toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

Ihre E-Mail an ...@rdcopy.de bzw. ...@hardcopy.de
by noSpam＠hardcopy.de 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, die von Ihnen verwendete E-Mail-Adresse ist nicht mehr gültig. (zu viele Spam-Mails) Eine gültige E-Mail-Adresse finden Sie unter www.hardcopy.de oder www.sw4you.de Mit freundlichen Grüßen Siegfried Weckmann

1 0

(no subject)
by Ahmed Alhussaini 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

Unsubscribe toasters AHUSSAINI(a)commerce.gov.bh End

1 0

(no subject)
by Ahmed Alhussaini 17 Jul '05

17 Jul '05

Please do not send me messages...

1 0

Important - Cable TV Users
by Blevins B. Howard, II 16 Jul '05

16 Jul '05

Good day tm-m3(a)mathworks.com, Many bartenders like driving every other day. Why does the Air Force need expensive new bombers? Have the people we've been bombing over the years been complaining? George Wallace Regards, Fanny Turner

1 0

RE: Searchable archive/upgrade from 6.4 to 6.5
by Michael Schipp 15 Jul '05

15 Jul '05

http://toasters.mathworks.com/toasters/Search.html -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Derek Lai Sent: Friday, 15 July 2005 11:10 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Searchable archive/upgrade from 6.4 to 6.5 Is there a searchable archive for past toasters emails? I'm about to upgrade from 6.4 to 6.5.3P4 and wants to see what others had experienced. Derek

2 1

Searchable archive/upgrade from 6.4 to 6.5
by Derek Lai 15 Jul '05

15 Jul '05

Is there a searchable archive for past toasters emails? I'm about to upgrade from 6.4 to 6.5.3P4 and wants to see what others had experienced. Derek

1 0

Moving to flexible volumes increases number of index blocks
by Edwards, John 15 Jul '05

15 Jul '05

Another reply I had sent to Chris directly. Your executive summary is correct. The other wrinkle is that in indirect blocks that are not embedded in inodes there is a 16 byte header embedded in the indirect block. As you note this makes the fan-out at each level 510 instead of 512. John Edwards > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 4:14 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Moving to flexible volumes increases number of index blocks > > It turns out that moving files from traditional volumes to > flexible volumes makes them "grow", in the sense that they > have more index blocks, as accounted in "ls -s" output, and > charged against quotas. I think it's a bit sneaky of NetApp > to have done this without mentioning it in their conversion > documents. > > Executive summary: disk block addresses in inodes and in index > blocks have changed from 4-byte to 8-byte objects. (That's > conjecture, of course, but it seems to explain the observed > effects.) > > Files <= 64 bytes use no blocks (that is unchanged). > Files <= 32 KB (used to be 64 KB) use ceil(size/4KB) data > blocks only, no index blocks. > Files up to c. 2 MB (used to be 4 MB) use ceil(size/4KB) > data blocks and one 4 KB index block > Files up to c. 4 MB (used to be 8 MB) use ceil(size/4KB) > data blocks and two 4 KB index blocks > ... > > The main expansion effect comes from files in the 32KB+1 to > 64KB size range, where the extra index block is a significant > proportion of the total. > > Has anyone worked out the new formulae in nit-picking detail? > I say "c. 2 MB" above because the transition actually occurs > a few blocks before 2 MB: I think there may be some overhead > in the index blocks so that not quite 512 addresses will fit > in them. > > -- > Chris Thompson > Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk

1 0

FW: Aggregate inodes
by Edwards, John 15 Jul '05

15 Jul '05

I originally replied directly to Chris, who pointed out that the answer might be of interest to the mailing list. The aggregate has a little file system inside to hold data related to the aggregate and the flexible volumes. There are two key files per flexible volume and 1 directory per flexible volume. In some cases (mirroring, flex cache, etc.) there may be an additional inode used per flexible volume. Typically the free inodes in the aggregate are never used and take no additional space. John > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] > Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 8:13 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Aggregate inodes > > What does the output of "df -A -i" mean for a non-traditional aggregate? > For example: > > > df -A -i main > Aggregate iused ifree %iused > main 108 31034 0% > > Such aggregates always seem to have 30000+ "inodes", regardless of size, > and to use 3 more each time a flexible volume is allocated inside the > aggregate. > > -- > Chris Thompson > Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk

1 0

Moving to flexible volumes increases number of index blocks
by Chris Thompson 13 Jul '05

