toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13545 discussions

RE: Disappearing Files
by Hill, Aaron 06 Aug '04

06 Aug '04

I have not seen this. We have thousands of clients on multiple filers. In our experience, "missing" files are either because it was deleted or someone moved it. Tracking down these files when the users aren't sure where they were originally can be a fun. We use the Intermine Filecensus program, basically a catalogue database of all the files and attributes located on central storage. These missing files, can you see them in the snapshots? Aaron _____ From: Jack Lyons [mailto:jack.lyons@martinagency.com] Sent: Friday, 6 August 2004 1:30 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com ' Subject: Disappearing Files We are using the Dave Client (CIFS client for the Mac) to connect our Macs to a F960 running Data ONTAP 6.5 Every now and then we get reports of files disappearing and most of the time it is due to the user error, but that doesn't explain all of the complaints. Has anyone ever seen or heard of files disappearing and then reappearing. Thanks Jack This email and its contents may be confidential. If it is and you are not the intended recipient, please do not disclose or use the information within this email or its attachments. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately. Thank you. ************** 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 **************************************************

1 0

RE: Exchange question
by Alan Biren 06 Aug '04

06 Aug '04

Skip, You might also want to increase the MTU size on both the Servers and the Filer Ethernet Ports. If implementing via a switch, the switch will need to be set to access the new MTU size as well. We are running both SQL and Exchange via iSCSI in this fashion and the MTU is set to 9000. Good Luck, Alan Biren Senior Systems Engineer/Storage Architect AMC Corporation ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of jeff.mery(a)ni.com Sent: Thu 8/5/2004 6:55 PM To: reinoud.reynders(a)uz.kuleuven.ac.be; SKIP.HOFMANN(a)ttisg.com; Charlie.Bryant(a)netapp.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com; RAYMUND.SANTOS(a)ttisg.com Subject: RE: Exchange question Don't forget about host file entries. Name resolution won't be available on the private interfaces, so both the Exchange box and FAS will resolve each other over the public interface. This will return IPs from your public network so they'll continue to talk over that interface. You can get around this using host files to force both the FAS and Exchange box to use the private interface. %SystemRoot%\drivers\etc\hosts for NT /etc/hosts on the filer The format is <ip> <some_white_space> <hostname> for both files. I would play it safe and add entries for both then NetBIOS name and FQDN. (i.e. system.foo.com and system) 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Reinoud Reynders Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 3:12 PM To: SKIP HOFMANN; Bryant, Charlie Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com; RAYMUND SANTOS Subject: RE: Exchange question Hi Skip, We use for our SQL-servers and Exchange servers indeed a private connection between de servers and the filers. This give a really better response time, because there is no competition between disk IO (to the logs and DB) and the client access. So yes, do it. It was not clear for me, what protocol you use between the filer and your exchange server. When this is CIFS, than you can improve the performance an stability by using ISCSI. We use ISCSI for these applications, and that works great. Best Regards, Reinoud Reynders University Hospital Leuven Belgium ________________________________ Van: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com] Verzonden: donderdag 5 augustus 2004 18:58 Aan: 'Bryant, Charlie' CC: ''toasters(a)mathworks.com' '; RAYMUND SANTOS Onderwerp: Exchange question Hi Charlie Thanks again for coming in yesterday and helping us out we really appreciated it. As explained yesterday I'm going to email you my questions/concerns about the exchange questions I had. Currently we have are exchange 5.5 DB and logs on our FAS250, the logs and DB are on separate Vol. When we did a performance test yesterday on the FAS250 it did not appear to be working hard, at times we did see a spike, but for the most part the system was running below a high stress margin. The exchange DB is on the same Vol that houses a CIFS share and this share is the Home directory for a lot of users. We are planning on moving this data to a separate Vol so that our exchange DB doesn't have to compete for access time and possibly get bogged down by this CIFS share. The size of this CIFS share is 37 gigs. The exchange server and the FAS 250 are running at GIG E. What I was thinking of doing to speed access time from exchange to the FAS250 and hopefully from doing this our outlook clients will stop getting pop ups requesting data is this. Connect the 2nd nic on the FAS with a cross over cable to the 2nd gigE card on our exchange server. Currently our servers are on a 10.20.x.x segment so the 1st nic on the FAS and the 1st nic on exchange are configured with this ip scheme. I'm going to configure nic 2 on the filer and nic 2 on exchange with a 192.168.x.x I'm doing this to try and force when the two servers need to talk to each other they do it over the nic 2. The only reason the FAS needs to talk to exchange and vice versa is because we have the DB and the logs on the FAS250. If I can have a separate connection for this communication instead of the communication having to go over the same nic card (nic1) then I'm thinking that this should speed up access time, and Outlook clients should notice faster speeds. Please let me know what you think, and thanks again Skip ***************************************************************************************************** If you have received this email in error please notify the the system manager or the sender immediately and do not disclosed the to anyone or make copies. ** eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals or malicious content ** ** To find out eSafe(TM) and other Aladdin Security Products, contact AMC Corporation at (212) 620-0700 *****************************************************************************************************

