toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13514 discussions

RE: Size calculations
by Timothy Sesow 12 May '04

12 May '04

Disk manufacturers use decimal-based numbers for disk sizes, so that a 146GByte drive is 146*1000*1000*1000 bytes. I have heard that this is due to legal requirements, but I am not a lawyer. Most software, including DataONTAP, uses 1024*1024*1024 to mean a Gigabyte. So a 146Gbyte disk drive (146*1000*1000*1000) is actually 136GBytes of usable disk space. My impression is that NetApp is one of the few vendors who are actually straight forward about this. On their quotes for new systems, they have a field for "usable space", which is based on 1024*1024*1024 calculations AND they deduct for snapshots. Tim Sesow VP Engineering 303-948-3360 cell 303-809-8070 -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Jack Lyons Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 8:26 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Size calculations Can you tell me whether or not a TB = 1000 GB or 1024 GB In my volume properties screen: Used Capacity: 1.18 TB % Used: 90% Total Capacity: 1.31 TB But in my Manage Volumes screen it shows I have 127 GB available. 1.31 - 1.18 = .13 TB = 133.12 GB if 1 TB = 1024 GB 1.31 - 1.18 = .13 TB = 130 GB if 1 TB = 1000 GB 127 GB = .127 TB if TB = 1000 GB 127 GB = .130 TB if TB = 1024 GB so it seems that in one screen they use 1 conversion factor and another screen they use a different one. 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.

3 2

NetApp vulnerable to RPC bug?
by "Allendörfer, Carsten" 12 May '04

12 May '04

Hi, We had several core dumps on our filers today. To be exact those were - 1 node a FAS980c - 1 node a FAS270c - R200 - F760 running 6.5.1. All machines crashed within half an hour with the following message: Panic string: PageFault (write invalid page) on address 0xc7d2e000 (errcode 0x2), eip = 0x713cb1 esp = c1afbd7c ebp = 0xc1afbd84 cs = 8 eflags = 10202 in process SMBRPCWor As those filers are used in different windows domains from different clients I can't think of any normal client that could have caused the crash. Then some hours later I found an article from SANS about a new version of the PhatBot worm seems to include an LSASS exploit code. http://www.incidents.org/diary.php?date=2004-04-27&isc=932fe245375de59f9d00… I don't like the idea, but could OnTAP be vulnerable to a windows exploit? Has anyone else seen this problem? Carsten

2 1

None
by Harbhajan Julka 12 May '04

12 May '04

Hi everybody, Has anyone ever been in this situation where an autoloader is connected to a NetApp filer and you are trying to figure out the information like Extended Sense data, etc sent by the filer upon opening the device, targetting it according to the NDMP version 4 documentation. I am going through such a problem where i have sent SCSI CDB's to the filer like SCSI_INQUIRY, SCSI_READ_ELEMENT_STATUS, SCSI_MOVE_MEDIUM, and all you get is something which makes no sense. I am aware quiet roughly about the informaiton i should be getting with each of these requests, but i dont get that. I dont know how to figure out if i can use the only information that is sent back by the filer to find whats wrong and what can be changed. Any suggestions are appreciated, Cheers, Sonia. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs

2 1

RE: QTree Size limits
by Derek Lai 12 May '04

12 May '04

Yes, DFS definitely will let you do this. It's for free too. It is pretty much like NFS for windows. There are quite a few other benefits. But you would need to transition everyone onto that. DFS as Microsoft distribute it is usable but pretty hard to maintain. You might want to look at the VFM product that NeApp has. It adds quite a few number of tools (auto failover, auto migration, reporting) to DFS. Derek -----Original Message----- From: Skottie Miller [mailto:skottie@anim.dreamworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:51 AM To: Jack Lyons Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: QTree Size limits Jack Lyons wrote: > I have a 1.31 TB volume that is 90% full. There are two solutions I > have available to me. One is to try to reduce the amount of space on > the volume (but meeting resistance by users). The other is to add > space. I am trying to get approval for another TB of disk space, but I > don't think the best solution is to add it to the existing QTree. My > backup window for this volume is 14 -15 hours currently and would only > get bigger if I add space and that is not acceptable. I know I can > another qtree / cifs share but I was hoping I could do it in such a way > that I would still have another Qtree but make it available to the user > via a single CIFS Share. seems you may want to investigate backup system changes; a 14 hour window for a 1.3 TB volume is terrible. what backup product(s) are you using? For reference, we churn 800 - 1.2 TB per night, out of 40 TB online, and the first-phase backup window (filer to stage pools) is 4 - 6 hours long. Then the data moves from staging pool to tape, outside the backup window. We use Tivoli storage manager off three Linux backup servers, doing file-at-a-time differential backups over NFS. > I was hoping I could add another volume, probably /vol/vol2 with a qtree > called /vol/vol2/active clients and some how make it appear to the user > as a subdirectory under \\server\creative <file:///\\server\creative> Do you use DFS to mount shares ? My windows guys think DFS supports nesting shares as you describe. -skottie -- Scott Miller | Animation Technology work: skottie(a)dreamworks.com | Dreamworks Feature Animation life: skottie(a)pobox.com | http://skottie-di.net

1 0

QTree Size limits
by Jack Lyons 12 May '04

12 May '04

I have a 1.31 TB volume that is 90% full. There are two solutions I have available to me. One is to try to reduce the amount of space on the volume (but meeting resistance by users). The other is to add space. I am trying to get approval for another TB of disk space, but I don't think the best solution is to add it to the existing QTree. My backup window for this volume is 14 -15 hours currently and would only get bigger if I add space and that is not acceptable. I know I can another qtree / cifs share but I was hoping I could do it in such a way that I would still have another Qtree but make it available to the user via a single CIFS Share. Currently /vol/vol1/creative is the qtree and I have a cifs share (called creative) pointing to /vol/vol1/creative, so the users connect to \\server\creative <file:///\\server\creative> (or for the Macs) smb://server/creative I was hoping I could add another volume, probably /vol/vol2 with a qtree called /vol/vol2/active clients and some how make it appear to the user as a subdirectory under \\server\creative <file:///\\server\creative> This is probably confusing, so please ask any questions. Jack Lyons Senior Network Engineer The Martin Agency (804) 698-8596 (v) jack.lyons(a)martinagency.com <mailto:jack.lyons@martinagency.com> (e) ----------- Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing --- Redd Foxx 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.

