toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

RE: LDAP mapping
by Graeme Fowler 31 Jan '06

31 Jan '06

Hi all Thanks for the responses so far. On 31 January 2006 07:38, owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com wrote: > FWIW Windows 2003 R2 uses the RFC 2307 schema, so the only mappings > you need are for homeDirectory and the object classes. > > (homeDirectory is necessary owing to the same attribute being used by > AD, so R2/Vintela/XAD use unixHomeDirectory instead.) Hrm... This isn't a W2k3 R2 setup - noting that most of the work is being done in a dev lab before going to production, so this may change. We're running W2K3 server with Microsoft's SFU3.5 installed. Although it's installed, we're really only using the schema extensions - we shot NIS out of the equation after suffering some terrible map reliability some time ago, and we found that PAM_ldap and nss_ldap worked perfectly for us from a Linux/UNIX workstation & server perspective. We also don't really want to have to use the NFS client, although to be honest this might be looking like one way to proceed. Of which, more if it happens... Anyway, back on track: After taking note of http://now.netapp.com/NOW/cgi-bin/bol?Type=Detail&Display=16619 (login required) I managed to get rid of one source of error (STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED trying to look up domain groups). However, the username mapping is still not working. Can someone with LDAP username mapping please post (or email privately) the "options ldap" output as used against an SFU3.5 extended AD schema? I appreciate that Outdoorchik2 has posted one, but any others for comparison would be helpful... Graeme -- Graeme Fowler Hosting Development Engineer PIPEX This e-mail is subject to: http://www.pipex.net/disclaimer.html

1 0

FW: Come look at the superb bargain I got, it is marvelous.
by Mahaska 31 Jan '06

31 Jan '06

What's crackin, Getting in the car to get what you need is so last year- come e-shopping with me tonight! Much love, Mahaska ----- Original Message ----- From: "Justinian" <garemy(a)aberaeron.net> To: "Mahaska" <lucastaine(a)wildmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 9:43 AM Subject: Come look at the superb bargain I got, it is marvelous. What's going on Mahaska You absolutely deserve a savvy item and this shopping site contains a terrific reserve. You are very important to me so I want to communicate to you this major good deal! I came across these beautiful watches a moment ago and I believe you would like them too. http://qda.kog.findhappinessallday.org/juh/ I can just picture the overjoyed look on your face when you are delivered your order. This store has been in service for over 20 years and can count on a lot of happy patrons. One love, Justinian

1 0

RE: Replacing our NetApp
by Carter K. George 31 Jan '06

31 Jan '06

Oracle over NFS is a very viable option. Now that there are scalable NFS solutoins based on cluster file systems (eg, Hewlett Packard EFS Cluster Gateway), you can scale out NFS performance in the exactly the same way that Oracle scales out RAC. Multiple nodes can access shared storage concurrently, and failover is completely transparent. So there's no reason, going forward, that Oracle over NFs can't be as fast or faster than block level protocols and even more fault tolerant. Here's a list of the currently OSCP certified Oracle-over-NFS solution providers, including NetApps: http://www.oracle.com/technology/deploy/availability/htdocs/vendors.html -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Max Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 4:59 PM To: genec00(a)comcast.net Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com; 'Peter D. Gray'; Stewart, John Subject: Re: Replacing our NetApp On Jan 30, 2006, at 3:28 PM, genO wrote: > > > great point...heard something about Oracle using Netapp over NFS in > one of their hosting centers? not real sure if I got that right. we > don't use oracle. You can generally run Oracle No problem over NFS. However, generally you often do get higher performance with block level access, the trade off until recently has been management complexity and systems scalability (No Cluster File System.) There is no really good general rule to apply to the situation here. These days customers should be able to chose a single box that supports whatever interconnect and data protocol they're used to using. IF the DBA's are crusty, old guys they'll probably insist on a block level transport. And Netapp makes a *great* SAN/NAS combo. The only weaknesses for a consolidated Netapp might be more disk overhead for LUNs, RAID 4 or RAID DP only (no legacy raid levels... again something ancient, haggard and crusty DBA's insist on...) In the event that the Netapp NAS/SAN doesn't work for you, you can Still use a Vfiler for your NAS needs... :) And if your salty DBA finally breaks down and begins to trust modern technology, you can migrate the databases to LUN that is being exported by the vfiler:) Regards, Max > good question for your guys tomorrow... > > good luck, > > g > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter D. Gray [mailto:pdg@uow.edu.au] > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:01 PM > To: Stewart, John > Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: Re: Replacing our NetApp > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 02:22:20PM -0800, Max wrote: >>> >> >> This box is probably something that Sun put together after the Procom >> buyout, and I've never been impressed by most of the Procom kit. >> > > We had no end of problems with our procoms. We ended up replacing all > of them with netapps. Never looked back. > > >> Another NAS head option you may want to consider is a Netapp Vfiler.. >> that way you can have the best of both worlds. >> >> What Model of Sun SAN are you looking at? >> > > Why do SAN at all? If you have used NAS with netapp, why on earth > would you > move to a SAN? We run everything on our netapps and could not be > happier. > > Regards, > pdg > > -- > > See mail headers for contact information. > >

