toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

RE: Filer upgrades
by Darragh, Stephen J 23 Oct '03

23 Oct '03

Hi, I looked on the now site, but could not find what the fields represent? Does anyone have a list of other "missing" commands that you don't get form help or "?"? Thanks Steve Darragh > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Thompson [SMTP:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 8:24 PM > To: skeezics(a)selectmetrics.com > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Filer upgrades > > Chris Lamb writes: > > > Hey, what's that command to have ONTAP print out uptime stats? > > availsomething? I'm curious to see what our stats have been over the > last > > three years. > > "availtime", or "availtime full" for extra verbosity. One of those > commands sneakily omitted from the list given by "?". > > Chris Thompson > Email: cet1(a)cam.ac.uk

3 2

Filer upgrades
by Ambrose_Earle＠shamrockfoods.com 23 Oct '03

23 Oct '03

Just a poll to see who attempts to disconnect/unmount every possible client (server) before attempting a DataONTAP upgrade and who types download; reboot. Does anyone leave their Oracle databases mounted via NFS over UDP up the whole time?

7 7

User defined SNMP traps
by paul.winchcombe＠ukgateway.net 23 Oct '03

23 Oct '03

Does anyone have any recommendation on user defined snmp traps. I am interested in monitoring of Qtree space and Cluster monitoring Regards Paul

1 0

TCP connection limit on OT anymore?
by Kennedy, Jeffrey 22 Oct '03

22 Oct '03

From what I hear there was a hard limit of 25 connections to a filer when using TCP. The only way to get around that at the time was use UDP. From everything I've read, people I've talked to, and NetApp's own assertion this limit is long gone. The only limit now is a practical one of cpu and memory. Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary? Thanks. ~JK

1 0

RE: Solaris iSCSI initiator
by Ben Rockwood 22 Oct '03

22 Oct '03

Figured I'd pass this along incase someone doesn't know. Sun doesn't themselves supply an iSCSI initiator for Solaris. There is an iSCSI initiator in "Sun Linux" but thats just open source Linux code, not Sun stuff. Cisco however does seem to have an iSCSI initiator for Solaris (and HP-UX, AIX, etc). Check it out here: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/ps4159/ps2160/products_qanda_item091… To get it you need a Cisco login which I don't have, and it's already been EOL'ed. Might be interesting to play with however. benr. -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christian [mailto:mchristi@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Wed 10/22/2003 12:26 PM To: Jerry; Ting, James Cc: list toasters Subject: RE: Solaris iSCSI initiator Think $500 per TOE and a $200 Linksys gigE switch, versus $1500+ per HBA and a $20,000 Brocade. Yeah, the iSCSI's a little bit cheaper. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 10:30 AM To: Ting, James Cc: list toasters Subject: RE: Solaris iSCSI initiator Wow. this is cool. But do the cards cost as much as getting HBA's for a SAN environment. In my situation, we are trying to judge the cost differences between using an existing SAN and testing cheaper iSCSI solutions (or what would appear cheaper). Plus, we like the Filer simplicity. --- "Ting, James" <james.ting(a)netapp.com> wrote: > qlogic 4010 or adaptec 7211. They handle the entire > iSCSI > stack on the card. Both vendors support fibre and > copper. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry [mailto:juanino@yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 10:21 AM > To: Ting, James > Subject: RE: Solaris iSCSI initiator > > > When you say iSCSI HBA's, do you mean Fibre HBA's. > My > experience was with copper gig-e. > > --- "Ting, James" <james.ting(a)netapp.com> wrote: > > Jerry > > > > We haven't tested the Cisco Solaris initiator with > > our > > target. Several iSCSI HBA vendors plan to support > > Solaris > > (Qlogic, Adaptec). > > > > Glad to hear that your experience with iSCSI on > > Windows > > has been good. > > > > Jim Ting > > iSCSI Product Marketing > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jerry [mailto:juanino@yahoo.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 7:50 AM > > To: list toasters > > Subject: Solaris iSCSI initiator > > > > > > I've been testing iSCSI on windows systems and the > > performance/reliability seems to be good. I was > > wondering if anyone knows why Solaris, or any of > the > > commercial unix vendors haven't jumped on board > with > > this. I noticed a cisco initiator for Solaris, > but > > I > > wonder if it even works with the netapp. If you > > call > > Sun, they are kinda clueless on iSCSI and don't > > really > > elaborate much in my experience. > > > > This is especially annoying since I notice linux > has > > some iscsi stuff. > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > __________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product > > search > > http://shopping.yahoo.com > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product > search > http://shopping.yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com

