would like to recall the message, "CPU Stats on multi-proc filers".

1 0

RE: CPU Stats on multi-proc filers
by Colby, Michael 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

You'd think: -----Original Message----- From: Brian Parent [mailto:bparent@calvin.ucsd.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:47 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: CPU Stats on multi-proc filers Since sysstat has the -m option which allows viewing AVG as well as individual CPU performance, it seems reasonable that the same data should be made available via SNMP.

1 0

RE: Mixed Mode
by Glenn Dekhayser 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

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

1 0

suscribe
by John Breyfogle 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

1 0

Re: CPU Stats on multi-proc filers
by Davin Milun 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

At 13:02, on Mar 15, 2006, Cornelius Bartke wrote: > Davin Milun 14.03.2006 23:17: > > At 22:18, on Mar 14, 2006, Cornelius Bartke wrote: > > [...] calculating CPU utilization via > >> delta(cpuBusyTime)*100/delta(cpuUpTime) on a FAS960 leaves us with a > >> no-so-satisfying ANY value. See also Bug-IDs 141441 and 148982. > >> > >> It would be better to have snmpd report a cpuTable with seperate data > >> for all CPUs. > > > > Actually - I disagree. Graphing cpuBusyTime indeed shows the average. > > Been using it for years. > > Hum. > > We noticed a 20% increase in CPU usage when we upgraded from 6.4.4P6 > to 6.5.4P1. First we were worried because there was little chance that > this was due to changed usage patterns. Then we investiged by > comparing sysstat output to snmpd output. Our conclusion was that in > OnTAP 6.4.4P6, snmpd reports cpu utilization as the average of each > CPU's utilization. With the upgrade to 6.5.4P1 snmpd reports CPU > utilization as percentage of time when at least one CPU is busy, i.e. > ANY instead of AVG. That has not changed when we upgraded to OnTAP > 6.5.6P3. Oh. I'm still running 6.4.x on the filers that I watch CPU most closely on. So if NetApp broke cpuBusyTime in 6.5.x to report ANY time, then (a) I stand corrected, and (b) I'm quite unhappy with that change. > My point is that reporting snmpd data for each individual CPU in a > snmp table would leave the ANY/AVG decision to the customer and I hope > you agree this would improve the usefulness of CPU utilisation data :) Yes. Definitely. Davin.

1 0

Re: CPU Stats on multi-proc filers
by Davin Milun 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

At 22:18, on Mar 14, 2006, Cornelius Bartke wrote: > > > > Which MRTG are you using? I've found that querying SNMP for the CPU > > busy (.1.3.6.1.4.1.789.1.2.1.2) use will indeed graph the AVG CPU, > > which is the sane one. > > Actually, .1.3.6.1.4.1.789.1.2.1.2 is cpuBusyTime (at least the MIB > for DOT 6.5.x says so) and calculating CPU utilization via > delta(cpuBusyTime)*100/delta(cpuUpTime) on a FAS960 leaves us with a > no-so-satisfying ANY value. See also Bug-IDs 141441 and 148982. > > It would be better to have snmpd report a cpuTable with seperate data > for all CPUs. Actually - I disagree. Graphing cpuBusyTime indeed shows the average. Been using it for years. And that's indeed was BugID 148982 is complaining about: SNMP reports cpu utilization as the average of each CPU's utilization while sysstat reports the percentage of time at least one CPU is busy. As a result, the CPU utilization reported by the two tools may not match. Davin.

2 1

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