1 0

RE: Replacing our NetApp
by Carter K. George 31 Jan '06

31 Jan '06

That's because the Sun NAS Gateway does not run Solaris, it runs a proprietary and not well-adopted "storage-optimized" OS They got from Procomm. So all the work Sun has done on v4 has been, of course, on Solaris. Since v4 is not just a few extra bells And whistles on v3, but a whole new on-the-wire protocol, stateful instead of stateless, it is a lot of work to write an NFS v4 server from scratch for Your own weird OS...though most of these so-called NAS OS's are just some variant of FreeBSD with a different file system. Carter -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Luke Howard Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:42 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Replacing our NetApp >Part of it would be to replace the NetApp with a Sun 5310 NAS Gateway: > >http://www.sun.com/storage/5000/5300/5310gateway/index.xml It's odd (looking at the data sheets) that it doesn't support NFSv4, given Sun's history with the protocol. -- Luke --

1 0

Re: Replacing our NetApp
by Luke Howard 31 Jan '06

31 Jan '06

>Part of it would be to replace the NetApp with a Sun 5310 NAS Gateway: > >http://www.sun.com/storage/5000/5300/5310gateway/index.xml It's odd (looking at the data sheets) that it doesn't support NFSv4, given Sun's history with the protocol. -- Luke -- attribute being used by AD, so R2/Vintela/XAD use unixHomeDirectory instead.) -- Luke --