1 0

RE: Solaris iSCSI initiator
by Michael Christian 22 Oct '03

22 Oct '03

Think $500 per TOE and a $200 Linksys gigE switch, versus $1500+ per HBA and a $20,000 Brocade. Yeah, the iSCSI's a little bit cheaper. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 10:30 AM To: Ting, James Cc: list toasters Subject: RE: Solaris iSCSI initiator Wow. this is cool. But do the cards cost as much as getting HBA's for a SAN environment. In my situation, we are trying to judge the cost differences between using an existing SAN and testing cheaper iSCSI solutions (or what would appear cheaper). Plus, we like the Filer simplicity. --- "Ting, James" <james.ting(a)netapp.com> wrote: > qlogic 4010 or adaptec 7211. They handle the entire > iSCSI > stack on the card. Both vendors support fibre and > copper. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry [mailto:juanino@yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 10:21 AM > To: Ting, James > Subject: RE: Solaris iSCSI initiator > > > When you say iSCSI HBA's, do you mean Fibre HBA's. > My > experience was with copper gig-e. > > --- "Ting, James" <james.ting(a)netapp.com> wrote: > > Jerry > > > > We haven't tested the Cisco Solaris initiator with > > our > > target. Several iSCSI HBA vendors plan to support > > Solaris > > (Qlogic, Adaptec). > > > > Glad to hear that your experience with iSCSI on > > Windows > > has been good. > > > > Jim Ting > > iSCSI Product Marketing > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jerry [mailto:juanino@yahoo.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 7:50 AM > > To: list toasters > > Subject: Solaris iSCSI initiator > > > > > > I've been testing iSCSI on windows systems and the > > performance/reliability seems to be good. I was > > wondering if anyone knows why Solaris, or any of > the > > commercial unix vendors haven't jumped on board > with > > this. I noticed a cisco initiator for Solaris, > but > > I > > wonder if it even works with the netapp. If you > > call > > Sun, they are kinda clueless on iSCSI and don't > > really > > elaborate much in my experience. > > > > This is especially annoying since I notice linux > has > > some iscsi stuff. > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > __________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product > > search > > http://shopping.yahoo.com > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product > search > http://shopping.yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com

2 1

RE: Solaris iSCSI initiator
by Jerry 22 Oct '03

22 Oct '03

Wow. this is cool. But do the cards cost as much as getting HBA's for a SAN environment. In my situation, we are trying to judge the cost differences between using an existing SAN and testing cheaper iSCSI solutions (or what would appear cheaper). Plus, we like the Filer simplicity. --- "Ting, James" <james.ting(a)netapp.com> wrote: > qlogic 4010 or adaptec 7211. They handle the entire > iSCSI > stack on the card. Both vendors support fibre and > copper. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry [mailto:juanino@yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 10:21 AM > To: Ting, James > Subject: RE: Solaris iSCSI initiator > > > When you say iSCSI HBA's, do you mean Fibre HBA's. > My > experience was with copper gig-e. > > --- "Ting, James" <james.ting(a)netapp.com> wrote: > > Jerry > > > > We haven't tested the Cisco Solaris initiator with > > our > > target. Several iSCSI HBA vendors plan to support > > Solaris > > (Qlogic, Adaptec). > > > > Glad to hear that your experience with iSCSI on > > Windows > > has been good. > > > > Jim Ting > > iSCSI Product Marketing > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jerry [mailto:juanino@yahoo.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 7:50 AM > > To: list toasters > > Subject: Solaris iSCSI initiator > > > > > > I've been testing iSCSI on windows systems and the > > performance/reliability seems to be good. I was > > wondering if anyone knows why Solaris, or any of > the > > commercial unix vendors haven't jumped on board > with > > this. I noticed a cisco initiator for Solaris, > but > > I > > wonder if it even works with the netapp. If you > > call > > Sun, they are kinda clueless on iSCSI and don't > > really > > elaborate much in my experience. > > > > This is especially annoying since I notice linux > has > > some iscsi stuff. > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > __________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product > > search > > http://shopping.yahoo.com > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product > search > http://shopping.yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com

1 0

Solaris iSCSI initiator
by Jerry 22 Oct '03

22 Oct '03

I've been testing iSCSI on windows systems and the performance/reliability seems to be good. I was wondering if anyone knows why Solaris, or any of the commercial unix vendors haven't jumped on board with this. I noticed a cisco initiator for Solaris, but I wonder if it even works with the netapp. If you call Sun, they are kinda clueless on iSCSI and don't really elaborate much in my experience. This is especially annoying since I notice linux has some iscsi stuff. Any thoughts? __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com

