toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

using NDMP for backups
by SKIP HOFMANN 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

Hi all Currently we have a R200, that house around a TB of data. We are currently using Veritas 9.1 to do the backups over cifs shares, using this method our backups jobs take a very long time to complete, and I have heard that this method is not really a supported one or the preferred method. I would like to use NDMP to backup my data. I have a few questions about this method. #1 are backup tape device is an adic scalar 24. The tape drive is a IBM ULTRIUM-TD2. Using NDMP can I hang this tape device right off the R200 and just use the "dump" command? #2 we currently use Veritas software, can I continue to use this application if I'm using NDMP, or should I just use Dump? #3 Can I use the dump command to do incremental backups and schedule backups. Thanks for any information Skip Skip Hofmann Senior Network Administrator TetraTech Skip.Hofmann(a)ttisg.com <mailto:Skip.Hofmann@ttisg.com> 949 500 5286 cell 949 608 5801 office

1 0

OnTap 6.5.2/6.5.2P6/6.5.2R1 ?
by Simon Ferrett 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

Hi Folks, Last week I updated my three nearstore units to 6.5.2 after experiencing a shelf-hang issue on two of them. That got me to thinking about updating another system (a F840 running 6.1R1 - it's been up forever, about 420 days) since it's running such an old version of OnTap and some of the clients here in the office are migrating to to XP-SP2. Anyhow - looking on the NOW site I noticed there are a few critical bugs in 6.5.2 which are supposed to be fixed in 6.5.2R1 - which doesn't exist yet. 6.5.2P6 does exist, however, so I was curious if I should wait until P6 becomes R1 before upgrading? I hate to rock the boat on a system which has been up and stable for a year and a half, but with XP-SP2 clients coming online I'm sure there's going to be some issues come up with the old 6.1 version its running. Also I was curious if I should also re-update the 6.5.2 systems I have to R1 when it comes out just to be sure that I'm not going to hit any of the known issues in 6.5.2 on them. Is anyone running 6.5.2P6 here on the list or have any comments about the actual critical-ness of those bugs in 6.5.2 which have been fixed in P6 (or R1 when it becomes available) - or know when 6.5.2R1 might hit the streets? The NOW site says 'this week' but I'm not sure when the document was authored... Just curious what the general consensus was on 6.5.2/6.5.2R1 etc. Cheers, Simon. --- This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or his/her representative, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

1 0

REQUEST:
by xiaojun 12 Sep '04

12 Sep '04

Dear Sir/Madam, I am Mr.Xiao Jun,managinig director of HUAMAO ARTS AND CRAFTS Import/Export Corp.(HMARTS) we are a group of business men who deal on Art and Craft and export into the Canada/America and Europe. We are searching for representatives who can help us establish a medium of getting to our customers in the Canada/America and Europe as well as making payments through you to us.Please if you are interested in transacting business with us we will be very glad. Please contact us for more information.Subject to your satisfaction you will be given the opportunity to negotiate your mode of which we will pay for your services as our representative in Canada/America and Europe Please if you are interested forward to us your phone number/fax and your full contact addresses. Thanks In advance Managing Director, Mr.Xiao Jun. ___________________________________________________________________________ Mail sent from WebMail service at the Tome of Wisdom and Power - http://trekie8472.net

1 0

RE: Confusing trusted domain authentication problem
by Mike Sphar 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

Unfortunately I have limited visibility to the corporate domains, but I believe they are Win2K domains running in native mode. It's possible though that the NEWCORP domain might be Windows 2003 now. I don't see any errors on the F230. I've even got the auth subsystem logging configured for full debug logging but I'm not seeing anything logged when I make a failed authentication attempt. I do have concerns about WINS though. There seems to be some confusion about what, if any, WINS servers are being supported by the corporate folks at this point. (In fact, one of the WINS servers being handed out by DHCP doesn't even exist.) -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Remedy, a BMC Software Company -----Original Message----- From: Jack Lyons [mailto:jack.lyons@martinagency.com] Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 5:44 PM To: Mike Sphar; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Confusing trusted domain authentication problem What are the versions of domains you are using (I assume Win2K AD) including Service Packs are you getting any error messages on the F230? make sure that the WINS stuff is correct for all domains. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Sphar" <mike.sphar(a)Remedy.COM> To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 6:04 PM Subject: Confusing trusted domain authentication problem > Don't know if anyone has any suggestions for this fairly annoying problem, > but I'm happy to hear any. > > We've got a development domain here called (for example) ENG, that has for > years trusted the corporate domain CORP. My three netapps are members of > the ENG domain and any user in CORP can authenticate on those servers via a > one-way trust. (ENG trusts CORP, CORP does not trust ENG). > > We've got a new corporate domain NEWCORP being migrated to, and ENG also has > a one-way trust to NEWCORP. > > Now, everything seems to work fine, *except* for my one very old Netapp F230 > running 5.3.7R3D18. (I know, way old and end-of-lifed, we're trying to > replace it.) > > My NEWCORP account can authenticate against my newer netapps, but when I try > to connect to the F230, or to a snapserver or a unix server running samba, > the authentication fails. So basically it looks like authentication is > working for the Netapps running a current OS release and for regular windows > servers, but not for 3rd party servers. If we make the samba server > authenticate against CORP instead of ENG, then the NEWCORP accounts seem to > work. > > It seems like there must be something different about the ENG -> NEWCORP and > ENG -> CORP trusts, or some obscure authentication permissions thing, but we > can't figure out what the problem is. (And our primary windows admin is on > vacation.) > > Anyone out there more knowledgeable about trusts and domains (I'm mainly a > unix guy) have any suggestions? > > -- > Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Remedy, a BMC Software Company >

