toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13523 discussions

RE: Defraging the excahgne DB
by Borders, Rich 03 Jun '04

03 Jun '04

<<< I am replying in-line >>> From: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 1:33 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Defraging the excahgne DB Howdy I have my exchange 5.5 DB pub and priv and my filler it's a FAS250 and I want to know a few things #1 can I run the eseutil utility if the DB is on my FAS 250 to defrag the DB? <<< This is doable as it is an offline defrag. The curious thing about doing this is that you are accomplishing the APPLICATION defrag, and at the same time getting a great by-product of a WAFL defrag. ( Essentially a database re-write ) >>> #2 is it the filer that determines if the exchange DB is fragmented or not, and if it is how would I defrag the DB? <<<The Application can fragment ( very common and accounted for by an online and offline defrag funciton in Exchange ) and the Filer can fragment. I say that tounge in cheek because the fragmentation is really only identified when you access the data. Since the database is one large file the request for data in it is atypical, the data 'fragments' over time. The blocks of the filer rarely match up to the blocks of the database, so the issues becomes when you want to get a LOT of sequential data from a large file ( aka mail store verify ) you will be essentially asking the filer to scan through it's blocks at a super high rate of speed.>>> #3 what happens to all other data that is stored on the same vol as the exchange DB once I defrag this vol? ie snap shots <<<The Mail store can be reallocated or the volume can. I would recommend the snapshots be removed as you can really get yourself into a pickle by 'RE'-writing a database with an application defrag, or a WAFL reallocate. If you are short on space, you need to get the snapshots out of there. Snapshots are locked images and if the file system is 'fragmented' then it is unlikely that you are doing much more than spinning your wheels if you are trying to defragment into a fragemnted snapshot. >>> #4 I ran a waffle scan and I got a reading of 1.8 si this fragmented? That is basically a ratio of actual file size ( df essentially ) to block allocation. Ex. A one terabyte volume has a 500 gig database. If it's layout is 1 then the File is essentially using the exact number of blocks that a Filer of 500 gigs needs. If the layout were 1.8 then the 500 gig df would still be 500 but the block allocation would actually be closer to the 900 gig . This is usually not an issue until the ratio takes the block allocation higher then the volume size. A 2.1 layout would mean that a 500 gig df would be 1.05 TB. This means you are rescanning on a request of data on the last .05 TB. If the Filer were a 900 gig df, then a layout of 1.8 would be MUCH more impactful. It is not the end of the world, you just have to manage it. You are on the right track I can see, so good luck. Thanks a bunch Skip Rich Borders

1 0

Defraging the excahgne DB
by SKIP HOFMANN 03 Jun '04

03 Jun '04

Howdy I have my exchange 5.5 DB pub and priv and my filler it's a FAS250 and I want to know a few things #1 can I run the eseutil utility if the DB is on my FAS 250 to defrag the DB? #2 is it the filer that determines if the exchange DB is fragmented or not, and if it is how would I defrag the DB? #3 what happens to all other data that is stored on the same vol as the exchange DB once I defrag this vol? ie snap shots #4 I ran a waffle scan and I got a reading of 1.8 si this fragmented? Thanks a bunch Skip

1 0

Respone
by ngomaj＠telstra.com 03 Jun '04

03 Jun '04

JULIANA NGOMA [MISS] EMAIL: infojuliana(a)netscape.net Greetings, How are you? And hope all is well? You might be surprise to receive this mail but I will like you to go through it carefully before responding, I hope at the end it will find you and your business in the best of interest. Let me quickly introduce myself and the reason why contacting you is very important. I am Juliana Ngoma; I am a senior staff at the Office of the Minister of Petroleum Affairs Angola. I have traveled along side with the Minister Jose Botelho de Vasconcelos to your country in search of investors that will come and invest on our Petroleum Sector, it was in one of this trip that I was opportune to realize that the trips been made by the Minister is not for the search for an investor but for the search for what he will invest part of the Money made from Angolan petroleum Export that he has diverted to be his own. I was shocked at this discovery, but I later realized that I was the only one among other staffs that was not aware of these happenings, investigation into this matter made me to know that even the president is involved. I suddenly realized that the BBC news achieve below is true. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2546281.stm I arrived from the trip I made with the minister and went straight to confront my Head of Department, and he told me that he is aware of the whole situation, he went further to show me some documents that was used to bank some millions of American Dollars in a security firm, he explained to me that the amount was realised from the assistance he rendered to Foreign oil Contractors that are in Angola, he said I should assist him in the search for a reputable and trust worthy business man that can assist us in transfering the funds to a safe place where it will be used for Future Investment, this is because he cannot be able to carry out the process of investing the amount alone. I am therefore asking for your opinion on this issue, will you be able to assist us in the process of transfering, claiming and investing the money of which some percentage of the total amount involved will be granted to you for assisting us and for the time you spent on the transaction. If you are willing to assist us kindly provide us with details of how we can reach you by phone or by fax so that we can proceed to conclude this transaction. You can contact me on my email infojuliana(a)netscape.com Yours Truly, JULIANA NGOMA [MISS] infojuliana(a)netscape.com

