toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

CIFS / NFS Authentication problem
by Geoff Hardin 04 Nov '04

04 Nov '04

Ok toasters, I've got a brain buster for you... Here's the situation: I have a filer running ONTAP 6.1R1P1 (and no, I can't upgrade) with a qtree (/vol/vol0/cifs) set to UNIX style security. The qtree is owned by a user and a group. There is a directory, /vol/vol0/cifs/test, in this qtree owned by this same user and group, and the UNIX permissions are 2775 (drwxrwsr-x). From a UNIX system, I can create new files, delete files, edit files, and rename files, and the file permissions are correct (owned by me and the group that owns the directory). Here's where it gets tricky. The qtree is shared via CIFS as \\TOASTER\cifs. The share is set up with everyone / Full Control (because we control access via UNIX groups and users). I can see the directory, I can modify existing files, but I can not delete files, create new files, or rename files. The Windows clients are Windows 2000 and Windows NT 4.0. My UNIX account and my Windows account are set up correctly in the usermap.cfg file. The local /etc/nis_group file is updated and correct. I am able to write to other shares on this filer, even to other directories in the share that have different UNIX permissions (i.e. 0755, 0775, or 0777). What am I missing? Is this a bug, or just an ID-10t error? Thanks, Geoff P.S. - I just checked my credentials using the `cifs sessions -s <username>` command and it came back with only two of my UNIX groups, specifically, not the group that owns the directory in question. I have turned on the `options nis.group_update.enable', and run `options nis.group_update_schedule now'. The local /etc/nis_group file is updated with the correct information, but even after removing myself from one of the additional groups, running `wcc -x`, and `options nis.group_update_schedule now', my credentials still show up with the same two groups (even though I am no longer part of one of them). Hmmm

2 2

aveComm - Installable/On-Premises web-based Collaboration and Communication (with Security, Performance, Scalability and Integration)...
by Glenn Platkin 04 Nov '04

04 Nov '04

If you're concerned about: Security, Performance, Scalability, Integration or Cost of web-based Collaboration or Conference Calling, please read on... aveComm, our award-winning 'Unified Messaging, Communication and Collaboration' solution, "is an excellent alternative to hosted services, especially for medium to large-sized organizations with security and cost in mind ," says Rich Tehrani, Group Publisher/Editor-in-Chief, Internet Telephony Magazine aveComm is offered as an INSTALLABLE, HOSTED or OEM-friendly alternative to less feature-rich and expensive solutions and offers: True Application Sharing & Annotation Desktop Sharing Secure Remote Desktop Control Document Collaboration Text Chat/Instant Messaging Text Messaging/Paging Voice Mail Whiteboard Session Recording/Playback File Transfer Full Duplex PC-to-PC VoIP (Voice over IP) IP Telephony (PC<->Phone, Phone<->PC, Phone<->Phone) Unlimited Participant Conference Calling/Bridging That's right, Unified Collaboration and Communication inside of a single interface, from a single-vendor!! I welcome you to test-drive aveComm, FREE for 30 days, without any obligation. Just visit: http://run.avecomm.com , sign-up and it's that simple. In fact, invite your friends, co-workers and colleagues - there is no limit to the number of participants and they can be anywhere to join you online for true web-based Collaboration and Conversation. PLEASE, let me know what you think... And by the way, if you'd like to install aveComm in-house, behind your firewall, contact me directly and we'll get you set up right-away! Thanks ! Glenn (Platkin) Vice President gaplatkin(a)atinav.com www.avecomm.com Encouraging Collaboration & Communication, Anytime, Anywhere, with Anybody... P.S. Please feel free read some of our latest headlines: http://www.avecomm.com/CorporateInformation/NewsandEvents/PressReleases/pr0… and, http://www.avecomm.com/CorporateInformation/NewsandEvents/PressReleases/pr0… Note: If you do not wish to receive further marketing e-mails, please reply to this email with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject - Thank you !

