toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13516 discussions

Exchange databse on a FAS 250
by exadmin 21 Oct '04

21 Oct '04

Hi all I am trying to make an argumetn for putting our exchange database (50 gigs) on a filer instead of a windows 2000 box with raid 5 array. We are running Exchange 5.5 Other than the snpshot technology what other benefits will we get with using a filer VS a windows box thanks a bunch This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

2 1

RE: Exchange databse on a FAS 250
by Hill, Aaron 19 Oct '04

19 Oct '04

If the sole purpose for purchasing the filer is for this 50gig exchange database, it is probably not easy to make a good business case. However, if the filer is part of a larger storage strategy for your organization, it should be much easier to build a convincing business case. I think that the real benefits of NAS/SAN come from the ability to consolidate individual server storage and centrally manage. Other benefits include reliability, strong product support (at least with NetApp) and a proven track-record etc <insert marketing jargon here> For example; If you already connect Windows CIFS (or any other protocol for that matter) on the FAS250 then you may have already proven that the FAS250 works in your environment and that it provided some consolidation/management benefits. You should be able to show that the system is reliable and the performance has met expectations (otherwise you wouldn't be considering it for an exchange DB). If you have used NetApp support, chances are that you had a good experience. Moving more storage services to the FAS250 over time is what this entry-level device was designed for .... expansion, future-proofing, or whatever you want to call it. This is because it can fairly easily become a disk shelf in a larger F9XX series system if you choose to expand to an enterprise or high-availability (aka clustered/mirrored) storage solution. If you do expand, you should be able to do so without significantly increasing the amount of time spent managing the filer(s). Whereas adding a separate RAID array for every server/service could lead to considerably more time spent setting up and maintaining. On the surface, less moving parts (aka RAID controllers, servers, vendors) results in a simpler environment. Hope this helps seed some ideas for you. Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Derek Lai [mailto:Derek.Lai@onyxco.com] Sent: Tuesday, 19 October 2004 6:22 AM To: 'exadmin'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Exchange databse on a FAS 250 You can create a iSCSI lun that is 50GB for now. When it fills up, you can grow it on the fly. You can instantaneously restore using SnapShot. You can also snapmirror it elsewhere for Disaster Recovery. If you get the Single Mailbox Restore option you can restore any single message from any mailbox in any snapshot. Derek -----Original Message----- From: exadmin [mailto:exadmin@insuranceskillscenter.com] Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 10:29 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Exchange databse on a FAS 250 Hi all I am trying to make an argumetn for putting our exchange database (50 gigs) on a filer instead of a windows 2000 box with raid 5 array. We are running Exchange 5.5 Other than the snpshot technology what other benefits will we get with using a filer VS a windows box thanks a bunch This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. ************** 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

request sysconfig -A ouput with 146 GB drives.
by Tavis Gustafson 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

I am looking for a sysconfig -A output on a system with X236_SCHT6146F10 drives. I am specifically looking for the Phys (MB/blks) values. thanks. -Tavis em with X236_SCHT6146F10 drives. I am specifically looking for the Phys (MB/blks) values. thanks. -Tavis

2 1

RE: Downrev from 6.5.1R1 to 6.4.5
by Derek Lai 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

Can you post any response directly to you that does not copy the alias? I'd be very interested in knowing the answer. Derek -----Original Message----- From: Paul Letta [mailto:letta@jlab.org] Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 10:12 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Downrev from 6.5.1R1 to 6.4.5 We have had some serious problems with NDMP restores since we went to 6.5. I have been unable to get either NetApp or my backup software company (Oracle - Reliaty Backup) to take it seriously. They both blame the hardware - even though I show the failure with 3 separate tape drives on 3 separate filers and multiple tape images, that all worked at pre-6.5. So to make the story short - I want to down rev one my filers from 6.5.1R1 to 6.4.5. Once I at 6.4.5, and the restores start to work again - I hope to get some more help out of either of NetApp and/or Oracle. I have not went with DP on any of the raid groups, so that will not be an issue. But I am a bit concerned about how long it will take. The filer is a FAS940, it has about 1.2TB of space and about 34 million files. Can anyone give me a hint to how long the revert will take ? Thanks, Paul -- Paul Letta Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Computer Center Unix System Administrator EMail: letta(a)jlab.org Phone: (757)269-5106

1 0

RE: Exchange databse on a FAS 250
by Derek Lai 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

You can create a iSCSI lun that is 50GB for now. When it fills up, you can grow it on the fly. You can instantaneously restore using SnapShot. You can also snapmirror it elsewhere for Disaster Recovery. If you get the Single Mailbox Restore option you can restore any single message from any mailbox in any snapshot. Derek -----Original Message----- From: exadmin [mailto:exadmin@insuranceskillscenter.com] Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 10:29 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Exchange databse on a FAS 250 Hi all I am trying to make an argumetn for putting our exchange database (50 gigs) on a filer instead of a windows 2000 box with raid 5 array. We are running Exchange 5.5 Other than the snpshot technology what other benefits will we get with using a filer VS a windows box thanks a bunch This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

1 0

"Cannot connect to server" Error?
by Nicholas Chuah 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

The below appeared in the log, could not fund any reference in the NOW site, any hint would be greatly appreciated. Sat Oct 9 13:58:47 SGT [Auth04:warning]: Cannot connect to server. Socket connect error: Resource temporarily unavailable Sat Oct 9 13:59:23 SGT [Auth05:warning]: Cannot connect to server. Session setup error: Called name not present (0x82) Rgds. Nic __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