1 0

RE: Excage databse
by SKIP HOFMANN 03 Jun '04

03 Jun '04

This is true, but cant I restore a single mailbox Evan though I have data stored on the same vol as my exchange DB using ontrack or will this too cause the same results as restoring the entire exchange DB? Thanks again _____ From: Benn, Paul [mailto:paul.benn@netapp.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 5:09 PM To: SKIP HOFMANN; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Excage databse Hi Skip, The product in question is SnapManager for Exchange 5.5. This version of SME uses a volume based snaprestore to recover the databases (assuming you have the logs and databases on different volumes). What will happen is that when you perform a SME restore you will revert the ENTIRE volume back to that point in time, including your 100GB. This is probably something that you do NOT want to do, unless perhaps, the 100GB of data never changes. In addition to that, the snapshots you create outside of SME will not be usable to restore Exchange. You have two choices: 1) Create a new volume and move all user data that is not part of the Exchange database to that new volume. This is your best option. 2) Configure SME to use one volume for both the databases and the logs. The downside to this is that your restore times will increase significantly because the restore will NOT be using a volume snaprestore. Please let us know if you have any further questions. Happy snappin' Regards, Paul Benn NetApp Engineering SnapManager Team -----Original Message----- From: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 4:43 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Excage databse Hi all I am currently using snap manager for exchange version 1.1.1 and I am reading the documentation over at http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/SnapManager/relsme111r2/pdfs/smesag .pdf <http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/SnapManager/relsme111r2/pdfs/smesa g.pdf> and it says that I should not put any data on the same volume as the exchange database. Can some please explain why this is? I already have 100 gigs of data on the same vol as my exchange DB please advice Caution Do not put any other files or data (including transaction logs) on the same volumes with the Exchange databases if you are going to make use of SnapManager Restore using SnapRestore. This type of recovery performs a volume recovery using the snapshot of the Exchange databases and all other files and data on the volume. Therefore, the other files and data are recovered to the time of the snapshot along with the Exchange databases. This result might not be acceptable when performing a SnapManager Restore with SnapRestore recovery. Thanks for any help

1 0

RE: Excage databse
by Benn, Paul 03 Jun '04

03 Jun '04

Hi Skip, The product in question is SnapManager for Exchange 5.5. This version of SME uses a volume based snaprestore to recover the databases (assuming you have the logs and databases on different volumes). What will happen is that when you perform a SME restore you will revert the ENTIRE volume back to that point in time, including your 100GB. This is probably something that you do NOT want to do, unless perhaps, the 100GB of data never changes. In addition to that, the snapshots you create outside of SME will not be usable to restore Exchange. You have two choices: 1) Create a new volume and move all user data that is not part of the Exchange database to that new volume. This is your best option. 2) Configure SME to use one volume for both the databases and the logs. The downside to this is that your restore times will increase significantly because the restore will NOT be using a volume snaprestore. Please let us know if you have any further questions. Happy snappin' Regards, Paul Benn NetApp Engineering SnapManager Team -----Original Message----- From: SKIP HOFMANN [mailto:SKIP.HOFMANN@ttisg.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 4:43 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Excage databse Hi all I am currently using snap manager for exchange version 1.1.1 and I am reading the documentation over at http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/SnapManager/relsme111r2/pdfs/sm esag.pdf and it says that I should not put any data on the same volume as the exchange database. Can some please explain why this is? I already have 100 gigs of data on the same vol as my exchange DB please advice Caution Do not put any other files or data (including transaction logs) on the same volumes with the Exchange databases if you are going to make use of SnapManager Restore using SnapRestore. This type of recovery performs a volume recovery using the snapshot of the Exchange databases and all other files and data on the volume. Therefore, the other files and data are recovered to the time of the snapshot along with the Exchange databases. This result might not be acceptable when performing a SnapManager Restore with SnapRestore recovery. Thanks for any help

