toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

Needed: A tool for editing CIFS ACLs
by Warkentin, Grant 23 Mar '05

23 Mar '05

Question: Can anyone recommend a 3rd party tool for editing CIFS ACLs on an FAS960. We need: 1. An audit trail. 2. The ability to add additional ACLs without changing the existing ACLs on a folder. Currently we are using FSA (File Security Administrator) by NetIQ on our regular servers. This product needs to run an agent on the server so it's no good for filers. I have been looking at Security Explorer by Script Logic. Some information I have on this product is "We are currently working with Net App to overcome some issues with Compatibility." Do you know of any other programs besides these two? TIA. Grant Warkentin System Administrator II City of Calgary - Information Technology Mail Drop == 8245 Ph: (403) 268-5629 Fax: (403) 268-2546 NOTICE - This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation.

1 0

Re: HSM and NetApp
by Chad_Haywood＠ssga.com 22 Mar '05

22 Mar '05

Derek We are considering FileX in addition to others like StorageTek or Veritas solutions. Are you using FileX now and if so what do you like/dislike about it? Thanks, Chad Chad Haywood SSgA Enterprise Storage Management Desk (617) 664-2746 Cell (617) 592-3519 --------- Sent from my BlackBerry ----------- ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-toasters Sent: 03/22/2005 01:38 PM To: "'Holland, William L'" <hollandwl(a)state.gov>; "'toasters(a)mathworks.com'" <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Subject: RE: HSM and NetApp Check out FLM (File Lifecycle Management) from Nuview. Derek -----Original Message----- From: Holland, William L [mailto:hollandwl@state.gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 9:57 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: HSM and NetApp What would you recommend for an HSM product for use with NetApp? I am interested in a product that will periodically scan my file systems on my filers and then, based on criteria that I establish, move those files to an R200. I would like for it to leave a link in place of the original file so that it can be retrieved should it be needed. I would like to be able to further refine the management such that once a file has been moved to the R200 for some period of time let me know to either archive it to tape/DVD/etc and then delete it from the R200 and remove the links.

1 0

RE: HSM and NetApp
by Iain Barnetson 22 Mar '05

22 Mar '05

We use Enigma Data Systems "Smartmove" it's Java based works well enough the only draw back for us is that it doesn't use a SQL DB only it's own flat file system or Oracle. otherwise it's pretty good. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of Holland, William L Sent: Tue 22/03/2005 17:57 To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: HSM and NetApp What would you recommend for an HSM product for use with NetApp? I am interested in a product that will periodically scan my file systems on my filers and then, based on criteria that I establish, move those files to an R200. I would like for it to leave a link in place of the original file so that it can be retrieved should it be needed. I would like to be able to further refine the management such that once a file has been moved to the R200 for some period of time let me know to either archive it to tape/DVD/etc and then delete it from the R200 and remove the links.

1 0

ONTAP 7.0.0.1, aggregates, and flexvols
by Rob Winters 22 Mar '05

22 Mar '05

I'm catching up on the 6-week-old thread on this topic, and wondered where anyone is with deployment, stability, etc. It sounded like everyone in that thread went with my initial instinct of "make the aggregate as big as you can, and stuff it with flexvols". I'm wondering if that's the smart thing to do in a real-world scenario, or if there isn't some "middle way". If three disk fail in any one RAID-DP in the aggregate, or if two disks fail and the operator accidentally yanks out a third disk while trying to yank one of the first two, or (insert nightmare scenario here), then it's tape restore time for *every flexvol in the aggregate*, isn't it? It's an extreme long shot with RAID-DP, but a very bad outcome if you hit that particular lottery. I'm trying to decide how to think about that. Maybe divide up shares into different functional groups, or by space utilization, and do three aggregates instead of one? Still lots of space flexibility, but a bad raid only takes down a third of the Universe instead of the whole thing. Same issue in choosing the "sweet spot" for RAID size. I have 12 shelves in the FAS960, and I'm sure I want to minimize disks from the same RAID sharing shelves. One is ideal, two is tolerable, and three is "right out". Thoughts from smart folks appreciated, especially smart folks with working implementations. ;-) /// Rob

2 1

RE: ONTAP 7.0.0.1, aggregates, and flexvols
by Jeff Mohler 22 Mar '05

22 Mar '05

In the battle to maximize investment (usable disk space) -vs- risk (data loss), try to understand how much downtime you can -afford-. You will have backups, contingencies..etc, but try to math out how much downtime your enterprise can afford (because there will ALWAYS be some form of downtime as time goes on), and design the system to fall within that cost. That is usually easier than trying to understand how much uptime you want to buy, because you always want the MOST uptime, but you soon realize you cant afford it. Once you have that, its pretty simple to size a system to match it. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]On Behalf Of Battle, Evan (CBC) Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:09 PM To: Rob Winters; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: ONTAP 7.0.0.1, aggregates, and flexvols If you are worried about this scenario, use smaller raid groups. Evan -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Rob Winters Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:45 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: ONTAP 7.0.0.1, aggregates, and flexvols I'm catching up on the 6-week-old thread on this topic, and wondered where anyone is with deployment, stability, etc. It sounded like everyone in that thread went with my initial instinct of "make the aggregate as big as you can, and stuff it with flexvols". I'm wondering if that's the smart thing to do in a real-world scenario, or if there isn't some "middle way". If three disk fail in any one RAID-DP in the aggregate, or if two disks fail and the operator accidentally yanks out a third disk while trying to yank one of the first two, or (insert nightmare scenario here), then it's tape restore time for *every flexvol in the aggregate*, isn't it? It's an extreme long shot with RAID-DP, but a very bad outcome if you hit that particular lottery. I'm trying to decide how to think about that. Maybe divide up shares into different functional groups, or by space utilization, and do three aggregates instead of one? Still lots of space flexibility, but a bad raid only takes down a third of the Universe instead of the whole thing. Same issue in choosing the "sweet spot" for RAID size. I have 12 shelves in the FAS960, and I'm sure I want to minimize disks from the same RAID sharing shelves. One is ideal, two is tolerable, and three is "right out". Thoughts from smart folks appreciated, especially smart folks with working implementations. ;-) /// Rob Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use or disclosure of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the original message. Your compliance is appreciated.