1 0

RE: Exchange question
by jeff.mery＠ni.com 05 Aug '04

05 Aug '04

Don't forget about host file entries. Name resolution won't be available on the private interfaces, so both the Exchange box and FAS will resolve each other over the public interface. This will return IPs from your public network so they'll continue to talk over that interface. You can get around this using host files to force both the FAS and Exchange box to use the private interface. %SystemRoot%\drivers\etc\hosts for NT /etc/hosts on the filer The format is <ip> <some_white_space> <hostname> for both files. I would play it safe and add entries for both then NetBIOS name and FQDN. (i.e. system.foo.com and system) 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------- _____ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Reinoud Reynders Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 3:12 PM To: SKIP HOFMANN; Bryant, Charlie Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com; RAYMUND SANTOS Subject: RE: Exchange question Hi Skip, We use for our SQL-servers and Exchange servers indeed a private connection between de servers and the filers. This give a really better response time, because there is no competition between disk IO (to the logs and DB) and the client access. So yes, do it. It was not clear for me, what protocol you use between the filer and your exchange server. When this is CIFS, than you can improve the performance an stability by using ISCSI. We use ISCSI for these applications, and that works great. Best Regards, Reinoud Reynders University Hospital Leuven Belgium _____ Van: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com] Verzonden: donderdag 5 augustus 2004 18:58 Aan: 'Bryant, Charlie' CC: ''toasters(a)mathworks.com' '; RAYMUND SANTOS Onderwerp: Exchange question Hi Charlie Thanks again for coming in yesterday and helping us out we really appreciated it. As explained yesterday I'm going to email you my questions/concerns about the exchange questions I had. Currently we have are exchange 5.5 DB and logs on our FAS250, the logs and DB are on separate Vol. When we did a performance test yesterday on the FAS250 it did not appear to be working hard, at times we did see a spike, but for the most part the system was running below a high stress margin. The exchange DB is on the same Vol that houses a CIFS share and this share is the Home directory for a lot of users. We are planning on moving this data to a separate Vol so that our exchange DB doesn't have to compete for access time and possibly get bogged down by this CIFS share. The size of this CIFS share is 37 gigs. The exchange server and the FAS 250 are running at GIG E. What I was thinking of doing to speed access time from exchange to the FAS250 and hopefully from doing this our outlook clients will stop getting pop ups requesting data is this. Connect the 2nd nic on the FAS with a cross over cable to the 2nd gigE card on our exchange server. Currently our servers are on a 10.20.x.x segment so the 1st nic on the FAS and the 1st nic on exchange are configured with this ip scheme. I'm going to configure nic 2 on the filer and nic 2 on exchange with a 192.168.x.x I'm doing this to try and force when the two servers need to talk to each other they do it over the nic 2. The only reason the FAS needs to talk to exchange and vice versa is because we have the DB and the logs on the FAS250. If I can have a separate connection for this communication instead of the communication having to go over the same nic card (nic1) then I'm thinking that this should speed up access time, and Outlook clients should notice faster speeds. Please let me know what you think, and thanks again Skip