1 0

Excage databse
by SKIP HOFMANN 02 Jun '04

02 Jun '04

Hi all I am currently using snap manager for exchange version 1.1.1 and I am reading the documentation over at http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/SnapManager/relsme111r2/pdfs/smesag .pdf <http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/SnapManager/relsme111r2/pdfs/smesa g.pdf> and it says that I should not put any data on the same volume as the exchange database. Can some please explain why this is? I already have 100 gigs of data on the same vol as my exchange DB please advice Caution Do not put any other files or data (including transaction logs) on the same volumes with the Exchange databases if you are going to make use of SnapManager Restore using SnapRestore. This type of recovery performs a volume recovery using the snapshot of the Exchange databases and all other files and data on the volume. Therefore, the other files and data are recovered to the time of the snapshot along with the Exchange databases. This result might not be acceptable when performing a SnapManager Restore with SnapRestore recovery. Thanks for any help

1 0

How to niggle about things on now.netapp.com
by Chris Thompson 02 Jun '04

02 Jun '04

Does anyone know the sensible way to provide feedback about small errors on the now.netapp.com web pages? In this particular case, I want to complain that on http://now.netapp.com/NOW/download/tools/diag/ the "Acrobat" link for "4.2 and later" does not refer (unlike the "HTML" links, and the "Acrobat" links for other releases). It seems awfully heavy-weight to open a "Technical Assistance Case" for something like this! Chris Thompson Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk

2 2

RE: raid drive reconstruction time
by Yarmas, Tom 01 Jun '04

01 Jun '04

Yes, but not in great detail. Rapid Raid Recovery (RRR) will occur when using the disk fail command (manually), it does not survive re-boots and it is smart enough to stop using RRR and start using stands re-construction if it cannot read the failed disk at all. -tom -----Original Message----- From: Mark Simmons [mailto:mds@gbnet.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 10:45 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: raid drive reconstruction time Yarmas, Tom wrote: >This is a feature of ONTAP 6.5.1+ It is called Rapid RAID Recovery (aka >- sick disk copy) > >Read the release notes on the NOW site. > > Two things: (1) I can't login to NOW for some reason. (2) Are the questions already asked in this thread covered in the release notes? I didn't think they were. >-tom > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Simmons [mailto:mds@gbnet.net] >Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 10:06 AM >To: Busick, Chris >Cc: Chris Thompson; toasters(a)mathworks.com; jbrigman(a)nc.rr.com >Subject: Re: raid drive reconstruction time > > >Busick, Chris wrote: > > > >>Here is a whitepaper link on Diagonal Parity if you haven't already >>found it. >> >>http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3298.html >> >> >> >> >> >Ah, but <jedi> this is not the feature we're looking for </jedi> it's >how DOT handles copying data off failing disks that's of interest today. > >The double parity stuff was done to death a few weeks back istr. > > > >>--Chris Busick >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] >>Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 6:52 AM >>To: toasters(a)mathworks.com >>Cc: mds(a)gbnet.net; jbrigman(a)nc.rr.com >>Subject: Re: raid drive reconstruction time >> >> >>Mark Simmons <mds(a)gbnet.net> writes; >> >> >> >> >>>James Brigman wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Steve; >>>> >>>>***************** >>>>Netapp recently modified their disk reconstruct procedure to copy as >>>>much valid data as possible from the failed disk and only >>>>reconstruct >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>blocks that cannot be read. Often a disk does not completely fail, >>>>so many blocks can be copied from it, which is much faster than >>>>reconstructing. >>>>***************** >>>> >>>>Can you please point us to a whitepaper on this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>[...] >> >> >> >> >>>I have to say that, if a disk is known to be failing, I'm not sure >>>I'd >>> >>> > > > >>>want to be trusting the data one would copy from it... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Well, there is the "horizontal" data validation provided by the zone >>or >> >> > > > >>block checksums to deal with that. >> >> >> >> >> >>> Also, if it's >>>failing in a way that makes it take a lot of time to serve a block of >>>data, does DOT adjust its strategy accordingly and work out at some >>>point that it should just started recreating the data from the other >>> >>> >>> >>> >>disks? >> >>That seems like a good question, and I would echo James' request for a >>whitepaper (or other form of technical detail). >> >>Is the same procedure used when a disk is failed by operator command >>as >> >> > > > >>well as when ONTAP decides to fail it on its own initiative? The case >>of failing a disc because its reported error rate is too high for >>comfort would seem to be one of the most likely scenarios when "many >>blocks can be copied from it". >> >>Also, if ONTAP is rebooted during the reconstruction, is the >>"half-failed" status of the disc preserved? >> >>Chris Thompson >>Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk >> >> >> >> > > >

