toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

[Fwd: RE: Upgrading to 6.5]
by Robert Borowicz 01 Apr '05

01 Apr '05

6.5.4 was released just this week. The issue was "fixed" in later 6.5 releases? -Bob Get a current version...like 6.5.3P11 I am unsure about 6.5.4, Although I think there is a 6.5.4P1. This will be sure to avoid all the known NFS/export issues. -----Original Message----- From: Robert Borowicz [mailto:rbaus@swbell.net] Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:39 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Upgrading to 6.5 I'm upgrading to 6.5 this weekend. Is there any gotchas? (yes I'll be reading the Release Notes) Isn't there an issue with the exports file being re-written? I thought I remembered seeing that discussed here a while back. -Rob

1 0

Upgrading to 6.5
by Robert Borowicz 01 Apr '05

01 Apr '05

I'm upgrading to 6.5 this weekend. Is there any gotchas? (yes I'll be reading the Release Notes) Isn't there an issue with the exports file being re-written? I thought I remembered seeing that discussed here a while back. -Rob

1 0

RE: Exchange 5.5 and OnTap 7.0.0.1 Problem?
by Holland, William L 01 Apr '05

01 Apr '05

Neither - using NAS. -----Original Message----- From: McCarthy, Tim [mailto:timothy.mccarthy@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 6:46 AM To: Holland, William L Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 and OnTap 7.0.0.1 Problem? You did not mention in your post if you were using VLD or iSCSI, your version of SnapManager for Exchange and your version of SnapDrive. Have you checked the compatibility Matrix on NOW? --tmac ====================== -----Original Message----- From: Holland, William L [mailto:hollandwl@state.gov] Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 5:59 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Exchange 5.5 and OnTap 7.0.0.1 Problem? The F825 hosting the message stores were upgraded to OnTap 7.0 on 3/5/2005 and to 7.0.0.1 on 3/23/2005. Also, on 3/23/2005 we started SnapMirror'ing the message stores to an R200 running 7.0.0.1. On the afternoon of 3/28/2005 we saw one server cycle its Exchange services a few times and on 3/29/2005 both Exchange servers were cycling their Exchange services. By 3/30/2005 it had become so bad and so frequent we made the decision to move the message stores to the local storage to isolate if the problem was with the filer or with the databases themselves. All is running fine now. On 3/28/2005 I conducted a test to determine if backups performed with SnapManager (snapbexc) were truly recoverable. To do so I built a new Exchange 5.5 SP4 server (same organization and site name, but did not join existing site and did not configure any connectors) on NT4 SP6a, connected it via direct GbE to an F810 running OnTap 7.0.0.1 and used ndmpcopy to copy from the snapshots on the F825 to the F810. When I tried to start the Directory Store I received an error message. I used ESEUTIL to repar the database and when I tried to start it then I was informed that it would not start as the computer I was attempting to start it on was not the same name as the one it had been created on. At this point I shut this server down and deleted the files and volumes created for the test. It was within minutes of this that we saw the first cycle of the Exchange services on the server whose database I was using a copy of to test. I could almost believe that this could have caused a problem on one server but not two and then also given the fact that now that we have moved the message stores to local storaget they are running fine. But, in any event, I've learned not to discount anything as possible in a networked environment.

1 0

Exchange 5.5 and OnTap 7.0.0.1 Problem?
by Holland, William L 01 Apr '05

01 Apr '05

The F825 hosting the message stores were upgraded to OnTap 7.0 on 3/5/2005 and to 7.0.0.1 on 3/23/2005. Also, on 3/23/2005 we started SnapMirror'ing the message stores to an R200 running 7.0.0.1. On the afternoon of 3/28/2005 we saw one server cycle its Exchange services a few times and on 3/29/2005 both Exchange servers were cycling their Exchange services. By 3/30/2005 it had become so bad and so frequent we made the decision to move the message stores to the local storage to isolate if the problem was with the filer or with the databases themselves. All is running fine now. On 3/28/2005 I conducted a test to determine if backups performed with SnapManager (snapbexc) were truly recoverable. To do so I built a new Exchange 5.5 SP4 server (same organization and site name, but did not join existing site and did not configure any connectors) on NT4 SP6a, connected it via direct GbE to an F810 running OnTap 7.0.0.1 and used ndmpcopy to copy from the snapshots on the F825 to the F810. When I tried to start the Directory Store I received an error message. I used ESEUTIL to repar the database and when I tried to start it then I was informed that it would not start as the computer I was attempting to start it on was not the same name as the one it had been created on. At this point I shut this server down and deleted the files and volumes created for the test. It was within minutes of this that we saw the first cycle of the Exchange services on the server whose database I was using a copy of to test. I could almost believe that this could have caused a problem on one server but not two and then also given the fact that now that we have moved the message stores to local storaget they are running fine. But, in any event, I've learned not to discount anything as possible in a networked environment.

