toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

one stop shop for med s
by Tessi Aghili 25 Feb '05

25 Feb '05

FDA approved Meds. Shipped via UPS, with tracking number. You can even order over the phone read downwards ;) c - v o - i d - c e - o i - d n - i e - n jst copy & paste to your browser, Without any spaces, thx :D 765345. net/bam/?man=0003

1 0

autosupport - logs
by George Kahler 24 Feb '05

24 Feb '05

I have around 50 or so entries in ./etc/log/autosupport directory on all of my filers dating back to July '04. Does anyone know if this is something that can be safely purged ? Why is it being accumulated ? BTW, autosupport is enabled and is working correctly. Thx, George

2 2

TKO NOTICE: Notification to pay your eBay fees.
by support＠eBay.com 24 Feb '05

24 Feb '05

1 0

routed
by Robert Borowicz 22 Feb '05

22 Feb '05

DOT 6.4.4 seems to want to run routed by default. Last reboot I missed the fact that it was turned on and now its running with a sizable route table. In my mind there is no reason to run the routed and take up memory space by the ensuing route list. Am I missing something obvious? -Rob

2 1

Destroying failed disks
by Ted Weston 22 Feb '05

22 Feb '05

Good Morning (or afternoon/evening, depending on your location) - I'd like to conduct a quick poll on the process those of you employ to destroy failed filer hard drives. Do you use an outside service to physically destroy it, utilize something akin to 'shred -z,' or an entirely different approach? Thanks, -t

5 6

RE: Destroying failed disks
by Hill, Aaron 22 Feb '05

22 Feb '05

Oops, sorry guys, lost track of the thread and wrote too soon. Of course! How the hell am I going to be able to sanitize a failed disk if it isn't even "seen" by the filer? The encrypted data option is still pretty good and it brings a bunch of security benefits (and additional administration). Otherwise, the industrial magnet sounds like great fun. I wonder what field strength and exposure time is required to guarantee a complete scramble? Hell it probably even depends on the angle that the disk platter is exposed to the magnet. Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Sphar, Mike [mailto:Mike_Sphar@bmc.com] Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2005 10:41 AM To: 'Toasters' Subject: RE: Destroying failed disks I think the question would be whether you could actually do a disk sanitize on a failed disk? A friend of mine who works in IT for a steel company recently shared that they "sanitized" a batch of hard disks by taking them out and having them picked up by a giant crane magnet that is normally used for picking up tons of metal. -----Original Message----- From: Hill, Aaron [mailto:aaron.hill@cba.com.au] Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 5:03 PM To: 'Ted Weston'; John Stoffel Cc: 'Toasters' Subject: RE: Destroying failed disks Did anyone mention the disk sanitization tool? I was told that this will run through your disk writing diagonal 0's and 1's over all the current data making it unusable. The 6.5 Storage Admin Guide states the following; Disk sanitization is the process of physically obliterating data by means of overwrite patterns on filer or NearStore appliance disks in a manner that precludes recovery of that data by any known recovery methods. The Data ONTAP disk sanitize feature enables you to carry out disk sanitization by using three successive byte overwrite patterns per cycle and a default six cycles per operation, in compliance with United States Department of Defense and Department of Energy security requirements. I did read somewhere that it still may be possible to pull snippets of information off the disks using an electron microscope. I truly have no idea if this is possible or not. If your are that paranoid, it may be time to physically destroy the disks or start thinking about encrypting all of your data before it goes on the disks. If you go for the latter, read more here; http://www.netapp.com/news/print/NEWS_REL_20041026.html Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Ted Weston [mailto:Ted.Weston@oracle.com] Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2005 3:08 AM To: John Stoffel Cc: 'Toasters' Subject: RE: Destroying failed disks Thanks for the reply, John. With this solution, aren't you concerned that something relevant could appear in one of those 8k chunks that WAFL writes? Several credit card or social security numbers might be strung in there. -t -----Original Message----- From: John Stoffel [mailto:john.stoffel@taec.toshiba.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 10:36 AM To: Ted Weston Cc: 'Toasters' Subject: Re: Destroying failed disks Ted> Good Morning (or afternoon/evening, depending on your location) - Ted> I'd like to conduct a quick poll on the process those of you Ted> employ to destroy failed filer hard drives. Do you use an outside Ted> service to physically destroy it, utilize something akin to Ted> 'shred -z,' or an entirely different approach? Well, since the failed disks are shipped back to NetApp under our maint contract, we don't do anything to them. And since they're dead... all we could do is physically destroy them if we were worried about data being stolen. Not a big worry since all you'd get is snippets in random chunks, esp for bigger files. John John Stoffel - Senior Staff Systems Administrator - System LSI Group Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. - http://www.toshiba.com/taec john.stoffel(a)taec.toshiba.com - 508-486-1087 ************** 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