1 0

RE: Replacing our NetApp
by Alan Biren 31 Jan '06

31 Jan '06

You can always have your crusty DBA contact Oracle and see what they use. Most likely it is NetApp Storage with NFS. I have several customers running Oracle with NFS, and there are still those that insist on FCP with the possibility of converting them to iSCSI on the QA side. Good Luck ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of Max Sent: Mon 1/30/2006 7:59 PM To: genec00(a)comcast.net Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com; 'Peter D. Gray'; Stewart, John Subject: Re: Replacing our NetApp On Jan 30, 2006, at 3:28 PM, genO wrote: > > > great point...heard something about Oracle using Netapp over NFS in > one of > their hosting centers? not real sure if I got that right. we don't > use > oracle. You can generally run Oracle No problem over NFS. However, generally you often do get higher performance with block level access, the trade off until recently has been management complexity and systems scalability (No Cluster File System.) There is no really good general rule to apply to the situation here. These days customers should be able to chose a single box that supports whatever interconnect and data protocol they're used to using. IF the DBA's are crusty, old guys they'll probably insist on a block level transport. And Netapp makes a *great* SAN/NAS combo. The only weaknesses for a consolidated Netapp might be more disk overhead for LUNs, RAID 4 or RAID DP only (no legacy raid levels... again something ancient, haggard and crusty DBA's insist on...) In the event that the Netapp NAS/SAN doesn't work for you, you can Still use a Vfiler for your NAS needs... :) And if your salty DBA finally breaks down and begins to trust modern technology, you can migrate the databases to LUN that is being exported by the vfiler:) Regards, Max > good question for your guys tomorrow... > > good luck, > > g > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter D. Gray [mailto:pdg@uow.edu.au] > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:01 PM > To: Stewart, John > Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: Re: Replacing our NetApp > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 02:22:20PM -0800, Max wrote: >>> >> >> This box is probably something that Sun put together after the Procom >> buyout, and I've never been impressed by most of the Procom kit. >> > > We had no end of problems with our procoms. We ended up replacing all > of > them with netapps. Never looked back. > > >> Another NAS head option you may want to consider is a Netapp Vfiler.. >> that way you can have the best of both worlds. >> >> What Model of Sun SAN are you looking at? >> > > Why do SAN at all? If you have used NAS with netapp, why on earth > would you > move to a SAN? We run everything on our netapps and could not be > happier. > > Regards, > pdg > > -- > > See mail headers for contact information. > > ***************************************************************************************************** Note: ASI System Integration Inc, is located at 48 West 37th Street, New York, NY 10018. The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. It is intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies. ** eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals or malicious content ** *****************************************************************************************************

1 0

RE: Replacing our NetApp
by genO 31 Jan '06

31 Jan '06

great point...heard something about Oracle using Netapp over NFS in one of their hosting centers? not real sure if I got that right. we don't use oracle. good question for your guys tomorrow... good luck, g -----Original Message----- From: Peter D. Gray [mailto:pdg@uow.edu.au] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:01 PM To: Stewart, John Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: Replacing our NetApp On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 02:22:20PM -0800, Max wrote: > > > > This box is probably something that Sun put together after the Procom > buyout, and I've never been impressed by most of the Procom kit. > We had no end of problems with our procoms. We ended up replacing all of them with netapps. Never looked back. > Another NAS head option you may want to consider is a Netapp Vfiler.. > that way you can have the best of both worlds. > > What Model of Sun SAN are you looking at? > Why do SAN at all? If you have used NAS with netapp, why on earth would you move to a SAN? We run everything on our netapps and could not be happier. Regards, pdg -- See mail headers for contact information.

2 1

RE: Replacing our NetApp
by Venkat Appineni 30 Jan '06

30 Jan '06

NFS is simple.. SAN is complex,whoever the vendor might be.. -Venkat -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Stewart, John Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 3:11 PM To: Stewart, John; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: Replacing our NetApp Hey all; thanks for the many great responses. We have our NetApp vendor coming in tomorrow, and we'll discuss their SAN solutions then. thanks! johnS

1 0

RE: Replacing our NetApp
by Stewart, John 30 Jan '06

30 Jan '06

Hey all; thanks for the many great responses. We have our NetApp vendor coming in tomorrow, and we'll discuss their SAN solutions then. thanks! johnS

1 0

Replacing our NetApp
by Stewart, John 30 Jan '06

30 Jan '06

It's time for us to upgrade our backup hardware (currently a DLT7k library), replace our Oracle DB storage hardware (now direct-attached), and our NetApp F740. We're looking hard at a Sun SAN solution. Part of it would be to replace the NetApp with a Sun 5310 NAS Gateway: http://www.sun.com/storage/5000/5300/5310gateway/index.xml Our NetApps over the years have been so reliable that I am very leery to replace them with a new vendor's hardware. However, going to a SAN at all doesn't really make sense unless we include the NetApp data (about .6 TB now) in the SAN. Does anyone have any experience with this product? It seems to have all of the basic stuff that we need (NFS, CIFS, snapshots, etc). Are there any questions in particular that we should be asking? thanks johnS

3 2

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