toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

Block size and ops/sec
by Edward Hibbert (eh＠dataconnection.com) 19 Apr '04

19 Apr '04

Suppose you have 20K of data to write. You could write that as a 20K chunk, or 10 chunks of 2K. I'd have thought that writing a chunk of 20K would be less expensive for the filer. Does anyone have any actual info about the effect that tuning the block size can have on the number of ops/second you can expect from a given filer? Regards, Edward Hibbert.

1 0

Private Gig Switch for Oracle mounts
by Robert Borowicz 19 Apr '04

19 Apr '04

My boss bought two Cisco 3650 Gig switches of which he will expect me to interconnect our Filer ( FAS 940 ), 3 SunFire 880's, 3 Sun E450's and 6 Gateway 975 Twin Xeon SuSe boxes to. The 880's and the SuSe boxes will all run Oracle over the switch back to separate Volumes on the Filer. The filer's Gig card is a "X1025C-D" Gbit, NIC Fiber card. I've asked that we purchase another Gbit card on the Filer so that I can do a failover VIF. I'm concerned about utilization on the Gbit interface on the Filer. Anybody have a similar environment and been there already? I'd like to trade notes if so. Thanks -Rob

3 2

RE: Private Gig Switch for Oracle mounts
by Alan Biren 17 Apr '04

17 Apr '04

Rob, I have a customer that is running Oracle on 12 v480's connected to a NearStore R100 and another 4 v480's to a FAS940. I have a single Gig Card from each server connected to two Cisco 3750 switches with a dual connection on the back-plane. The NearStore has 2 dual-port gig cards that have been set in a four port multi-vif and the Filer has three quad-port gig cards set into four multi-vif's with a second level multi-vif combining the two of them. It is important to remember that when setting up a vif you'll need to configure etherchannelling on the switches to support it. Cisco currently only support 16 ports in an etherchannel (just like NetApp) but only eight are active and the remaining are backup. Cisco will handle all of the load balancing. Bench marks at the customer revealed at 35% increase in performance with the NearStore and 50% increase from the Filer. Before NetApp they had all A1000 direct SCSI attached to each host. This is more than what yo uare looking at but I hop ethat it shows what the Appliances are capable of handling. Remember also that 99% of Oracle Corp, runs on NetApp Storage. Good-Luck, Alan ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com on behalf of Robert Borowicz Sent: Fri 4/16/2004 4:37 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Private Gig Switch for Oracle mounts My boss bought two Cisco 3650 Gig switches of which he will expect me to interconnect our Filer ( FAS 940 ), 3 SunFire 880's, 3 Sun E450's and 6 Gateway 975 Twin Xeon SuSe boxes to. The 880's and the SuSe boxes will all run Oracle over the switch back to separate Volumes on the Filer. The filer's Gig card is a "X1025C-D" Gbit, NIC Fiber card. I've asked that we purchase another Gbit card on the Filer so that I can do a failover VIF. I'm concerned about utilization on the Gbit interface on the Filer. Anybody have a similar environment and been there already? I'd like to trade notes if so. Thanks -Rob ***************************************************************************************************** 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

Robocopy issue
by Carlos A. Alvarez 16 Apr '04

16 Apr '04

Hi everybody, I wonder if someone expirienced the same situations. When I finish to move files with Robocopy /move (v 1.96) command from a qtree(ntfs) on Filer (6.4.3) to a server W2K, the qtree get unaccessible and every users connected to this qtree share get access denied. Access to qtree reenable when I delete and reconfigure this qtree share. Data inside this qtree is unavailable too if I access from root volumen where this qtree resides via C$ Any help will be appreciated. EXAMPLE: H:\scripts>robocopy T:\ Z:\depuraciones\filer880\TDisk *.zip /eta /z /move ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ROBOCOPY v 1.96 : Robust File Copy for Windows NT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Started : Wed Apr 14 09:59:12 2004 Source : T:\ Dest : Z:\depuraciones\filer880\TDisk\ Files : *.zip Options : /MOVE /Z /ETA /R:1000000 /W:30 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 T:\ *EXTRA File 8362 Total.zip *EXTRA File 1798136 WBS2002CMA1.zip 100% New File 24131012 2.zip New File 10264667 c2600-is-mz.122-19a.zip 09:59 -> 100% --------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Copied Skipped Mismatch FAILED Extras Dirs : 1 0 1 0 0 0 Files : 2 2 0 0 0 2 Bytes : 32.80 m 32.80 m 0 0 0 1.72 m Times : 0:00:16 0:00:16 0:00:00 0:00:00 Speed : 2068913 bps. Speed : 118.384 mb/min. Ended : Wed Apr 14 09:59:29 2004 H:\scripts>dir T:\ Access is denied. H:\scripts>dir T:\ Access is denied. Thanks

1 0

Filer Shelfs used on non-NetApp Hardware
by Steve Evans 16 Apr '04

16 Apr '04

I have a couple FC8 shelfs that are no longer being used on Filers. Can I reuse them on non-NetApp hardware? Steve Evans SDSU Foundation