1 0

RE: Exchange question
by Reinoud Reynders 05 Aug '04

05 Aug '04

Hi Skip, We use for our SQL-servers and Exchange servers indeed a private connection between de servers and the filers. This give a really better response time, because there is no competition between disk IO (to the logs and DB) and the client access. So yes, do it. It was not clear for me, what protocol you use between the filer and your exchange server. When this is CIFS, than you can improve the performance an stability by using ISCSI. We use ISCSI for these applications, and that works great. Best Regards, Reinoud Reynders University Hospital Leuven Belgium _____ Van: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com] Verzonden: donderdag 5 augustus 2004 18:58 Aan: 'Bryant, Charlie' CC: ''toasters(a)mathworks.com' '; RAYMUND SANTOS Onderwerp: Exchange question Hi Charlie Thanks again for coming in yesterday and helping us out we really appreciated it. As explained yesterday I'm going to email you my questions/concerns about the exchange questions I had. Currently we have are exchange 5.5 DB and logs on our FAS250, the logs and DB are on separate Vol. When we did a performance test yesterday on the FAS250 it did not appear to be working hard, at times we did see a spike, but for the most part the system was running below a high stress margin. The exchange DB is on the same Vol that houses a CIFS share and this share is the Home directory for a lot of users. We are planning on moving this data to a separate Vol so that our exchange DB doesn't have to compete for access time and possibly get bogged down by this CIFS share. The size of this CIFS share is 37 gigs. The exchange server and the FAS 250 are running at GIG E. What I was thinking of doing to speed access time from exchange to the FAS250 and hopefully from doing this our outlook clients will stop getting pop ups requesting data is this. Connect the 2nd nic on the FAS with a cross over cable to the 2nd gigE card on our exchange server. Currently our servers are on a 10.20.x.x segment so the 1st nic on the FAS and the 1st nic on exchange are configured with this ip scheme. I'm going to configure nic 2 on the filer and nic 2 on exchange with a 192.168.x.x I'm doing this to try and force when the two servers need to talk to each other they do it over the nic 2. The only reason the FAS needs to talk to exchange and vice versa is because we have the DB and the logs on the FAS250. If I can have a separate connection for this communication instead of the communication having to go over the same nic card (nic1) then I'm thinking that this should speed up access time, and Outlook clients should notice faster speeds. Please let me know what you think, and thanks again Skip

1 0

Zeroing out disks
by George Kahler 05 Aug '04

05 Aug '04

Does anyone know how you can zero out a specific disk(s) ? The "disk zero spares" command or "spares_zero" diagnostic command seem to zero out ALL spare disks only. Thanks, George

5 6

Exchange question
by SKIP HOFMANN 05 Aug '04

05 Aug '04

Hi Charlie Thanks again for coming in yesterday and helping us out we really appreciated it. As explained yesterday I'm going to email you my questions/concerns about the exchange questions I had. Currently we have are exchange 5.5 DB and logs on our FAS250, the logs and DB are on separate Vol. When we did a performance test yesterday on the FAS250 it did not appear to be working hard, at times we did see a spike, but for the most part the system was running below a high stress margin. The exchange DB is on the same Vol that houses a CIFS share and this share is the Home directory for a lot of users. We are planning on moving this data to a separate Vol so that our exchange DB doesn't have to compete for access time and possibly get bogged down by this CIFS share. The size of this CIFS share is 37 gigs. The exchange server and the FAS 250 are running at GIG E. What I was thinking of doing to speed access time from exchange to the FAS250 and hopefully from doing this our outlook clients will stop getting pop ups requesting data is this. Connect the 2nd nic on the FAS with a cross over cable to the 2nd gigE card on our exchange server. Currently our servers are on a 10.20.x.x segment so the 1st nic on the FAS and the 1st nic on exchange are configured with this ip scheme. I'm going to configure nic 2 on the filer and nic 2 on exchange with a 192.168.x.x I'm doing this to try and force when the two servers need to talk to each other they do it over the nic 2. The only reason the FAS needs to talk to exchange and vice versa is because we have the DB and the logs on the FAS250. If I can have a separate connection for this communication instead of the communication having to go over the same nic card (nic1) then I'm thinking that this should speed up access time, and Outlook clients should notice faster speeds. Please let me know what you think, and thanks again Skip