1 0

SMB signing and my F760 ...
by Waters, G Scott RDECOM(THE LOG.SEC TEAM) 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

Does anyone have any experience with SMB signing?? We recently applied a DEBUG version of DoT 6.5.3 to our F760 in order to take advantage of SMB signing - a feature that won't be available until a later release of DoT 7.x - which won't be available for the F760's. With the SMB signing turned on we are seeing a much higher load on the filer's CPUs. NetApp analyzed some Performance Data and say that the SMB signing module is adding a 30% load to our FILER CPUs. What would you think? Is SMB signing that CPU intensive or would you think it could be sloppy code?? The performance hit is soo drastic I really have a hard time believing it is anything but bad coding (or maybe a little of both). NetApp Support's solution was to turn off SMB signing. Of course they were not thinking at all when they said that - because why would anyone apply a DEBUG release of an OS whose only function was to add SMB signing if they did not need SMB signing???? Fortunately we have a new filer waiting for a data migration ... but I have serious concerns as to what this is going to do to my new filer. What does a 30% CPU load increase translate to on a FAS960?? ... 10% ... 15%?? How soon before I have to buy another FILER?? I don't want to drop this ... but NetApp doesn't want to pursue any resolution other than new hardware. Anyway ... does anyone have any comments / suggestions?? - Scott W.

4 3

experience with iSCSI from W2K3 servers?
by Rob Winters 30 Mar '05

30 Mar '05

Does anyone have feedback or gotchas about W2K3 accessing large iSCSI space on NetApp filers? With what hardware? HBA and/or software initiator? How about clustering W2K3 servers to a NetApp iSCSI target, or similar HA configurations? Thanks! /// Rob P.S. Yes, *this* is how well the MacOS X research is going... :-| -- Rob Winters SAIC, NASA Headquarters ISEM Contract rwinters(a)hq.nasa.gov

1 0

RE: Netapp trunking - no performance gain
by david byte 30 Mar '05

30 Mar '05

The catch with trunking is that a single host will not see performance gains, unless they are load balancing across 2 nics and the filer is load balancing in the exact same manner. (not likely, but it can occur as aaron notes) Generally, trunking is used for load aggregation to provide higher performance to a larger number of clients. If you are looking for higher throughput that about 100MB/s you should be talking with your Network Appliance SE about assisting in the configuration and design of the system. David Byte Senior Systems Engineer 918-461-9255 davidb(a)uptime.net -----Original Message----- From: aaron hirsch Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 3:53 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Netapp trunking - no performance gain > I'm trying to setup trunking on a netapp connected to a Cisco 3550 >gigabit switch (OS vers.12 on the switch). Sorry no experience with this switch... > The odd thing is that when I setup two gigabit lines trunked together >from the netapp to the switch I saw no improvement in thoughtput >compared to a single gigabit line. Again, not familiar with this particular switch...however, I have setup an enviornment similar to what you described and did see performance increase instantly. Extreme Summit 200-48 with a FAS250. I created a single vif interface out of the 2 gige interfaces on the FAS250 and enabled sharing on the switch ports that they plug into. I then took two 10/100 cards on a server and bound them togther and enabled sharing on the ports for the switch too. I went from pushing about 10MB/sec from the server to 20MB/sec. As this is well below the theoretical maximum for two gige ports trunked together, 250MB/sec (125MB/sec each), the problem is that pushing so little data makes it hard to see how effectively the gige trunk works. So, to answer your original question, yes I have done it; but utilizing 10/100 cards doesn't do justice when testing performance on a gige device.

1 0

RE: Netapp trunking - no performance gain
by aaron hirsch 30 Mar '05

30 Mar '05

> I'm trying to setup trunking on a netapp connected to a Cisco 3550 >gigabit switch (OS vers.12 on the switch). Sorry no experience with this switch... > The odd thing is that when I setup two gigabit lines trunked together >from the netapp to the switch I saw no improvement in thoughtput >compared to a single gigabit line. Again, not familiar with this particular switch...however, I have setup an enviornment similar to what you described and did see performance increase instantly. Extreme Summit 200-48 with a FAS250. I created a single vif interface out of the 2 gige interfaces on the FAS250 and enabled sharing on the switch ports that they plug into. I then took two 10/100 cards on a server and bound them togther and enabled sharing on the ports for the switch too. I went from pushing about 10MB/sec from the server to 20MB/sec. As this is well below the theoretical maximum for two gige ports trunked together, 250MB/sec (125MB/sec each), the problem is that pushing so little data makes it hard to see how effectively the gige trunk works. So, to answer your original question, yes I have done it; but utilizing 10/100 cards doesn't do justice when testing performance on a gige device.

