toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

RE: Hitachi SAN Systems
by bjacobson＠micron.com 16 Mar '06

16 Mar '06

Agreed on the EMC comment. Thanks to all that have responded to my initial question regarding Hitachi Systems. -----Original Message----- From: Glenn Walker [mailto:ggwalker@mindspring.com] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:48 AM To: jeff.mery(a)ni.com; Linux Admin Cc: bjacobson; Kristian Ejvind (KI/EAB); owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Hitachi SAN Systems Last I heard, Hitachi was no longer reselling the GFILER product. However, NetApp has considerable effort behind the V-SERIES (same thing, basically) which you can stick in front of pretty much any other SAN-based storage platform. I can't see that going away, and I'm sure it will still support Hitachi. I personally can't wait to see someone implement a V-Series NetApp in front of an EMC array... I'm sure that would make the EMC guys have a small kitten. Glenn ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of jeff.mery(a)ni.com Sent: Thu 3/16/2006 11:03 AM To: Linux Admin Cc: Bret Jacobson; Kristian Ejvind (KI/EAB); owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Hitachi SAN Systems There's no NetApp equivalent from HDS because they resell (oem maybe?) the V-Series from NetApp. You can have your cake and eat it too! =) As to your other points: Japan-glish documentation - 'nuff said We only use two tools (Storage Navigator and the HORCM stuff) - no complaints LUN Deletion - not a problem on the 9900V-series systems USP: Yep USP: Yep USP: Yep On the USP stuff (issues apply to our 9900V's as well), I do wish we could layout our own LDEVs. We use a mixture of 20GB and 40GB OPEN-V LDEVs and would love to be able to change them from time to time. If for any other reason that to make scheduling the work easier. HDS is super-sensitive about who gets on their boxes...wish they weren't. Jeff Mery - MCSE, MCP National Instruments ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - "Allow me to extol the virtues of the Net Fairy, and of all the fantastic dorks that make the nice packets go from here to there. Amen." TB - Penny Arcade ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - "Linux Admin" <sysadmin.linux(a)gmail.com> Sent by: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com 03/15/2006 01:54 PM To "Kristian Ejvind (KI/EAB)" <kristian.ejvind(a)ericsson.com> cc "Bret Jacobson" <bjacobson(a)micron.com>, toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject Re: Hitachi SAN Systems HDS storage is great for many reason. 95xx series and USP definitely have great features. USP shows great performance. (to many to discuss, I am sure HDS sales rep will cover that) I just want to point out few obvious caveats (sorry HDS): No equivalent of toasters in HDS world (or any support forum/mailing list, etc.) Cryptic Documentation. To many GUI/CLI to learn (Storage NAV, Device Manager, HSSM, DUMP, DUMP CLI) 95xx can not delete LUNS (only last one you created) USP raid groups and basic config are laid out by HDS USP: can not touch it with HDS FE. USP: you loose 1 additional chip port for each external chip port. On 3/13/06, Kristian Ejvind (KI/EAB) <kristian.ejvind(a)ericsson.com <mailto:kristian.ejvind@ericsson.com> > wrote: > Has anyone had experience with Hitachi's SAN devices? > What I have always heard is that their products are > good but their support is terrible. Any experiences > with these units and/or support? Thx. In a former life, I used to manage a couple of HDS 95xx series boxes. My experience was that to get started you definitely need to have an experienced person close by to guide you through the terms and language. All written information is in "japaneese in english", so you have to think a little when reading anything. (Label on the box: "Be careful of the drop. It is heavy." Another label that I don't remember exactly, something like "HOT to the hand. Careful!" :) Management software is terribly slow, it takes ages to do anything. Booting the HDS is oh-so-slow (3-12 minutes). (Btw. at that time we moved from LSI to HDS, and the LSI unit booted in about 10-20 seconds! What a difference.) HOWEVER: once in place - the HDS rocks! Impressing speed, reliable, just what you want. For support I guess it depends on your local support channel - we were satisfied with our support, although we never had to consult them for anything more serious than disk replacements. /Kristian

3 2

RE: Hitachi SAN Systems
by Kristian Ejvind (KI/EAB) 16 Mar '06

16 Mar '06

> Has anyone had experience with Hitachi's SAN devices? > What I have always heard is that their products are > good but their support is terrible. Any experiences > with these units and/or support? Thx. In a former life, I used to manage a couple of HDS 95xx series boxes. My experience was that to get started you definitely need to have an experienced person close by to guide you through the terms and language. All written information is in "japaneese in english", so you have to think a little when reading anything. (Label on the box: "Be careful of the drop. It is heavy." Another label that I don't remember exactly, something like "HOT to the hand. Careful!" :) Management software is terribly slow, it takes ages to do anything. Booting the HDS is oh-so-slow (3-12 minutes). (Btw. at that time we moved from LSI to HDS, and the LSI unit booted in about 10-20 seconds! What a difference.) HOWEVER: once in place - the HDS rocks! Impressing speed, reliable, just what you want. For support I guess it depends on your local support channel - we were satisfied with our support, although we never had to consult them for anything more serious than disk replacements. /Kristian

4 3

(no subject)
by livecamaccess.54＠gmail.com 16 Mar '06

16 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/kellyluvsmas/cam.html ---------- This e-mail was sent through the "1dod =downloads=" file database. The webmasters of the "1dod =downloads=" file database take no responsibility for the e-mails sent through the database.

1 0

New message from Chase Bank
by Chase Online Banking 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 7:57, on Mar 15, 2006, Davin Milun wrote: > > 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. And I just did some manual testing, and it's indeed the case that BugID 148982 caused NetApp to break the SNMP values in 6.5.4! :-((( So the once-useful SNMP cpuBusyTime is now showing the ANY time. They should have fixed that bug by fixing sysstat to show AVG, not by fixing SNMP to show ANY! Thanks for the heads up! I would have had the same "What's causing this 20% CPU spike!?!?" issue after my upcoming upgrades, if I had not had this discussion here. Davin.

3 2

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

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