toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13514 discussions

RE: Quotas
by Iain Barnetson 15 Mar '05

15 Mar '05

Actually that sounds very similar, at first this affected only a few Qtrees & Home folders on the two volumes. Toward the end of yesterday afternoon I thought the filer had sorted itself out, this morning it started again around 09:30Hrs and was affecting pretty much all our qtreees & home folders. The problem became apparent yesterday around 13:00Hrs and dropped off around 16:30Hrs, starting again around 09:30hrs this morning but worse! So there may be some correlation between filer workload and this problem. What DFM was reporting and initially alerted one of the guys to there being a problem, was that about a dozen Qtrees were, according to DFM, set at 50Mb. The quotas file had them set to 31.5Gb. When a asked the filer for a quota report it itially told me that the quotas were set to 50Mb as well, after a quota off followed by a quota on I again queried the filer for a quota report, this time it reported the quotas correctly BUT still users couldn't write to their Qtrees or Home folders. I even forced the cluster partner to take over the disks and rebooted the filer having the problem but that dind't resolve it either. Iain -----Original Message----- From: Adam McDougall [mailto:mcdouga9@egr.msu.edu] Sent: 15 March 2005 21:29 To: Iain Barnetson Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Quotas An issue that may be related that I noticed, if I perform a quota resize, it silently drops random users to a default user quota I have specified. If I run quota resize again, it complains about the default user entry. Quotas remain confused like this until I perform a full quota off/on, then quotas seem to operate perfectly fine for me. On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:17:15PM -0000, Iain Barnetson wrote: Of two filers updated to Data OnTap 7.0.1 Sunday morning, one has now got a Quotas problem. Users are getting disk full errors when trying to write to Qtrees or Home folders despite have copious amounts of free space. The volumes and disks have space. The Qtrees are on one traditional volume and the Home folders on another traditional volume. When the quotas are off there's no problem. Have checked the filer is reading the quotas file correctly by doing a rdfile /etc/quotas and comparing to the physical quotas file and it's exact. Have tried switching on and off the quotas, and also rebooting the filer (it works for MS boxes!) Have a ticket open with NetApp but so far no resolution. Anyone experienced anything similar or any ideas on a resolution? Iain T: +44 1224 776913 E: iain.barnetson(a)halliburton.com

1 0

RE: Quotas
by Iain Barnetson 15 Mar '05

15 Mar '05

Of two filers updated to Data OnTap 7.0.1 Sunday morning, one has now got a Quotas problem. Users are getting disk full errors when trying to write to Qtrees or Home folders despite have copious amounts of free space. The volumes and disks have space. The Qtrees are on one traditional volume and the Home folders on another traditional volume. When the quotas are off there's no problem. Have checked the filer is reading the quotas file correctly by doing a rdfile /etc/quotas and comparing to the physical quotas file and it's exact. Have tried switching on and off the quotas, and also rebooting the filer (it works for MS boxes!) Have a ticket open with NetApp but so far no resolution. Anyone experienced anything similar or any ideas on a resolution? Iain T: +44 1224 776913 E: iain.barnetson(a)halliburton.com

3 2

RE: Quotas
by Iain Barnetson 15 Mar '05

15 Mar '05

Yes it's a typo but the jist of the email wasn't ;) -----Original Message----- From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] Sent: 15 March 2005 20:42 To: Iain Barnetson Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Quotas Iain.Barnetson(a)Halliburton.com writes > > Of two filers updated to Data OnTap 7.0.1 Is that a typo for 7.0.0.1? I didn't think 7.0.1 was out yet. > Sunday morning, one has now > got a Quotas problem. > > Users are getting disk full errors when trying to write to Qtrees or > Home folders despite have copious amounts of free space. The volumes > and disks have space. The Qtrees are on one traditional volume and the > Home folders on another traditional volume. When the quotas are off > there's no problem. > > Have checked the filer is reading the quotas file correctly by doing a > rdfile /etc/quotas and comparing to the physical quotas file and it's > exact. > > Have tried switching on and off the quotas, and also rebooting the > filer (it works for MS boxes!) > > Have a ticket open with NetApp but so far no resolution. > > Anyone experienced anything similar or any ideas on a resolution? Well, it's alarmingly reminiscent of two recent toasters threads "unix quota and df" (Charles Bartels) "df size reporting differences in ONTAP 7.0" (Adam McDougall) except that they didn't actually report "disk full" conditions. I think the chances of us going to ONTAP 7.x at Easter are now almost indistinguishable from zero! Many thanks to those of you who jumped in the deep end, and let us know where to send the wreath ... :-) It's a pity that no-one from NetApp has contributed to any of these threads. Surely someone there at least knows what they were _trying_ to do with (NFSPROC_STATFS, NFSPROC3_FSSTAT, etc.) results? -- Chris Thompson Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk

1 0

RE: single vs. multiple nfs mounts
by Jeff Mohler 15 Mar '05

15 Mar '05

Well..back in the bad old days (1998ish) when I was running God's own public Usenet service with cyclone/typhoon products, I learned that parellelizing NFS mounts was a -huge- performance benefit in the Solaris of the day until you reached the limits of the machine itself. The filer didnt care, the client OS sure did. I can only assume it's the same today. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]On Behalf Of Steve Losen Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 3:18 PM To: George Kahler Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: single vs. multiple nfs mounts > >I'm a bit worried over the resultant nfs performance all going though > >this single mount point. Can someone comment on the issues of multiple > >nfs mounts vs. a single mount ? > >What about locking ? I don't think that single vs. multiple mount points per se makes a performance difference. However, if it makes sense to use different NFS options for different applications, then I believe you can still do it. Just mount the same netapp volume on different mount points with different sets of NFS options, and on the NFS client have each app use the appropriate mount point for the NFS options it needs. mount -o rw,hard,opt2,opt3 toaster:/vol/big /mnt1 mount -o rw,hard,opt4,opt5 toaster:/vol/big /mnt2 ... Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 434-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

1 0

None
by George Kahler 15 Mar '05

15 Mar '05

Hi - I have all our Oracle9i databases defined as individual qtrees spread over two filers. Some time ago the decision was to split an individual database into 3 separate components (qtrees), one for the data (tables) the other two qtrees for duplex logs, one on each filer head. A Sun Solaris 8 dataserver that runs 6 Oracle databases then has 18 nfs mounts. On the recommendation of NetApp the qtrees are mounted with these options: rw,hard,intr,bg,proto=tcp,llock The DBAs now would like to have this rearranged so that there is a single qtree per dataserver host (think of this as one large blob of space) with ALL of the databases that this server will run as a sub-directory of this qtree. I'm a bit worried over the resultant nfs performance all going though this single mount point. Can someone comment on the issues of multiple nfs mounts vs. a single mount ? What about locking ? Thanks, George

1 0

RE: unix quota and df
by Grant, Derek 15 Mar '05

15 Mar '05

I believe this has shown up as a bug on the NOW site. I would check. I seem to remember seeing something like this in 7.0+ bug list. Derek -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Charles Bartels Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 1:48 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: unix quota and df Hi, I have a filer running ONTAP 7.0 connecting to a Solaris box with automounted home directories, and I'm getting different results depending on whether I have a quota in a qtree vs. a volume. If anyone can shed some light on this "problem" I would appreciate it. Thanks. -C. In the examples below, there is 35GB qtree ("home") under vol0 and a 35GB flexible volume ("home"). Both have default user quotas of 5GB. If a user's home directory is in a qtree and they do "df" on the unix box, their "partition" shows up sized to their quota. This is good; although this is *not* the way things worked pre-ONTAP 7.0 Ex. User1@unixbox> df -kh . Filesystem Size Used Available Use% Mounted on filer:/vol/vol0/home/user1 5.0G 2.0G 3.0G 40% /home/user1 If a user's home directory is in a volume, their "partition" shows up sized to the size of the volume. They need to run "quota -v" on the client to get their quota. Ex. User2@unixbox> df -kh . Filesystem Size Used Available Use% Mounted on filer:/vol/home/user2 32G 11G 21G 35% /home/user2 User2@unixbox> quota -v Disk quotas for user2 (uid 1001): Filesystem usage quota limit timeleft files quota limit timeleft /home/user2 1914808 5242880 5242880 2172 -1 -1

2 1

Full volume backup with Legato Networker
by Palmer, Jason (EMEA) 15 Mar '05

15 Mar '05

Hi - At present, we back up our F800 series filers with Legato Networker using NDMP and direct attached tape devices. We are looking to purchase an R200 and mirror our live data on a daily basis to this device in an offsite location and perform periodic backups to tape. We would like to backup the full volumes - the current file system plus all of the snapshots. I understand that a Dump commnd can be used to push the whole volume out to tape and a snapmirror to tape type scenario could also be used. Does anyone currently do this using their Legato backup software ? If so, could they give details of how this could be done ? I have heard that Netvault from Bakbone may have this type of functionality - anyone out there using this ? Many thanks, ----------------------------------- Jason Palmer <Storage> Messaging & Storage Implementation MCI [EMEA] ----------------------------------- [e]: jason.palmer(a)uk.mci.com [i]: http://www.mci.com/uk <http://www.mci.com/uk> -----------------------------------