1 0

RE: ONTAP 7.0.0.1, aggregates, and flexvols
by Battle, Evan (CBC) 22 Mar '05

22 Mar '05

If you are worried about this scenario, use smaller raid groups. Evan -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Rob Winters Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:45 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: ONTAP 7.0.0.1, aggregates, and flexvols I'm catching up on the 6-week-old thread on this topic, and wondered where anyone is with deployment, stability, etc. It sounded like everyone in that thread went with my initial instinct of "make the aggregate as big as you can, and stuff it with flexvols". I'm wondering if that's the smart thing to do in a real-world scenario, or if there isn't some "middle way". If three disk fail in any one RAID-DP in the aggregate, or if two disks fail and the operator accidentally yanks out a third disk while trying to yank one of the first two, or (insert nightmare scenario here), then it's tape restore time for *every flexvol in the aggregate*, isn't it? It's an extreme long shot with RAID-DP, but a very bad outcome if you hit that particular lottery. I'm trying to decide how to think about that. Maybe divide up shares into different functional groups, or by space utilization, and do three aggregates instead of one? Still lots of space flexibility, but a bad raid only takes down a third of the Universe instead of the whole thing. Same issue in choosing the "sweet spot" for RAID size. I have 12 shelves in the FAS960, and I'm sure I want to minimize disks from the same RAID sharing shelves. One is ideal, two is tolerable, and three is "right out". Thoughts from smart folks appreciated, especially smart folks with working implementations. ;-) /// Rob Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use or disclosure of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the original message. Your compliance is appreciated.

1 0

RE: HSM and NetApp
by Derek Lai 22 Mar '05

22 Mar '05

Check out FLM (File Lifecycle Management) from Nuview. Derek -----Original Message----- From: Holland, William L [mailto:hollandwl@state.gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 9:57 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: HSM and NetApp What would you recommend for an HSM product for use with NetApp? I am interested in a product that will periodically scan my file systems on my filers and then, based on criteria that I establish, move those files to an R200. I would like for it to leave a link in place of the original file so that it can be retrieved should it be needed. I would like to be able to further refine the management such that once a file has been moved to the R200 for some period of time let me know to either archive it to tape/DVD/etc and then delete it from the R200 and remove the links.

1 0

RE: HSM and NetApp
by Alan Biren 22 Mar '05

22 Mar '05

Try NuView's File Lifecycle Manager. I've implemented several times. It does what you are looking for. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Holland, William L Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 12:57 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: HSM and NetApp What would you recommend for an HSM product for use with NetApp? I am interested in a product that will periodically scan my file systems on my filers and then, based on criteria that I establish, move those files to an R200. I would like for it to leave a link in place of the original file so that it can be retrieved should it be needed. I would like to be able to further refine the management such that once a file has been moved to the R200 for some period of time let me know to either archive it to tape/DVD/etc and then delete it from the R200 and remove the links. ***************************************************************************************************** If you have received this email in error please notify the the system manager or the sender immediately and do not disclosed the to anyone or make copies. ** eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals or malicious content ** ** To find out eSafe(TM) and other Aladdin Security Products, contact AMC Corporation at (212) 736-0111 *****************************************************************************************************

1 0

Re: HSM and NetApp
by jack＠jlbtechconsulting.com 22 Mar '05

22 Mar '05

Check out CommVault's Qinetix Data Migrator. You're looking for an Information LIfecycle Management tool and they have the best on the market right now. It will do exactly what you're asking to do.

1 0

possible space guarantee "bug" ?
by Charles Bartels 22 Mar '05

22 Mar '05

I've been shuffling around my volumes, migrating to flexible volumes, and noticed an interesting possible bug. I created about a dozen volumes within a large aggregate; using all the space available. All were create with the default space guarantee setting of "volume". As I understand things, this effectively means the space is reserved for each volume (i.e. one volume can't use up space in another volume.) When I rebooted my filer this morning I noticed the warning: [wafl.vol.guarantee.fail:error]: Space for volume vol_test is NOT guaranteed and the space guarantee setting showed up as "volume(disabled)" As soon as I shrunk one of the volumes a bit the following message appeared in the log: [wafl.vol.add.spcGuar:info]: Space for volume vol_test is guaranteed. This seems to imply that one should be very careful whenever you create or increase the size of a flexible volume. You can inadvertently disable the space guarantee on another volume. This *may* be the expected way 7.0 works; I don't know. I'm still in the process of getting the hang of this latest release. But it did seem strange. -C.

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