RE: Destroying failed disks
by Sphar, Mike 22 Feb '05

22 Feb '05

I think the question would be whether you could actually do a disk sanitize on a failed disk? A friend of mine who works in IT for a steel company recently shared that they "sanitized" a batch of hard disks by taking them out and having them picked up by a giant crane magnet that is normally used for picking up tons of metal. -----Original Message----- From: Hill, Aaron [mailto:aaron.hill@cba.com.au] Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 5:03 PM To: 'Ted Weston'; John Stoffel Cc: 'Toasters' Subject: RE: Destroying failed disks Did anyone mention the disk sanitization tool? I was told that this will run through your disk writing diagonal 0's and 1's over all the current data making it unusable. The 6.5 Storage Admin Guide states the following; Disk sanitization is the process of physically obliterating data by means of overwrite patterns on filer or NearStore appliance disks in a manner that precludes recovery of that data by any known recovery methods. The Data ONTAP disk sanitize feature enables you to carry out disk sanitization by using three successive byte overwrite patterns per cycle and a default six cycles per operation, in compliance with United States Department of Defense and Department of Energy security requirements. I did read somewhere that it still may be possible to pull snippets of information off the disks using an electron microscope. I truly have no idea if this is possible or not. If your are that paranoid, it may be time to physically destroy the disks or start thinking about encrypting all of your data before it goes on the disks. If you go for the latter, read more here; http://www.netapp.com/news/print/NEWS_REL_20041026.html Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Ted Weston [mailto:Ted.Weston@oracle.com] Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2005 3:08 AM To: John Stoffel Cc: 'Toasters' Subject: RE: Destroying failed disks Thanks for the reply, John. With this solution, aren't you concerned that something relevant could appear in one of those 8k chunks that WAFL writes? Several credit card or social security numbers might be strung in there. -t -----Original Message----- From: John Stoffel [mailto:john.stoffel@taec.toshiba.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 10:36 AM To: Ted Weston Cc: 'Toasters' Subject: Re: Destroying failed disks Ted> Good Morning (or afternoon/evening, depending on your location) - Ted> I'd like to conduct a quick poll on the process those of you Ted> employ to destroy failed filer hard drives. Do you use an outside Ted> service to physically destroy it, utilize something akin to Ted> 'shred -z,' or an entirely different approach? Well, since the failed disks are shipped back to NetApp under our maint contract, we don't do anything to them. And since they're dead... all we could do is physically destroy them if we were worried about data being stolen. Not a big worry since all you'd get is snippets in random chunks, esp for bigger files. John John Stoffel - Senior Staff Systems Administrator - System LSI Group Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. - http://www.toshiba.com/taec john.stoffel(a)taec.toshiba.com - 508-486-1087 ************** 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

RE: Destroying failed disks
by Hill, Aaron 22 Feb '05

22 Feb '05

Did anyone mention the disk sanitization tool? I was told that this will run through your disk writing diagonal 0's and 1's over all the current data making it unusable. The 6.5 Storage Admin Guide states the following; Disk sanitization is the process of physically obliterating data by means of overwrite patterns on filer or NearStore appliance disks in a manner that precludes recovery of that data by any known recovery methods. The Data ONTAP disk sanitize feature enables you to carry out disk sanitization by using three successive byte overwrite patterns per cycle and a default six cycles per operation, in compliance with United States Department of Defense and Department of Energy security requirements. I did read somewhere that it still may be possible to pull snippets of information off the disks using an electron microscope. I truly have no idea if this is possible or not. If your are that paranoid, it may be time to physically destroy the disks or start thinking about encrypting all of your data before it goes on the disks. If you go for the latter, read more here; http://www.netapp.com/news/print/NEWS_REL_20041026.html Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Ted Weston [mailto:Ted.Weston@oracle.com] Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2005 3:08 AM To: John Stoffel Cc: 'Toasters' Subject: RE: Destroying failed disks Thanks for the reply, John. With this solution, aren't you concerned that something relevant could appear in one of those 8k chunks that WAFL writes? Several credit card or social security numbers might be strung in there. -t -----Original Message----- From: John Stoffel [mailto:john.stoffel@taec.toshiba.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 10:36 AM To: Ted Weston Cc: 'Toasters' Subject: Re: Destroying failed disks Ted> Good Morning (or afternoon/evening, depending on your location) - Ted> I'd like to conduct a quick poll on the process those of you Ted> employ to destroy failed filer hard drives. Do you use an outside Ted> service to physically destroy it, utilize something akin to Ted> 'shred -z,' or an entirely different approach? Well, since the failed disks are shipped back to NetApp under our maint contract, we don't do anything to them. And since they're dead... all we could do is physically destroy them if we were worried about data being stolen. Not a big worry since all you'd get is snippets in random chunks, esp for bigger files. John John Stoffel - Senior Staff Systems Administrator - System LSI Group Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. - http://www.toshiba.com/taec john.stoffel(a)taec.toshiba.com - 508-486-1087 ************** 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