1 0

RE: Multimode VIF
by Dean, Phil (ITO) 15 Mar '05

15 Mar '05

You need to take into account the port now. So a dual card has ports a and b so you do e4a and e4b to create the vif for all ports on card 4. if you had a quad port card then you have a, b, c and d as the ports so e4a to e4d. Regards, Phil Dean IBS/PBS Data Storage Support Institutional and Business Systems Premium Business Services Level 5, 48 Martin Place Sydney, NSW 2000 * 02 9378-5988 Fax: 02 9378-5202 Mob: 0407 478 695 * deanph(a)cba.com.au -----Original Message----- From: drew.odonnell(a)americas.bnpparibas.com [mailto:drew.odonnell@americas.bnpparibas.com] Sent: Tuesday, 15 March 2005 10:42 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Multimode VIF I just picked up a few netapps and I was looking to create some VIFS I have not done before. Basically I have two of the new dual GB cards one in slot 4 and the other in slot five. I would like some ideas since I have only historically done single mode VIFS (1 port per card) like the following: vif create single trunk1 e4 e5 vif favor e4 ifconfig trunk1 x.x.x.x netmask 255.255.255.0 wins route add default x.x.x.x 1 What I want to do is a multimode using the 2 dual cards, each one going to separate switches (2 connections per card - per switch). Unfortunately from what I understand, the Cisco 6509 does not support Active Active trunk groups across 2 different switches. We can however have an active active trunk created between 2 ports on the same switch. So I would like to have 1 dual card go to one switch (On two different blades), and the send the other two to another switch. I would like 2 of the 4 ports transmitting/receiving under 1 virtual address. Essentially, most of the switch failures I have seen are logical, on the port or blade. In this event the netapp does not failover. My thoughts are if I go on 2 different blades on the same switch, and I have both cards transmitting, and receiving, then if I lose one port or blade, I will have another card. If we lose the whole switch,then we would failover to the secondary VIF. Do I create 2 different VIFS, and then create a 3rd VIF, (Essentially viffing the VIFS) I am sure I am not the first to head down this road, so any helpful advice would be great, I am not finding to much on the NOW site. Thanks Drew This message and any attachments (the "message") is intended solely for the addressees and is confidential. If you receive this message in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender. Any use not in accord with its purpose, any dissemination or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited except formal approval. The internet can not guarantee the integrity of this message. BNP PARIBAS (and its subsidiaries) shall (will) not therefore be liable for the message if modified. --------------------------------------------- Ce message et toutes les pieces jointes (ci-apres le "message") sont etablis a l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires et sont confidentiels. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, merci de le detruire et d'en avertir immediatement l'expediteur. Toute utilisation de ce message non conforme a sa destination, toute diffusion ou toute publication, totale ou partielle, est interdite, sauf autorisation expresse. L'internet ne permettant pas d'assurer l'integrite de ce message, BNP PARIBAS (et ses filiales) decline(nt) toute responsabilite au titre de ce message, dans l'hypothese ou il aurait ete modifie. ************** IMPORTANT MESSAGE ************** This e-mail message is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains information which may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient please advise the sender by return email, do not use or disclose the contents, and delete the message and any attachments from your system. Unless specifically indicated, this email does not constitute formal advice or commitment by the sender or the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (ABN 48 123 123 124) or its subsidiaries. We can be contacted through our web site: commbank.com.au. If you no longer wish to receive commercial electronic messages from us, please reply to this e-mail by typing Unsubscribe in the subject line. ***************************************************************