1 0

RE: Troubles with DATAPROTECTOR's HP backup software.
by Derek Lai 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

Any reason why you are on 5.0 as opposed to Data Protector 5.1? Data Protector 5.1 is the latest and has been out for a while. I've seen something like this when I first upgraded to Data Protector 5.1 and was trying to use NDMP backup. If I try to backup more than 1 object, it will finish the first object and then timeout. Go to /etc/opt/omni/datalists and look at the backup specification you have. Edit the file and remove the line "DYNAMIC 1 1". After that, the backup worked fine for me. Derek -----Original Message----- From: Frank Bonnet [mailto:f.bonnet@esiee.fr] Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 3:58 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Troubles with DATAPROTECTOR's HP backup software. Hi Since several weeks we are in trouble to make HP DATA PROTECTOR 5.0 working with our F87, the filer is connected to a HP DLT 8000 thru the fastscsi bus It seems the filer do not send the end of session or something like that then the backup software wait forever for such signal. The ndmp session never terminate and is "seen" active and the backup snapshot is not deleted. Anyone has some info ? The filer is running 6.5.2R1 but the problem was the same with previous versions. Thanks a lot. see below error message [Normal] From: BMA-NDMP(a)obelix.esiee.fr "yfiler dev" Time: 10/17/04 16:14:10 DUMP: DUMP IS DONE [Normal] From: BMA-NDMP(a)obelix.esiee.fr "yfiler dev" Time: 10/17/04 16:14:10 DUMP: Deleting "/vol/vol0/../snapshot_for_backup.1" snapshot. [Major] From: BSM(a)obelix.esiee.fr "yfiler" Time: 10/17/04 18:34:19 [61:1002] The BMA named "yfiler dev" on host obelix.esiee.fr reached its inactivity timeout of 8400 seconds. The agent on host will be shutdown. [Critical] From: BSM(a)obelix.esiee.fr "yfiler" Time: 10/17/04 18:34:50 None of the Disk Agents completed successfully. Session has failed. [Normal] From: BSM(a)obelix.esiee.fr "yfiler" Time: 10/17/04 18:34:50 -- Regards, Frank Bonnet

1 0

Downrev from 6.5.1R1 to 6.4.5
by Paul Letta 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

We have had some serious problems with NDMP restores since we went to 6.5. I have been unable to get either NetApp or my backup software company (Oracle - Reliaty Backup) to take it seriously. They both blame the hardware - even though I show the failure with 3 separate tape drives on 3 separate filers and multiple tape images, that all worked at pre-6.5. So to make the story short - I want to down rev one my filers from 6.5.1R1 to 6.4.5. Once I at 6.4.5, and the restores start to work again - I hope to get some more help out of either of NetApp and/or Oracle. I have not went with DP on any of the raid groups, so that will not be an issue. But I am a bit concerned about how long it will take. The filer is a FAS940, it has about 1.2TB of space and about 34 million files. Can anyone give me a hint to how long the revert will take ? Thanks, Paul -- Paul Letta Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Computer Center Unix System Administrator EMail: letta(a)jlab.org Phone: (757)269-5106

1 0

parity drive rebuild causing ls hangs
by Jerry 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

Anyone ever experience really bad performance when rebuilding a parity disk? We had a parity disk fail on our FAS940 and when it was trying to rebuild the disk i/o util went to 100% (observed with sysstat). Reads and Writes did not appear high, but I don't think rebuild traffic effects those numbers. During this time, "ls" was taking between 30 and 60 seconds (unacceptable). We thought for sure this couldn't be normal, since we've had disks fail and rebuild many times. The difference this time is it was a parity disk, but I don't think that should make a difference other than taking a little longer to rebuild. Sure enough, after the rebuild was complete it started working again. Any opinions? Jerry __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 4

New disk from Seagate : ST373307FC
by Cedric Tabary 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

Hello, I buyed a new disk from Seagate and I am trying to make it work on my F760, Ontap 6.4.5, with /etc/disk_fw from now.netapp.com. The disk is a ST373307FC with Seagate firmware, the netapp did not manage to update it. The filer says : Mon Oct 18 15:47:15 GMT [disk.dynamicqual.failure.invalidFile:error]: Device qualification information file (/etc/qual_devices) is invalid. Please refer to the qual_devices man page for corrective action. This problem must be corrected within 72 hour(s) to avoid a forced system shutdown. The following disk(s) remain unqualified: 0a.4 [S/N 3HZ72YS500007436FAMW]. Mon Oct 18 15:47:15 GMT [dyn_dev_qual_admin:info]: Firmware is up-to-date on all disk drives I added a line in /etc/qual_devices : D SEAGATE ST373307FC 0006 512 vol status says : RAID Disk Device HA SHELF BAY CHAN Used (MB/blks) Phys (MB/blks) --------- ------ --------------- ---- -------------- -------------- Spare disks for block or zoned checksum volumes spare 0a.4 0a ? ? FC:A 34000/69632000 62228/127444216 sysconfig says : 4: SEAGATE ST373307FC 0006 34.0GB (143374743 512B/sect) 34.0GB ?! should be 72 !! Is there a way to flash the disk and make it work well on my filer ? Thanks Cédric

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