1 0

Re: NetApp DR Tape Solutions
by Andrew Siegel 16 Apr '04

16 Apr '04

We have a clustered F880 with about 8.5TB of usable data on it, split among a dozen volumes. FWIW, we back this up onto three LTO2 drives in about 60 hours (i.e. we start it at 7pm Friday and it runs until Monday morning). This occupies about 24 tapes. We originally wanted the 9940B, but it was too expensive, and I have to say that I am very happy with the LTO2. I have not had a single media failure among the nearly 500 tapes that we've used. They are very fast and very reliable. -- Andrew Siegel Head of Systems Blue Sky Studios, Inc. 44 South Broadway, 17th floor White Plains, NY 10601 914-259-6336 direct 914-259-6500 main 914-259-6499 fax abs(a)blueskystudios.com

1 0

RE: NetApp DR Tape Solutions
by Melvin, Grant 16 Apr '04

16 Apr '04

Hi Ben, > Tape, to me, seems the more prudent solution, because > it allows for offsite of the data (in case of fire, > WW3, etc) and we can maintain multiple independent > copies of the data to guard against logical corruption > of the data, if it occured. If logical corruption > occurs we need to catch the problem before the snap > to the NearStore happens or we're screwed, right? Have you considered SnapVault? http://www.netapp.com/products/filer/snapvault.html It's a sibling to SnapMirror and provides online backups normally resident on the NearStore. You could SnapVault from either filer (production filer or SnapMirror destination). It allows you to have onsite or offsite backup versions online in a read- able (non-proprietry) format so single file restores can be performed quickly and easily either by mounting the NearStore via NFS and/ or CIFS. Or by using one of many SnapVault compliant (its controlled by a NDMP V4 extension) applications that are on the market today. Not that I want to put you off tape, but we're seeing a strong movement towards disk-based backup and using tape for archival. SnapVault allows you to setup a retention policy on your backups just like you'd do within you tape library and the best bit is that after you do a baseline or level 0 backup you only need to perform incrementals forever after that. And these can be run every hour, only send changed data blocks over the network and therefore only save changed blocks per backup on the NearStore. Since each backup version is a NetApp Snapshot and you can have 250 Snapshots per volume, every backup is a full so no more incrementals to tape and no more incremental restores are required. Customers who've deployed SnapVault have often upgraded their tape drive & tape library to the latest tape drive technology such as the drives you suggest LTO-2, 9940B and S-AIT, but along with SnapVault they have been able to make a smaller investment in their tape infrastructure and tape media. I for one am not scared of S-AIT, but my previous position was at Ampex and we invented helical scan! SnapVault in the form of an Open Systems SnapVault agent (that is also controlled via the same NDMP V4 extension) also allows the NearStore to be a online backup for Windows (NT, W2K & 2003), Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, Linux and SGI IRIX. Sorry if this comes over too much of a plug, but I'd rather have you examine your other options to tape as backup. SnapVault (just like tape) would allow you to maintain multiple independent copies of the data to guard against logical corruption of the data, if it occurred. Cheers, Grant For information on NetApp's Data Protection Solutions view http://www.netapp.com/solutions/data_protection.html. =========== grant(a)netapp.com ========== Grant Melvin === === Data Protection Specialist === === Network Appliance === |\ | __ ___ /\ __ __ === 475 East Java Drive === | \ | |__ | /__\ |__| |__| === Sunnyvale === | \| |__ | / \| | (R) === California === === 94089, USA === Network Appliance === Tel:(408)822-6761 ====== The evolution of storage.(tm) ===== Fax:(408)822-4611 -----Original Message----- From: Ben Rockwood [mailto:BRockwood@homestead-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 2:53 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: NetApp DR Tape Solutions Hello Toasters. I've got 2 940 Filers with 5TB of capacity each currently, with the expectation that it will grow significantly over time. We're using snapmirror from one filer to the other in order to provide redunancy and this also servers as our "backup". I think it's time to move to a more substantial solution, namely for DR purposes. The options, due to budget, are NearStore or tape. Obviously the best solution would be to snapmirror to a NearStore and then to do tape backups from the spinning copy, but we can't afford that sort of solution right now. Tape, to me, seems the more prudent solution, because it allows for offsite of the data (in case of fire, WW3, etc) and we can maintain multiple independant copies of the data to guard against logical corruption of the data, if it occured. If logical corruption occurs we need to catch the problem before the snap to the NearStore happens or we're screwed, right? So tape has the advantage given our constraints. So the question becomes which media to use. 9940B is out immediately due to cost ($40K/drive is insane). Which leaves LTO Gen2 at 200G native and S-AIT at 500G Native. Naturally I'm liking the S-AIT option because I can do offsites with a signficantly lower media count, despite the fact that the media cost is higher. And, because my data is primarily web content (HTML flattext and GIF/JPG images) I should be a pretty decent compression ratio. This brings me to the big question. Has anyone managing Filers used S-AIT yet? It's really an argument between Helical Scan tape technology (wear rate, failures, etc) vs the stable and proven Linear technology of LTO Gen2. Despite the drawbacks associated with all the problems inhearent to Helical Scan, the 500G native, and possible 2.66:1 (I expect that with my data 2:1 is adiquate) compression ration the advantages to S-AIT for Filer backup is really hard to ignore. My estimates right now in the pro-con area between the 2 formats looks like this: Total Capacity of each Filer as currently configured: 5.2TB Media Consumption per Filer: LTO Gen2: Backup of Full Capacity without Compression: 26 Tapes (approx) S-AIT: Backup of Full Capacity without Compression: 10 Tapes (approx) So assuming I get around 2:1 compression which is reasonable, I can do full capacity backups in 5 tapes per filer with S-AIT vs 13 with LTO! That means if I want to keep 4 complete backups at any given time, I need a library with an insane media count, because we're looking at 26x4x2=208 slots, and bring that down to 130 or so with compression. With S-AIT I need less than 50 not considering compression. And to that, with compression I might be able to cram all 5TB onto 4 tapes, which means I can buy a 4 drive library and stream to all 4 tapes similatiously without a media change in the middle. Anyway, obviously I'm feeling scared about S-AIT but cannot ignore the awsome potential it has for bulk data. Can anyone please share their insights or opinions? Is anyone currently using S-AIT for filers? Thanx. benr.