1 0

permission auditing with cifs clients
by Charles Roufay 30 Mar '05

30 Mar '05

Hello all, Is anyone aware of a tool that can audit cifs clients permission changes? Permissions are sometimes changed and we would like to know who and when the changes are made. Any ideas? Charles Roufay Network Administration Bluewater Energy Services B.V Marsstraat 33 2132 HR Hoofddorp Netherlands Tel 023 568 2800 - www.bluewater.nl ********************************************************************* This e-mail message may contain privileged/confidential information. It is intended solely for the addressee.If you are not the indicated addressee(or responsible for delivery to such a person), you shall neither read nor retain this message, copy or distribute it to anyone, or use this email for any other purpose. In such cases, please destroy the message immediately and notify the sender by reply email.

1 0

FW: reuse old NetApp shelf
by Maglinger, Paul 28 Mar '05

28 Mar '05

Agreed. _____ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Scott Fischmann Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 19:28 To: Iain Barnetson Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: reuse old NetApp shelf Hello Iain: I think Tim's suggestion is a good one and worth considering. Regards, -- Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, Minnesota 55436 phone: (952) 935-7282 | fax: (952) 935-5056 email: scott(a)unioncomputer.com <mailto:scott@unioncomputer.com> "Helping our customers make each dollar go further - since 1991!" Iain Barnetson wrote on 3/26/2005, 4:41 PM: yeah yeah yeah Am I in the Ebay forum or something? I've had more replies offereing to buy these things or sell me something else than answers to the question...........good grief!! Please DO NOT email me trying to sell me something or buy something from me, ok? Thanks. _____ From: Timothy Naple [mailto:tnaple@BERKCOM.com <mailto:tnaple@BERKCOM.com> ] Sent: 26 March 2005 17:29 To: Iain Barnetson Subject: RE: reuse old NetApp shelf Ian, I could offer a trade for some generic shelves and disks that work fine on Windows. I could use the NetApp storage. If that sounds at all interesting, let me know. Thanks, Tim Timothy Naple tnaple(a)berkcom.com <mailto:tnaple@berkcom.com> 510-384-1033 Cell 510-644-1599 Office 510-644-1598 Fax Berkeley Communications Corporation 2990 San Pablo Avenue Berkeley, CA 94702 http://www.berkcom.com <http://www.berkcom.com/> -----Original Message----- From: Iain Barnetson [mailto:Iain.Barnetson@Halliburton.com <mailto:Iain.Barnetson@Halliburton.com> ] Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 5:20 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com <mailto:toasters@mathworks.com> Subject: RE: reuse old NetApp shelf I've tired low level formatting two of the disks using the Qlogic card bios facility which suceeded with no error messages. I then came back into windows and still couldn't do anything with the disks. I've tried creating a partition using both diskpart and gdisk32 but still no joy. Gdisk32 creates a partition but still windows wants to initialize the disks but can't. diskpart sits there using cpu cycles, so far for 3 hours, and doesn't seem to be doing very much. Any ideas how I can get these drives in a usuable state? _____ From: Fox, Adam [mailto:Adam.Fox@netapp.com <mailto:Adam.Fox@netapp.com> ] Sent: 25 March 2005 17:14 To: Iain Barnetson Subject: RE: reuse old NetApp shelf You'll probably have to low-level format the drives to use 512 byte blocks. I'm guessing Windows isn't thrilled with the 520-byte blocks that NTAP uses. -- Adam Fox adamfox(a)netapp.com <mailto:adamfox@netapp.com> _____ From: Iain Barnetson [mailto:Iain.Barnetson@Halliburton.com <mailto:Iain.Barnetson@Halliburton.com> ] Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 11:50 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com <mailto:toasters@mathworks.com> Subject: Re: reuse old NetApp shelf I've got a couple of NetApp DS14 fibre disk shelves from our "old" filers that I'd like to reuse. I attached one of the shelves to a server using a Qlogic 2200 card and although Windows detected the drives correctly I couldn't partition them or anything - no specific error message just saying that it couldn't. What I'm wondering is: Should I use the Qlogic card facility to low level format them? Will that make them usable in Windows? Any suggestions on how I can implement RAID with these disks other than Windows software RAID? Regards, Iain

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