2 1

RE: Size calculations
by Hackworth, Brian 12 May '04

12 May '04

: Can you tell me whether or not a TB = 1000 GB or 1024 GB It looks like you're referring to DataFabric Manager, which uniformly uses 1024 as the multiplier for K, M, G, T, P, and E calculations. : In my volume properties screen: : : Used Capacity: 1.18 TB : % Used: 90% : Total Capacity: 1.31 TB : : But in my Manage Volumes screen it shows I have 127 GB available. : 1.31 - 1.18 = .13 TB = 133.12 GB if 1 TB = 1024 GB : 1.31 - 1.18 = .13 TB = 130 GB if 1 TB = 1000 GB : : 127 GB = .127 TB if TB = 1000 GB : 127 GB = .130 TB if TB = 1024 GB 127 GB / 1024 GB/TB = 0.124 TB. 1.18 TB + 0.12 TB = 1.30 TB, which is just about 1.31 TB. All of the values involve roundoff, so the sums will rarely match exactly. - Brian

1 0

RE: TCP/IP Compression
by Peter Furneau 12 May '04

12 May '04

Have a look at the products from Peribit Networks, NetApp use them internally for SnapMirror! -----Original Message----- From: Alan Biren To: Holland, William L; toasters(a)mathworks.com Sent: 5/12/04 3:26 PM Subject: RE: TCP/IP Compression I've used both CNT and RadWare products with great success. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Holland, William L Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6:32 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: TCP/IP Compression We have need to use SnapMirror over a WAN, currently T-1. Any suggestions on TCP/IP compression products to help minimize the amount of WAN bandwidth needed? Thanks in advance. Bill Holland RM/GFS/GS/ISM US Department of State IT Specialist Voice: (843) 308-5311 IVG: 35311 Fax: (843) 746-0543 IVG: 60543 Network Appliance Storage Associate Microsoft Certified Professional Microsoft Certified Systems Administrator - Windows 2000 ************************************************************************ ***************************** 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

Size calculations
by Jack Lyons 12 May '04

12 May '04

Can you tell me whether or not a TB = 1000 GB or 1024 GB In my volume properties screen: Used Capacity: 1.18 TB % Used: 90% Total Capacity: 1.31 TB But in my Manage Volumes screen it shows I have 127 GB available. 1.31 - 1.18 = .13 TB = 133.12 GB if 1 TB = 1024 GB 1.31 - 1.18 = .13 TB = 130 GB if 1 TB = 1000 GB 127 GB = .127 TB if TB = 1000 GB 127 GB = .130 TB if TB = 1024 GB so it seems that in one screen they use 1 conversion factor and another screen they use a different one. 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.

2 1

RE: QTree Size limits
by Neto, Antonio Jose Rodrigues 12 May '04

12 May '04

Use can use widelinks (please see in the manual) Hope this helps -----Original Message----- From: Jack Lyons [mailto:jack.lyons@martinagency.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 11:36 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: QTree Size limits I have a 1.31 TB volume that is 90% full. There are two solutions I have available to me. One is to try to reduce the amount of space on the volume (but meeting resistance by users). The other is to add space. I am trying to get approval for another TB of disk space, but I don't think the best solution is to add it to the existing QTree. My backup window for this volume is 14 -15 hours currently and would only get bigger if I add space and that is not acceptable. I know I can another qtree / cifs share but I was hoping I could do it in such a way that I would still have another Qtree but make it available to the user via a single CIFS Share. Currently /vol/vol1/creative is the qtree and I have a cifs share (called creative) pointing to /vol/vol1/creative, so the users connect to \\server\creative <file:///\\server\creative> (or for the Macs) smb://server/creative I was hoping I could add another volume, probably /vol/vol2 with a qtree called /vol/vol2/active clients and some how make it appear to the user as a subdirectory under \\server\creative <file:///\\server\creative> This is probably confusing, so please ask any questions. Jack Lyons Senior Network Engineer The Martin Agency (804) 698-8596 (v) jack.lyons(a)martinagency.com (e) ----------- Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing --- Redd Foxx 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: TCP/IP Compression
by Kortas, Matt 12 May '04

12 May '04

There's an excellent solution called "HyperIP" from http://www.netex.com -Mk -----Original Message----- From: Alan Biren [mailto:ABIREN@amccorp.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 8:27 AM To: Holland, William L; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: TCP/IP Compression I've used both CNT and RadWare products with great success. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Holland, William L Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6:32 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: TCP/IP Compression We have need to use SnapMirror over a WAN, currently T-1. Any suggestions on TCP/IP compression products to help minimize the amount of WAN bandwidth needed? Thanks in advance. Bill Holland RM/GFS/GS/ISM US Department of State IT Specialist Voice: (843) 308-5311 IVG: 35311 Fax: (843) 746-0543 IVG: 60543 Network Appliance Storage Associate Microsoft Certified Professional Microsoft Certified Systems Administrator - Windows 2000 ************************************************************************ ***************************** 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

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