1 0

NetApp DR Tape Solutions
by Ben Rockwood 15 Apr '04

15 Apr '04

Hello Toasters. I've got 2 940 Filers with 5TB of capacity each currently, with the expectation that it will grow significantly over time. We're using snapmirror from one filer to the other in order to provide redunancy and this also servers as our "backup". I think it's time to move to a more substantial solution, namely for DR purposes. The options, due to budget, are NearStore or tape. Obviously the best solution would be to snapmirror to a NearStore and then to do tape backups from the spinning copy, but we can't afford that sort of solution right now. Tape, to me, seems the more prudent solution, because it allows for offsite of the data (in case of fire, WW3, etc) and we can maintain multiple independant copies of the data to guard against logical corruption of the data, if it occured. If logical corruption occurs we need to catch the problem before the snap to the NearStore happens or we're screwed, right? So tape has the advantage given our constraints. So the question becomes which media to use. 9940B is out immediately due to cost ($40K/drive is insane). Which leaves LTO Gen2 at 200G native and S-AIT at 500G Native. Naturally I'm liking the S-AIT option because I can do offsites with a signficantly lower media count, despite the fact that the media cost is higher. And, because my data is primarily web content (HTML flattext and GIF/JPG images) I should be a pretty decent compression ratio. This brings me to the big question. Has anyone managing Filers used S-AIT yet? It's really an argument between Helical Scan tape technology (wear rate, failures, etc) vs the stable and proven Linear technology of LTO Gen2. Despite the drawbacks associated with all the problems inhearent to Helical Scan, the 500G native, and possible 2.66:1 (I expect that with my data 2:1 is adiquate) compression ration the advantages to S-AIT for Filer backup is really hard to ignore. My estimates right now in the pro-con area between the 2 formats looks like this: Total Capacity of each Filer as currently configured: 5.2TB Media Consumption per Filer: LTO Gen2: Backup of Full Capacity without Compression: 26 Tapes (approx) S-AIT: Backup of Full Capacity without Compression: 10 Tapes (approx) So assuming I get around 2:1 compression which is reasonable, I can do full capacity backups in 5 tapes per filer with S-AIT vs 13 with LTO! That means if I want to keep 4 complete backups at any given time, I need a library with an insane media count, because we're looking at 26x4x2=208 slots, and bring that down to 130 or so with compression. With S-AIT I need less than 50 not considering compression. And to that, with compression I might be able to cram all 5TB onto 4 tapes, which means I can buy a 4 drive library and stream to all 4 tapes similatiously without a media change in the middle. Anyway, obviously I'm feeling scared about S-AIT but cannot ignore the awsome potential it has for bulk data. Can anyone please share their insights or opinions? Is anyone currently using S-AIT for filers? Thanx. benr.

1 0

Linux NFS cache problem?
by Jun Ohata 15 Apr '04

15 Apr '04

Hi all, Has anyone encounter the problem like this? 1. If a user replace a file (which on the Filer) using cp command using Solaris 8 machine such as; # cp newfile oldfile 2. Then, on Linux server(NFS Client) A , reading the file, the file is new one. 3. But on another Linux server B, reading same file above, the file is stil OLD. We experienced many times on many files and Linux servers. I suspect some linux cache behavior (attribute caching?), but This situation still remain after a few days... [Our mount options] rw,nosuid,bg,soft,rsize=8192,wsize=8192,timeo=11,retrans=5 [Our Linux (all)] kernel 2.4.20, based on RHL 7.3 [Filer] F825, NetApp Release 6.3.3D2 I've read Technical report written by Chuck Lever(TR3183), noct and/or noac options may help, but I don't know why such long time Linux does not see a new file. Anyone? Thanks, -- Jun Ohata ohhata(a)tnes.nec.co.jp

4 4

diatribes f1nd a ch1ck racketeers
by Shuhei 15 Apr '04

15 Apr '04

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