1 0

RE: raid drive reconstruction time
by Yarmas, Tom 01 Jun '04

01 Jun '04

This is a feature of ONTAP 6.5.1+ It is called Rapid RAID Recovery (aka - sick disk copy) Read the release notes on the NOW site. -tom -----Original Message----- From: Mark Simmons [mailto:mds@gbnet.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 10:06 AM To: Busick, Chris Cc: Chris Thompson; toasters(a)mathworks.com; jbrigman(a)nc.rr.com Subject: Re: raid drive reconstruction time Busick, Chris wrote: >Here is a whitepaper link on Diagonal Parity if you haven't already >found it. > >http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3298.html > > > Ah, but <jedi> this is not the feature we're looking for </jedi> it's how DOT handles copying data off failing disks that's of interest today. The double parity stuff was done to death a few weeks back istr. >--Chris Busick > >-----Original Message----- >From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] >Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 6:52 AM >To: toasters(a)mathworks.com >Cc: mds(a)gbnet.net; jbrigman(a)nc.rr.com >Subject: Re: raid drive reconstruction time > > >Mark Simmons <mds(a)gbnet.net> writes; > > >>James Brigman wrote: >> >> >> >>>Steve; >>> >>>***************** >>>Netapp recently modified their disk reconstruct procedure to copy as >>>much valid data as possible from the failed disk and only reconstruct >>> >>> > > > >>>blocks that cannot be read. Often a disk does not completely fail, >>>so many blocks can be copied from it, which is much faster than >>>reconstructing. >>>***************** >>> >>>Can you please point us to a whitepaper on this? >>> >>> >[...] > > >>I have to say that, if a disk is known to be failing, I'm not sure I'd >>want to be trusting the data one would copy from it... >> >> > >Well, there is the "horizontal" data validation provided by the zone or >block checksums to deal with that. > > > >> Also, if it's >>failing in a way that makes it take a lot of time to serve a block of >>data, does DOT adjust its strategy accordingly and work out at some >>point that it should just started recreating the data from the other >> >> >disks? > >That seems like a good question, and I would echo James' request for a >whitepaper (or other form of technical detail). > >Is the same procedure used when a disk is failed by operator command as >well as when ONTAP decides to fail it on its own initiative? The case >of failing a disc because its reported error rate is too high for >comfort would seem to be one of the most likely scenarios when "many >blocks can be copied from it". > >Also, if ONTAP is rebooted during the reconstruction, is the >"half-failed" status of the disc preserved? > >Chris Thompson >Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk > >

2 1

RE: raid drive reconstruction time
by Busick, Chris 01 Jun '04

01 Jun '04

Here is a whitepaper link on Diagonal Parity if you haven't already found it. http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3298.html --Chris Busick -----Original Message----- From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 6:52 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: mds(a)gbnet.net; jbrigman(a)nc.rr.com Subject: Re: raid drive reconstruction time Mark Simmons <mds(a)gbnet.net> writes; > > James Brigman wrote: > > >Steve; > > > >***************** > >Netapp recently modified their disk reconstruct procedure to copy as > >much valid data as possible from the failed disk and only reconstruct > >blocks that cannot be read. Often a disk does not completely fail, > >so many blocks can be copied from it, which is much faster than > >reconstructing. > >***************** > > > >Can you please point us to a whitepaper on this? [...] > I have to say that, if a disk is known to be failing, I'm not sure I'd > want to be trusting the data one would copy from it... Well, there is the "horizontal" data validation provided by the zone or block checksums to deal with that. > Also, if it's > failing in a way that makes it take a lot of time to serve a block of > data, does DOT adjust its strategy accordingly and work out at some > point that it should just started recreating the data from the other disks? That seems like a good question, and I would echo James' request for a whitepaper (or other form of technical detail). Is the same procedure used when a disk is failed by operator command as well as when ONTAP decides to fail it on its own initiative? The case of failing a disc because its reported error rate is too high for comfort would seem to be one of the most likely scenarios when "many blocks can be copied from it". Also, if ONTAP is rebooted during the reconstruction, is the "half-failed" status of the disc preserved? Chris Thompson Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk

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