1 0

Disappearing Files
by Jack Lyons 05 Aug '04

05 Aug '04

We are using the Dave Client (CIFS client for the Mac) to connect our Macs to a F960 running Data ONTAP 6.5 Every now and then we get reports of files disappearing and most of the time it is due to the user error, but that doesn't explain all of the complaints. Has anyone ever seen or heard of files disappearing and then reappearing. Thanks Jack This email and its contents may be confidential. If it is and you are not the intended recipient, please do not disclose or use the information within this email or its attachments. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately. Thank you.

1 0

RE: CIFS problems
by Michael Schipp 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

Hi Geoff, The following KB article tells you what can cause this error. (it also tells you how to disable the redirector - do not do this). Microsoft Knowledge Base Article - 163401 - http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q163401 Anyway this points it to a networking issue. Some things to check: 1 Network card Auto/full/half 2 Switch/hub (I hope they do not have a hub :)) set to auto/full/half You should also run a netdaig from the filer as this may tell where the misconfigured network device may be. Thank you, Michael A Schipp M.I.S Network Administrator ASI SOLUTIONS 8 Lord Street Botany NSW 2019 Phone: 02 9384 8000 Direct: 02 9384 8095 Email: mschipp(a)asi.com.au Web: http://www.asi.com.au -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Hardin Sent: Thursday, 5 August 2004 6:24 AM To: toasters Subject: CIFS problems I have two filers in a remote office (the Philippines, while we are located in Dallas). One of these filers, FILER1, authenticates to the local domain, let's call it LOCAL, and the other, FILER2, authenticates back to our domain, let's call it CENTRAL. There is a trust between the LOCAL and the CENTRAL domains so users from either domain can log in and authenticate to their domain. (I'm not an NT admin, so I don't know how this works; this is just my simple understanding). Both filers are running the same (very old I know) version of ONTAP: NetApp Release 6.1.1R2P1D12. Of course, these are also very old filers, too: F720s with about 70 GB useable. Now, the plan was to move both filers to the LOCAL domain, so that CIFS users would not need to authenticate against a domain controller on the other side of the planet. The problem is, the filer in the LOCAL domain keeps running into problems with users from both locations having trouble accessing the filer via CIFS. The filer reports "FILER1 unreachable. An unexpected network error occurred." Today I had the NT admins check, and they found errors in the log files on the LOCAL PDC. > 8/4/04 11:45:39 Event ID: 3013 Description: The redirector has timed > out to FILER1 > 8/4/04 11:31:29 Event ID: 3013 Description: The redirector has timed > out to FILER1 > 8/4/04 11:17:09 Event ID: 3013 Description: The redirector has timed > out to FILER1 > 8/4/04 11:10:04 Event ID: 3013 Description: The redirector has timed > out to FILER1 > I would have thought that if there were going to be problems, it would have been with the filer that is authenticating back to our CENTRAL domain controllers, but it has yet to have this problem. As I stated at the top, I am not an NT admin. The NT admins here do not know anything about filers and insist that the problem lies there. My experience tells me differently; the filers are very simple appliances that just plain work. I checked the configuration options between the two filers and only found one option that was set differently; cifs.oplocks.enable was disabled on FILER1. I enabled that option but I have still run into the problem. Can someone point me in the right direction of where to look? I have tried looking at the output from the `cifs stat` command, but I do not know what to look for. Has anyone else run into this problem? What solutions are available? We are considering upgrading these in the near future, but our customers are (rightly) concerned that throwing money at this problem will not solve it. Is this simply a case of old hardware being overwhelmed? Thanks in advance for any help and ideas, Geoff Hardin UNIX System Administrator Dallas Semiconductor / Maxim Integrated Products geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com Nothing is foolproof because fools are so ingenious.