2 1

RE: Multimode VIF
by Dean, Phil (ITO) 15 Mar '05

15 Mar '05

Drew, Got a little ahead of myself. Yes you would have to create 3 vifs, first 2 combining the two ports on each switch and then the 3rd vif to combine them all. Are you trying for a little load balancing as well? We essentially have just single vifs going to 2 ports on different switches and at most you lost a few pings when one port goes down and it switches to the other port. Regards, Phil Dean IBS/PBS Data Storage Support Institutional and Business Systems Premium Business Services Level 5, 48 Martin Place Sydney, NSW 2000 * 02 9378-5988 Fax: 02 9378-5202 Mob: 0407 478 695 * deanph(a)cba.com.au -----Original Message----- From: drew.odonnell(a)americas.bnpparibas.com [mailto:drew.odonnell@americas.bnpparibas.com] Sent: Tuesday, 15 March 2005 10:42 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Multimode VIF I just picked up a few netapps and I was looking to create some VIFS I have not done before. Basically I have two of the new dual GB cards one in slot 4 and the other in slot five. I would like some ideas since I have only historically done single mode VIFS (1 port per card) like the following: vif create single trunk1 e4 e5 vif favor e4 ifconfig trunk1 x.x.x.x netmask 255.255.255.0 wins route add default x.x.x.x 1 What I want to do is a multimode using the 2 dual cards, each one going to separate switches (2 connections per card - per switch). Unfortunately from what I understand, the Cisco 6509 does not support Active Active trunk groups across 2 different switches. We can however have an active active trunk created between 2 ports on the same switch. So I would like to have 1 dual card go to one switch (On two different blades), and the send the other two to another switch. I would like 2 of the 4 ports transmitting/receiving under 1 virtual address. Essentially, most of the switch failures I have seen are logical, on the port or blade. In this event the netapp does not failover. My thoughts are if I go on 2 different blades on the same switch, and I have both cards transmitting, and receiving, then if I lose one port or blade, I will have another card. If we lose the whole switch,then we would failover to the secondary VIF. Do I create 2 different VIFS, and then create a 3rd VIF, (Essentially viffing the VIFS) I am sure I am not the first to head down this road, so any helpful advice would be great, I am not finding to much on the NOW site. Thanks Drew This message and any attachments (the "message") is intended solely for the addressees and is confidential. If you receive this message in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender. Any use not in accord with its purpose, any dissemination or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited except formal approval. The internet can not guarantee the integrity of this message. BNP PARIBAS (and its subsidiaries) shall (will) not therefore be liable for the message if modified. --------------------------------------------- Ce message et toutes les pieces jointes (ci-apres le "message") sont etablis a l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires et sont confidentiels. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, merci de le detruire et d'en avertir immediatement l'expediteur. Toute utilisation de ce message non conforme a sa destination, toute diffusion ou toute publication, totale ou partielle, est interdite, sauf autorisation expresse. L'internet ne permettant pas d'assurer l'integrite de ce message, BNP PARIBAS (et ses filiales) decline(nt) toute responsabilite au titre de ce message, dans l'hypothese ou il aurait ete modifie. ************** IMPORTANT MESSAGE ************** This e-mail message is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains information which may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient please advise the sender by return email, do not use or disclose the contents, and delete the message and any attachments from your system. Unless specifically indicated, this email does not constitute formal advice or commitment by the sender or the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (ABN 48 123 123 124) or its subsidiaries. We can be contacted through our web site: commbank.com.au. If you no longer wish to receive commercial electronic messages from us, please reply to this e-mail by typing Unsubscribe in the subject line. ***************************************************************

1 0

Multimode VIF
by drew.odonnell＠americas.bnpparibas.com 14 Mar '05

14 Mar '05

I just picked up a few netapps and I was looking to create some VIFS I have not done before. Basically I have two of the new dual GB cards one in slot 4 and the other in slot five. I would like some ideas since I have only historically done single mode VIFS (1 port per card) like the following: vif create single trunk1 e4 e5 vif favor e4 ifconfig trunk1 x.x.x.x netmask 255.255.255.0 wins route add default x.x.x.x 1 What I want to do is a multimode using the 2 dual cards, each one going to separate switches (2 connections per card - per switch). Unfortunately from what I understand, the Cisco 6509 does not support Active Active trunk groups across 2 different switches. We can however have an active active trunk created between 2 ports on the same switch. So I would like to have 1 dual card go to one switch (On two different blades), and the send the other two to another switch. I would like 2 of the 4 ports transmitting/receiving under 1 virtual address. Essentially, most of the switch failures I have seen are logical, on the port or blade. In this event the netapp does not failover. My thoughts are if I go on 2 different blades on the same switch, and I have both cards transmitting, and receiving, then if I lose one port or blade, I will have another card. If we lose the whole switch,then we would failover to the secondary VIF. Do I create 2 different VIFS, and then create a 3rd VIF, (Essentially viffing the VIFS) I am sure I am not the first to head down this road, so any helpful advice would be great, I am not finding to much on the NOW site. Thanks Drew This message and any attachments (the "message") is intended solely for the addressees and is confidential. If you receive this message in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender. Any use not in accord with its purpose, any dissemination or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited except formal approval. The internet can not guarantee the integrity of this message. BNP PARIBAS (and its subsidiaries) shall (will) not therefore be liable for the message if modified. --------------------------------------------- Ce message et toutes les pieces jointes (ci-apres le "message") sont etablis a l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires et sont confidentiels. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, merci de le detruire et d'en avertir immediatement l'expediteur. Toute utilisation de ce message non conforme a sa destination, toute diffusion ou toute publication, totale ou partielle, est interdite, sauf autorisation expresse. L'internet ne permettant pas d'assurer l'integrite de ce message, BNP PARIBAS (et ses filiales) decline(nt) toute responsabilite au titre de ce message, dans l'hypothese ou il aurait ete modifie.

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