1 0

RE: Backup speeds across the network
by John Clear 04 Nov '04

04 Nov '04

Our FAS250 runs about the same speeds as the F760 it replaced. It can do 2-3 NDMP sessions at 20MB/s. Quantum's newer libraries doesn't have NDMP native drives any more, but use Dinostors instead. 4.5MB/s is pretty bad performance. Unless the Sun is really overworked, it should be able to do better then that. I have a Ultra60 with four local drives (non-NDMP) and it can do >10MB/s per drive. John -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Hardin [mailto:ghardin@dalsemi.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 4:15 PM To: John Clear Cc: 'Geoff Hardin'; toasters Subject: RE: Backup speeds across the network Currently we are seeing about 4.5 MB/s from the filer (F760) to an LTO-2 drive attached to a Sun V240. Unfortunately, we do not have any data on the FAS270 yet, so we can't really test it, which is why I was looking for other's results. We looked at the DinoStor tape hosts and have been interested in using them for years, but we couldn't justify the additional price when there are libraries that have the functionality built-in already. From our own evaluations though, we highly recommend using the DinoStor devices if your library can not be attached to the network. Geoff Hardin UNIX System Administrator / Team Lead Dallas Semiconductor / Maxim Integrated Products 972-371-4630 geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com Famous last words: Who? Me? On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, John Clear wrote: > We currently have a Quantum/ATL library with built in > NDMP tape drives (SDLT220) and are moving to a StorageTek > library with Dinostor (http://www.dinostor.com) NDMP bridges > and LTO1 drives. > > We use a separate gigabit network for backups, and see 20MB/s > to the SDLT drives. A FAS960 can push 5-6 streams at 20MB/s. > Even with a single stream, I haven't seen much above 20MB/s, > so the drive seems to be the limiting factor in this case. > Our old F760 used to be able to do 3 streams at 20MB/s, but > would drop to 12-15MB/s if pushed to 4 streams. > > Dropping in a Dinostor in place of your tape host filer would > take the load off that filer. What rates are you seeing? > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoff Hardin [mailto:geoff.hardin@dalsemi.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 3:24 PM > To: toasters > Subject: Backup speeds across the network > > > We have several filers and few tape drives so we are looking at doing > 3-way NDMP backups. Right now, we are doing those backups to other > filers, but this is consuming a lot of resources, especially on the tape > host filer. So, we are looking at a new tape library from SpectraLogic, > Overland, Quantum, StorageTek, etc. that has the NDMP "built-in" to the > tape drive. > > Our question is, what kind of speeds are others seeing in their real > environments? Speaking to one vendor, they claimed their library would > work at the rated tape speeds (35 MB/s), while another claimed even > better performance (40 MB/s); to his credit, the second vendor said that > he wasn't the technical guy, but he thought that's what he remembered. > Call me overly cynical, but I find it hard to believe that we will see > speeds comparable to direct attached tape over the network. Our > experience in the past has been somewhere closer to 50% of the rated > tape speed, and even that may be a bit overreaching for some of our > older filers (F760C). > > Thanks, > > Geoff Hardin > geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com > UNIX System Administrator > Maxim / Dallas Semiconductor >

1 0

Vscan
by SKIP HOFMANN 03 Nov '04

03 Nov '04

Hi all Quick question how do I add an extension to vscan to not be scanned? If im understanding this correctly the filer has a list be default of extensions that it will scan, and if I remove a extension from the list then the file won't be scanned? Is this correct or do I also have to manually tell the filer not to scan an extension. Also we are using Trends filer protect for our FAS 250, can anyone tell me if intelliscan works on the filer the same way it would work on a windows server. As I understand intelliscan feature if the file is not on the Trend database of known viruses then the file doesn't get scanned . Thanks for any help Skip Hofmann Senior Network Administrator TetraTech Skip.Hofmann(a)ttisg.com <mailto:Skip.Hofmann@ttisg.com> 949 500 5286 cell 949 608 5801 office

2 1

OFF: NEBS compliant NAS
by Edward Hibbert (eh＠dataconnection.com) 03 Nov '04

03 Nov '04

This probably isn't directly NetApp related - though I'd love it if it were. Does anyone know of a rack-mountable NAS which is NEBS compliant and no more than 19" wide and 20" deep? Regards, Edward.