2 1

CIFS problems
by Geoff Hardin 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

I have two filers in a remote office (the Philippines, while we are located in Dallas). One of these filers, FILER1, authenticates to the local domain, let's call it LOCAL, and the other, FILER2, authenticates back to our domain, let's call it CENTRAL. There is a trust between the LOCAL and the CENTRAL domains so users from either domain can log in and authenticate to their domain. (I'm not an NT admin, so I don't know how this works; this is just my simple understanding). Both filers are running the same (very old I know) version of ONTAP: NetApp Release 6.1.1R2P1D12. Of course, these are also very old filers, too: F720s with about 70 GB useable. Now, the plan was to move both filers to the LOCAL domain, so that CIFS users would not need to authenticate against a domain controller on the other side of the planet. The problem is, the filer in the LOCAL domain keeps running into problems with users from both locations having trouble accessing the filer via CIFS. The filer reports "FILER1 unreachable. An unexpected network error occurred." Today I had the NT admins check, and they found errors in the log files on the LOCAL PDC. > 8/4/04 11:45:39 Event ID: 3013 Description: The redirector has timed > out to FILER1 > 8/4/04 11:31:29 Event ID: 3013 Description: The redirector has timed > out to FILER1 > 8/4/04 11:17:09 Event ID: 3013 Description: The redirector has timed > out to FILER1 > 8/4/04 11:10:04 Event ID: 3013 Description: The redirector has timed > out to FILER1 > I would have thought that if there were going to be problems, it would have been with the filer that is authenticating back to our CENTRAL domain controllers, but it has yet to have this problem. As I stated at the top, I am not an NT admin. The NT admins here do not know anything about filers and insist that the problem lies there. My experience tells me differently; the filers are very simple appliances that just plain work. I checked the configuration options between the two filers and only found one option that was set differently; cifs.oplocks.enable was disabled on FILER1. I enabled that option but I have still run into the problem. Can someone point me in the right direction of where to look? I have tried looking at the output from the `cifs stat` command, but I do not know what to look for. Has anyone else run into this problem? What solutions are available? We are considering upgrading these in the near future, but our customers are (rightly) concerned that throwing money at this problem will not solve it. Is this simply a case of old hardware being overwhelmed? Thanks in advance for any help and ideas, Geoff Hardin UNIX System Administrator Dallas Semiconductor / Maxim Integrated Products geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com Nothing is foolproof because fools are so ingenious.

1 0

re: Disk Drives
by Sales 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

We specialize in high end media storage, we carry the latest in Seagate technology disk drives. We also carry a wide variety of Dlt, LTO and tape drives. We stock a large inventory of drives and other storage related products. We have many end of life and hard to find products in stock. If you don't see something on our web page please email us or call us. We probably have it in stock. -At Select Computer Technology we strive for excellence in customer relations. We service a variety of customers ranging from the home user to government and fortune 500 companies. We will always beat competitor prices. We encourage you to price match us. We specialize in SCSI, IDE and Tape Backup storage. Are you trying to find a drive that is not made anymore (we can help) We deal in old and new technology. Please let us know if you have any disk drives or tape drives for sale. We are always looking to purchase storage components. Our prices will not be beat for scsi or ide disk drives or tape drives. Please let us know if we can help you with any storage quotes. We carry a wide variety of drives for HP, SUN, IBM, DELL, and Macs. CURRENT SPECIALS SEAGATE ST150176LC 50.1GB 7200 RPM 80 PIN DRIVE $48.00 EACH 2 YEAR WARRANTY SEAGATE ST118202LC 18.2GB 10,000 RPM 80 PIN DRIVE $14.00 EACH 90 DAY WARRANTY SEAGATE FIBER CHANNEL 36GB NEW 5 YEAR WARRANTY $42.00 EACH SEAGATE ST336704LCV 36GB SCSI 10,000 RPM 80 PIN DRIVE $ 95.00 EACH Please let us know if there are any drives you are looking for. We carry all makes and models in stock. Thanks Select Computer Technology 425-443-8062

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

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