2 1

Confusing trusted domain authentication problem
by Mike Sphar 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

Don't know if anyone has any suggestions for this fairly annoying problem, but I'm happy to hear any. We've got a development domain here called (for example) ENG, that has for years trusted the corporate domain CORP. My three netapps are members of the ENG domain and any user in CORP can authenticate on those servers via a one-way trust. (ENG trusts CORP, CORP does not trust ENG). We've got a new corporate domain NEWCORP being migrated to, and ENG also has a one-way trust to NEWCORP. Now, everything seems to work fine, *except* for my one very old Netapp F230 running 5.3.7R3D18. (I know, way old and end-of-lifed, we're trying to replace it.) My NEWCORP account can authenticate against my newer netapps, but when I try to connect to the F230, or to a snapserver or a unix server running samba, the authentication fails. So basically it looks like authentication is working for the Netapps running a current OS release and for regular windows servers, but not for 3rd party servers. If we make the samba server authenticate against CORP instead of ENG, then the NEWCORP accounts seem to work. It seems like there must be something different about the ENG -> NEWCORP and ENG -> CORP trusts, or some obscure authentication permissions thing, but we can't figure out what the problem is. (And our primary windows admin is on vacation.) Anyone out there more knowledgeable about trusts and domains (I'm mainly a unix guy) have any suggestions? -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Remedy, a BMC Software Company

2 1

ToasterView 0.1
by Ben Rockwood 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

Thanks for all the feedback. I didn't expect so many people to be interested. It needs some cleanup, several extra checks (like making sure your actually talking to a filer, right now it just assumes you know what your doing), and goodies, but it works well enough. You can find the page for it here: http://www.cuddletech.com/code/toasterview/index.html I'll probly makes some improvements and push out a new version next week. In the mean time I'm extending it to do application specific stuff that isn't portable (integration of MRTG graphs, RRD, etc). Thanks for the suggestions that were recieved. I avoid quota's like the plegue but I'm sure I could put in something useful. And I'll add performance data at least in a basic form for the next version. Thanks for all the feedback. This is GPL code, so please feel free to hack it up or bend it to your own purposes as long as you respect the terms of the GPL. benr.

1 0

RE: New Simplified Monitoring Tool
by Simon Ferrett 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

Hey Folks, I'm new to the list - "hello" - and have been a netapp user since about 1999. Anyhow just a comment/suggestion on the toasterview stuff, which looks quite interesting, btw: One thing which could be good to show is the % complete for the reconstruction progress. Currently I'm looking after an 840c, 940c, 840, 880, R100, R150-24 and a R200. I had a shelf hang on the R100 and R150 this week resulting in about 10 failed drives, so the reconstruction is taking forever - hence my interest in keeping an eye on the reconstruction progress. It seems like the systems can only do two reconstructs at a time, so I've had raid groups waiting for a drive reconstruction for about 24 hours so far... If you know of a way to increase the number of parrallel reconstructions I'd be interested to hear it. Cheers, and it's good to have finally found a group of other netapp users. Simon. -----Original Message----- From: McCarthy, Tim [mailto:timothy.mccarthy@netapp.com] Subject: RE: New Simplified Monitoring Tool Hey, you have a failed disk. Better call NGS ;) -----Original Message----- From: Ben Rockwood [mailto:BRockwood@homestead-inc.com] Subject: New Simplified Monitoring Tool I'd see if anyone else was interested in it or could propose suggestions for it. --- This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or his/her representative, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