Quick access to quota information
by Jacek Nogala 21 Feb '05

21 Feb '05

The landscape: - The company is cable tv providing also Internet services - They intend to use FAS920 in NFS environment (all servers are Linux) - At this very moment they are servicing about 80k users but wanting to be able to service more that 200k - Services for users are to be implemented with UID and GID quotas Requirements: - They need to be able to retrieve quickly information about current quota usage for each specific UID or GID. - The information will be available via: -- Call Center - estimated queries 12 times per minute -- WEB GUI for users - estimated queries 120 times per minute - The quota information should be retrieved within 2 s and should be not older than 30 s - There is not specific requirements regarding method of getting the result (SNMP/RSH/NFS RPC/HTTP are acceptable) We discussed with them SNMPwalk and quota report parsing but they cannot accept it due to high and growing number of users. The most convenient way would be short series of SNMP queries for specific UID / GID. Any suggestions other than "make and parse quota report" are welcome. Best regards, Jacek

4 3

FC720 stalling
by Simon Waters 18 Feb '05

18 Feb '05

Okay - first post - be gentle. FC720 old and unloved, has finally started having issues where it ceases to handle CIFS request correctly. The problem manifests as a failure to respond to client requests. Two areas of possible "change" I think likely; Linux client mounting the CIF partitons. Wed Feb 16 11:57:57 GMT [de1]: CIFS t2 request 6 not implemented debuginfo( 15d 9e RH9CLIENT) Or the Windows clients finally being stable enough to stay up long enough to exhaust some resource (good riddance to NT4). In particular I'd be interested in seeing what the CIFS Session information looks like on other filers. I see a lot of repeats..... W2KIISSERV (WINDOMAIN\iusr_anon - pcuser) 10 0 W2KIISSERV (WINDOMAIN\iusr_anon - pcuser) 10 0 W2KIISSERV (WINDOMAIN\iusr_anon - pcuser) 10 0 W2KIISSERV (WINDOMAIN\iusr_anon - pcuser) 10 0 W2KIISSERV (WINDOMAIN\iusr_anon - pcuser) 10 0 W2KIISSERV (WINDOMAIN\iusr_anon - pcuser) 10 0 W2KIISSERV (WINDOMAIN\iusr_anon - pcuser) 10 0 W2KIISSERV (WINDOMAIN\iusr_anon - pcuser) 10 0 W2KIISSERV (WINDOMAIN\iusr_anon - pcuser) 10 0 W2KIISSERV (WINDOMAIN\iusr_anon - pcuser) 10 0 W2KIISSERV (WINDOMAIN\iusr_anon - pcuser) 10 91 ... is that normal? However I have no clear handle on what is going wrong. The box just supplies CIFS service to a bunch of W2K webservers using IIS. The problem seems to manifest itself randomly, but does look like it is accumulating over time. Last time it managed 6 days. A reboot or restart of CIFS seems to clear it. When it happens nothing unusual is logged. The box is claiming to handle about 500,000 to 1,000,000 CIFS ops an hour. This doesn't seem to change much when the box fails?! All the status reports look normal. I guess it could be a networking issue, but it only affects the FC720, and is fixed by a reboot. We are in the process of sourcing replacement hardware because is has basically reached the end of it's life. Till recently it "just worked", so no one touched it, and as a result has archaic firmware 2.3_a2. If it was supported and with a future, I'd probably stick a firmware upgrade in straight away and see if this fixes it. But if anyone has any clues where to look, or what might be doing this....

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