13 Jul '05

It turns out that moving files from traditional volumes to flexible volumes makes them "grow", in the sense that they have more index blocks, as accounted in "ls -s" output, and charged against quotas. I think it's a bit sneaky of NetApp to have done this without mentioning it in their conversion documents. Executive summary: disk block addresses in inodes and in index blocks have changed from 4-byte to 8-byte objects. (That's conjecture, of course, but it seems to explain the observed effects.) Files <= 64 bytes use no blocks (that is unchanged). Files <= 32 KB (used to be 64 KB) use ceil(size/4KB) data blocks only, no index blocks. Files up to c. 2 MB (used to be 4 MB) use ceil(size/4KB) data blocks and one 4 KB index block Files up to c. 4 MB (used to be 8 MB) use ceil(size/4KB) data blocks and two 4 KB index blocks ... The main expansion effect comes from files in the 32KB+1 to 64KB size range, where the extra index block is a significant proportion of the total. Has anyone worked out the new formulae in nit-picking detail? I say "c. 2 MB" above because the transition actually occurs a few blocks before 2 MB: I think there may be some overhead in the index blocks so that not quite 512 addresses will fit in them. -- Chris Thompson Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk

1 0

RE: FAS960 / DOT 7.0.1R1 / SAN LUN for Dell servers...?
by Glascock, Donald S. 13 Jul '05

13 Jul '05

Hi, Luke -- Thanks for taking the time to respond. I've just re-verified that the cards have the correct & latest BIOS firmware. These range from old QLA2200 cards to new, Dell- specific QLA2322 cards. Since they all fail to see their NetApp LUNs, there must be something going on that I just don't understand, but I don't know what, since they see the DotHill RAID controller's masked LUNs. Since the Dell servers can see the NetApp's HBAs, my guess is that the NetApp's initiator groups are the most likely candidates. Does one use the WWPN listed in the switch's GUI, as I did for our HP-UX servers? Is there a way to serve a NetApp LUN without assigning it to an initiator group (for debugging purposes)? Thanks for your help! Don Glascock -- Donald S. Glascock Mailstop RO-SN-2-220 Special Purpose Processor Development Group Mayo Foundation Rochester, MN 55905 Glascock.Donald(a)Mayo.EDU +1.507.538.5467 +1.507.284.9171 (fax) http://www.mayo.edu/sppdg "No matter where you go, there you are." > -----Original Message----- > From: Mun.Luke [mailto:Luke.Mun@IGT.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:43 AM > To: 'Glascock, Donald S.'; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: FAS960 / DOT 7.0.1R1 / SAN LUN for Dell servers...? > > > Update your Firmware on Qlogic HBA. I've seen this problem > Emulex card > before and that fixed it. > > luke > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com > [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On > Behalf Of Glascock, Donald S. > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:11 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: FAS960 / DOT 7.0.1R1 / SAN LUN for Dell servers...? > > > Hi -- > > We have a few Dell PowerEdge servers (2850s, 2650s, 6850s) > attached to our baby SAN: a single Qlogic SANbox2. Our first > foray into SAN disk service was through a DotHill SANnet4320, > which worked well and was cheap in a time when SAN standards > were still developing. > > If the boot process of any of the Dell servers is interrupted > with a ^Q, the Qlogic FC HBA FAST!UTIL BIOS leaps into high gear. > The disk utilities therein can see the LUNs offered by the DotHill > box. > > However, the Qlogic FAST!UTIL disk utility cannot see the LUNs > offered by our new NetApp FAS960. Our HP-UX servers see their > associated LUNs offered from it, and the Dell servers see the two > HBAs to which the NetApp is attached to the SAN. But no LUNs. > > I'm copying & pasting the WWPN for the Dell servers from the > SANsurfer switch admin GUI into the initiator group fields in > FilerView on the NetApp, and these are the numbers I use on the > DotHill box. The format seems fine, and typing the colon-separated > numbers in by hand seems to make no difference. > > It is not clear to me how one offers a LUN from the NetApp without > LUN masking: if the LUN were global, then at least this would be > a good test. > > I've created several NetApp LUNs with different properties, and > none seem to please the Dell boxes. Serving LUNs to the HP-UX > servers worked on the first try, so I figure that I'm missing > something obvious. But I don't know what. I've tried searching > the Toasters archive, but haven't seen references to FAST!UTIL. > > Would you send me any suggestions you may have as to why > FAST!UTIL and/or the NetApp seem to be unhappy, please? > > Thanks for your time & have a great day! > > Don Glascock > > -- > Donald S. Glascock > Mailstop RO-SN-2-220 > Special Purpose Processor Development Group > Mayo Foundation > Rochester, MN 55905 > Glascock.Donald(a)Mayo.EDU +1.507.538.5467 +1.507.284.9171 (fax) > http://www.mayo.edu/sppdg > "No matter where you go, there you are." >

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