2 1

RE: New Simplified Monitoring Tool
by Barrette, Paul A PENC:EX 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

Ben, I like it, how about calling it ToasterIZE :-) Anyway, can I take it for a test drive? Paul Barrette Senior SysAdmin BC Pension Corp -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Ben Rockwood Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 4:57 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: New Simplified Monitoring Tool Hello Toasters. Some may have noticed my search for a simplified monitoring tool awhile back. Alas, I never found such a tool. So I finally broke down and just wrote my own. So far I've only got about 2 hours worth of developement into it, but it's mostly what I want already. I thought I'd see if anyone else was interested in it or could propose suggestions for it. It's called "Toasterview" (I wanted to call it ToasterVision, but that seemed to silly) and you can see an example output page here: http://www.cuddletech.com/code/toasterview/europa.html Some notes about this sample page. Firstly, the Head image you see at top does, you'll notice, match the model of the filer so you can "see" what the head looks like reguarless of which model it is; right now F7x0, F8x0, F940 and F9x60 are handled. The logo image in the top right is, of course, intended to be changed to your company logo so that your boss is impressed. The global status box changes from green to red based on status. But, the most interesting and important part for me is the DF output. Using the DF SNMP table I can parse it up and display how I like, so I display volumes in nice round numbers (using 1024 insteal of 1000) for easy reading and a little bar graph that lets you see volume usage in an instant. Also, the last line of the DF table is a "Total" line. This simply adds up the data from all the non-snapshot volumes and displays this information like anything else. It's kinda nifty to be able to take 1 look and confidently say "We're using X% of! the filers capacity" rather than just approximating off the top of your head. Anyway, this is the kind of tool I want. I need to clean up the source so it's pretty and then I'll GPL it. Anyone interested or what to make suggestions? I should note that I'm actually supplimenting this page you see with extra data at the bottom as supplied by RRD graphs and such... however that stuff is all system specific whereas my current script as demostrated works on any NetApp Filer (I guess NetCache too). The colors and stuff need tweeking, but you get the general idea. benr.

1 0

RE: Raid reconstruct speed & simultaneous reconstructs
by Derek Lai 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

Simon, You should definitely set it to high on the command line to increase the speed of reconstruction. That is provided that your system is not being used very heavily. If there are lots of other disk traffic and you set it to high it will probably slows down the other activities. I did not know that filerview sets it to the inverse so that's good to know. Derek -----Original Message----- From: Simon Ferrett [mailto:simon@musicmatch.com] Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 10:25 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Raid reconstruct speed & simultaneous reconstructs Interesting you mention the raid.reconstruct.perf_impact setting - I was a little confused about its real meaning... I thought (as you mentioned) that setting it to 'high' would increase the reconstruct speed. I then used the filerview web interface to go in and change the raid reconstruct speed to 'high' and it actually set this value to 'low' - the web tool seems to set it to the inverse of what you'd expect. (setting 'low' on the web interface sets this option to 'high' etc.) So I was a little curious as to if the setting had a different meaning than the one you (and I) initially thought it meant. (eg: perhaps it's meaning impact on reconstruct speed rather than system performance, so 'low' means the least affect on reconstruct speed and therefore the most impact on system performance) I left it at 'low' since I figured the web interface probably knew the meaning of the option a little more than I did... Simon. -----Original Message----- From: Hill, Aaron [mailto:aaron.hill@cba.com.au] Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 1:53 AM To: Simon Ferrett; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: New Simplified Monitoring Tool Simon, I don't know if you can directly increase the no. of simultaneous reconstructs. However, you may be able to improve the speed marginally by using the raid.reconstruct.perf_impact option and setting to high. However, if your cpu's are already maxxed it probably won't make a lick of difference. --- This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or his/her representative, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

1 0

RE: availtime command
by John Clear 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

`availtime full` is what you want. Unfortunately, on some DOT upgrades, the data gets reset. John -----Original Message----- From: jeff.mery(a)ni.com [mailto:jeff.mery@ni.com] Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 10:40 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: availtime command Would someone please refresh my memory as to the options for the availtime command (DOT 6.5.2)? It used to have an option for displaying the output on the console of the filer in a user-friendly format. This is much more useful to me than the cryptic data it normally returns. Uptime is great for telling you how long the filer has been up, but availtime can tell you how much uptime you have at a CIFS and NFS service level. Jeff Mery, MCP National Instruments ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Allow me to extol the virtues of the Net Fairy, and of all the fantastic dorks that make the nice packets go from here to there. Amen." TB - Penny Arcade -------------------------------------------------------------------

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