2 1

RE: Backup speeds across the network
by McCarthy, Tim 03 Nov '04

03 Nov '04

I saw a STK-9940B dump at 50+MB/sec via local FC and also 50+MB/sec via 3-way over gigE (standard frames). --tmac ====================== Tim McCarthy Professional Services/Systems Engineer NetApp Federal Systems, Inc. 410-551-3970 (o) 443-363-0208 (f) tmac(a)netapp.com tmac-pager(a)netapp.com ====================== -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Hardin [mailto:geoff.hardin@dalsemi.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 6:24 PM To: toasters Subject: Backup speeds across the network We have several filers and few tape drives so we are looking at doing 3-way NDMP backups. Right now, we are doing those backups to other filers, but this is consuming a lot of resources, especially on the tape host filer. So, we are looking at a new tape library from SpectraLogic, Overland, Quantum, StorageTek, etc. that has the NDMP "built-in" to the tape drive. Our question is, what kind of speeds are others seeing in their real environments? Speaking to one vendor, they claimed their library would work at the rated tape speeds (35 MB/s), while another claimed even better performance (40 MB/s); to his credit, the second vendor said that he wasn't the technical guy, but he thought that's what he remembered. Call me overly cynical, but I find it hard to believe that we will see speeds comparable to direct attached tape over the network. Our experience in the past has been somewhere closer to 50% of the rated tape speed, and even that may be a bit overreaching for some of our older filers (F760C). Thanks, Geoff Hardin geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com UNIX System Administrator Maxim / Dallas Semiconductor

1 0

RE: Backup speeds across the network
by Debbie.Lane＠intermec.com 03 Nov '04

03 Nov '04

Wouldn't the speed of the backup only be as fast as the slowest part of the backup environment? If you are using gige, you might want to check out jumbo frames and full flow control. Debbie -----Original Message----- From: Jerry [mailto:juanino@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 3:59 PM To: Geoff Hardin; toasters Subject: Re: Backup speeds across the network It depends on your # and type of files. In some cases I get 13 MB/sec, but where I have lots of small files I get as little as 1.5 MB/sec. I am not bound by network at that time either. (This is on super dlt-3 drives, ~22 MB/sec theoretical i believe). Jerry --- Geoff Hardin <geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com> wrote: > We have several filers and few tape drives so we are > looking at doing > 3-way NDMP backups. Right now, we are doing those > backups to other > filers, but this is consuming a lot of resources, > especially on the tape > host filer. So, we are looking at a new tape > library from SpectraLogic, > Overland, Quantum, StorageTek, etc. that has the > NDMP "built-in" to the > tape drive. > > Our question is, what kind of speeds are others > seeing in their real > environments? Speaking to one vendor, they claimed > their library would > work at the rated tape speeds (35 MB/s), while > another claimed even > better performance (40 MB/s); to his credit, the > second vendor said that > he wasn't the technical guy, but he thought that's > what he remembered. > Call me overly cynical, but I find it hard to > believe that we will see > speeds comparable to direct attached tape over the > network. Our > experience in the past has been somewhere closer to > 50% of the rated > tape speed, and even that may be a bit overreaching > for some of our > older filers (F760C). > > Thanks, > > Geoff Hardin > geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com > UNIX System Administrator > Maxim / Dallas Semiconductor > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com "This message is intended only for the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited."