2 1

Direct connect Xover performance
by Robert Borowicz 22 Oct '03

22 Oct '03

I've just completed a direct connect private network connection between a Sun Fire V880 and my Filer FAS 940 for running Oracle over. I used the Sun Fire's 10/100 Copper and told the Filer to use FD/100. I've still got to verify the Sun "negotiated" appropriated with the Filer's NIC. What is your favorite rip snortin performance test writing to a Filer mount? I ran a ufsudmp of /usr and here are the numbers I was getting in sysstat. Comparable to what any of you have gotten best case? TIA -Rob CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 7% 283 0 0 9558 57 0 0 0 0 >60 8% 280 0 0 9414 57 0 0 0 0 >60 20% 276 0 0 9221 56 111 33405 0 0 >60 8% 285 0 0 9545 57 0 0 0 0 >60 8% 282 0 0 9523 57 0 0 0 0 >60 10% 277 0 0 9314 56 75 0 0 0 >60 19% 280 0 0 9413 57 84 36974 0 0 >60 7% 285 0 0 9593 58 0 0 0 0 >60 8% 281 1 0 9426 57 0 0 0 0 >60 18% 167 0 0 5544 34 159 35118 0 0 >60 7% 284 0 0 9555 57 0 0 0 0 >60 8% 284 0 0 9554 57 0 0 0 0 >60 8% 280 0 0 9403 56 0 0 0 0 >60 20% 277 0 0 9293 56 98 34350 0 0 >60 7% 285 0 0 9561 58 0 0 0 0 >60 8% 283 0 0 9503 57 0 0 0 0 >60 11% 276 0 0 9285 56 29 2564 0 0 >60 18% 279 0 0 9400 56 20 34472 0 0 >60 8% 286 0 0 9631 58 0 0 0 0 >60 8% 281 0 0 9479 57 0 0 0 0 >60 CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 21% 273 0 0 9207 55 123 36570 0 0 >60

3 2

RE: ndmp phase 1 very slow
by Klaus.Micheler＠infineon.com 22 Oct '03

22 Oct '03

This problem is a bug in Ontap 6.4 and it is solved with Ontap 6.4.2P4. We also have the problem by upgrading from 6.3.1 to 6.4.2. Phase 1 of dump was running for 3 hours instead of 30min (you can check that in te etc/logs/backup* files. See also: Burts fixed in 6.4.2P4 since 6.4.2P3: 95633 |Assert due to error from bind call in svc_create_port 96894 |Phase I of NDMP based backups is slow. 100360 |After a boot without /etc/rc cifs start and terminate fail 102089 |Should we spend so long to try to spin up a drive at boot? 103762 |FTP service passive mode leaks sockets in LISTEN state. 104758 |Cannot enable space reservations on non-reserved LUN even when there is enough space. 104942 |Filer's cpu hung while trying to find treeID in response to very large number of tconx requests. But very strange, the Bug description for this bug disappeaered on the NOW site??? regards, Klaus Micheler -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Hill, Aaron Sent: Mittwoch, 22. Oktober 2003 01:02 To: 'Jerry'; Moshe Linzer; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: ndmp phase 1 very slow Guys, I have seen similar slow NDMP performace when performing phase II imports of tape images. FAS960 cluster, Ontap 6.4.1D18, Veritas Netackup 4.5FP3. After about 2 months of investigation through our backup vendor, Veritas has stated that it is officially a "known issue", and that's it. Their suggested solution was to try a direct-attach SCSI drive on the master server and then do the imports. No guarantees on it being faster, but the logic is sound. We decide to just slowly work through the 18 tapes using the current configuration. If anyone finds a way to get this to work faster via NDMP, please notify Veritas. Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Jerry [mailto:juanino@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, 21 October 2003 11:15 PM To: Moshe Linzer; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: ndmp phase 1 very slow I was wondering the exact same thing. I am using a FAS940c with Netbackup 4.5 MP3. Even if you use ndmpcopy (which by the way is extremely cool for migrating files from filer to filer) it's slow as dirt on phase I. And you are right, there is little to no cpu usageage and disk i/o is low. Once it gets into the later phases it starts ripping like crazy. I am not sure if this is "working as designed" but I also noticed the restore time is insane. I was dumping 1.4M files as a test, it took 3hrs 13m to complete my backup (131 GB). Now, the really scarry part is, have you tried a restore. To restore 1 file, took me about the same time, I guess it reads the entire dump beginning to end despite the selected files. Jerry --- Moshe Linzer <Moshe.Linzer(a)nsc.com> wrote: > Phase I of ndmp (mapping regular files) is running > very slowly on my > FAS960 with 6.4R1 and Veritas Netbackup 4.5 FP4 > I have a volume with around 17M files, and this > phase takes 7 hours for an > incremental dump! > On a vol with 15M files, it takes 4 hours! > CPU usage is low, even during backup. Is this a bug > in 6.4 or is there > something that can be done about this? > > Thanks, > > Moshe > > Moshe Linzer > IT Manager > National Semiconductor, Israel > Phone: 972-9-970-2247 > Fax: 972-9-970-2001 > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ************** 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. **************************************************

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