1 0

RE: User administration (was ssh scripts)
by Michael Christian 03 Nov '04

03 Nov '04

Yeah, I was looking into using expect, but turns out there is an easier way... The manpage for useradmin gives the following usage: useradmin useradd [ -c comments] login_name And when telneted or consoled into the filer, you get the same usage for useradmin: myfiler> useradmin usage: useradmin useradd [-c "comments"] login_name useradmin userdel login_name useradmin userlist [username list] *However*, if you do the same thing on a non-interactive ssh or rsh, the usage suddenly changes to something much more useable: > ssh myfiler useradmin usage: useradmin useradd [-c "comments"] login_name passwd useradmin userdel login_name useradmin userlist [username list] See, now that's much easier to script. -MikeC (Too lazy to use expect) -----Original Message----- From: Dirk Schmiedt [mailto:Dirk.Schmiedt@munich.netsurf.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 2:55 PM To: Michael Christian Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: User administration (was ssh scripts) Michael Christian wrote: > Next question. I want to automate user administration. The whole > 'useradmin useradd' thing with its interactive interface and live > password addition (who the heck only lets root set a user's pasword?) > is probably not going to work with our 500+ filers. > 500xNumberOfAdmins. Yeah, right. > > The docs point to fairly standard /etc/[passwd,shadow,group] files, > but having added a user, I still don't see them on my box. Has anyone > automated user management? > Hello Michael How about using expect? Excerpt from http://expect.nist.gov/ : "Expect is a tool for automating interactive applications such as telnet, ftp, passwd, fsck, rlogin, tip, etc. Expect really makes this stuff trivial. Expect is also useful for testing these same applications. And by adding Tk, you can also wrap interactive applications in X11 GUIs." With the help of "expect" I wrote my own autoinstaller for filers named "NAAI" (NetApp AutoInstaller) who sets up our training machines every week. It's job is to wipe out all(!) tracks of the last week admin class. Connect to the Filers, "set-defaults" the BIOS, boot over TFTP, wipe out all data on the disks, step through the "setup" dialog, install licenses and ONTAP, set date and timezone, vol lang and options, and ... much more. ;-) => I really can recommend expect for automatisation of filer useradmin/password activities. Best regards! Dirk

2 1

RE: Backup speeds across the network
by John Clear 03 Nov '04

03 Nov '04

We currently have a Quantum/ATL library with built in NDMP tape drives (SDLT220) and are moving to a StorageTek library with Dinostor (http://www.dinostor.com) NDMP bridges and LTO1 drives. We use a separate gigabit network for backups, and see 20MB/s to the SDLT drives. A FAS960 can push 5-6 streams at 20MB/s. Even with a single stream, I haven't seen much above 20MB/s, so the drive seems to be the limiting factor in this case. Our old F760 used to be able to do 3 streams at 20MB/s, but would drop to 12-15MB/s if pushed to 4 streams. Dropping in a Dinostor in place of your tape host filer would take the load off that filer. What rates are you seeing? John -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Hardin [mailto:geoff.hardin@dalsemi.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 3:24 PM To: toasters Subject: Backup speeds across the network We have several filers and few tape drives so we are looking at doing 3-way NDMP backups. Right now, we are doing those backups to other filers, but this is consuming a lot of resources, especially on the tape host filer. So, we are looking at a new tape library from SpectraLogic, Overland, Quantum, StorageTek, etc. that has the NDMP "built-in" to the tape drive. Our question is, what kind of speeds are others seeing in their real environments? Speaking to one vendor, they claimed their library would work at the rated tape speeds (35 MB/s), while another claimed even better performance (40 MB/s); to his credit, the second vendor said that he wasn't the technical guy, but he thought that's what he remembered. Call me overly cynical, but I find it hard to believe that we will see speeds comparable to direct attached tape over the network. Our experience in the past has been somewhere closer to 50% of the rated tape speed, and even that may be a bit overreaching for some of our older filers (F760C). Thanks, Geoff Hardin geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com UNIX System Administrator Maxim / Dallas Semiconductor

2 1

Backup speeds across the network
by Geoff Hardin 03 Nov '04

03 Nov '04

We have several filers and few tape drives so we are looking at doing 3-way NDMP backups. Right now, we are doing those backups to other filers, but this is consuming a lot of resources, especially on the tape host filer. So, we are looking at a new tape library from SpectraLogic, Overland, Quantum, StorageTek, etc. that has the NDMP "built-in" to the tape drive. Our question is, what kind of speeds are others seeing in their real environments? Speaking to one vendor, they claimed their library would work at the rated tape speeds (35 MB/s), while another claimed even better performance (40 MB/s); to his credit, the second vendor said that he wasn't the technical guy, but he thought that's what he remembered. Call me overly cynical, but I find it hard to believe that we will see speeds comparable to direct attached tape over the network. Our experience in the past has been somewhere closer to 50% of the rated tape speed, and even that may be a bit overreaching for some of our older filers (F760C). Thanks, Geoff Hardin geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com UNIX System Administrator Maxim / Dallas Semiconductor

2 1

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