toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

RE: Netapp Ontap 6.4.1 and Veritas Netbackup 4.5
by Klaus.Micheler＠infineon.com 17 Jul '03

17 Jul '03

We are using Ontap 6.4.1D8 and NBU 4.5FP4 - no problems. regards, Klaus Micheler -----Original Message----- From: Touretsky, Gregory [mailto:gregory.touretsky@intel.com] Sent: Donnerstag, 17. Juli 2003 06:11 To: Moshe Linzer; toasters(a)mathworks.com; veritas-bu(a)mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: Netapp Ontap 6.4.1 and Veritas Netbackup 4.5 We backup ONTAP 6.4.1D10 filers with NBU 4.5 - no issues. -----Original Message----- From: Moshe Linzer [mailto:Moshe.Linzer@nsc.com] Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 5:00 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com; Moshe Linzer; veritas-bu(a)mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Netapp Ontap 6.4.1 and Veritas Netbackup 4.5 We recently upgraded our Netapp filers (760 cluster) to 6.4.1 and were surprised to discover that NBU stopped working for incremental NDMP backups. We are able to run full backups successfully. Tried setting the filer to ndmp ver 3, with the same results. Is anybody running NBU with 6.4.1? I would rather avoid the pain of downgrading. Veritas does not officially support 6.4.1 yet (6.4R1D18 is there most recent supported release), so they have not been much help. Thanks, Moshe -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Moshe Linzer | On the Internet, IT Manager | National Semiconductor, Israel | nobody knows you're a moron. Phone: 972-9-970-2247 | Fax: 972-9-970-2001 | - Network Magazine Email: Moshe.Linzer(a)nsc.com | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----

1 0

Netapp Ontap 6.4.1 and Veritas Netbackup 4.5
by Moshe Linzer 17 Jul '03

17 Jul '03

We recently upgraded our Netapp filers (760 cluster) to 6.4.1 and were surprised to discover that NBU stopped working for incremental NDMP backups. We are able to run full backups successfully. Tried setting the filer to ndmp ver 3, with the same results. Is anybody running NBU with 6.4.1? I would rather avoid the pain of downgrading. Veritas does not officially support 6.4.1 yet (6.4R1D18 is there most recent supported release), so they have not been much help. Thanks, Moshe -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moshe Linzer | On the Internet, IT Manager | National Semiconductor, Israel | nobody knows you're a moron. Phone: 972-9-970-2247 | Fax: 972-9-970-2001 | - Network Magazine Email: Moshe.Linzer(a)nsc.com | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: Restricting volume access to specific network interfaces
by Alan McLachlan 17 Jul '03

17 Jul '03

William, Dirk is right, however if all you want to do is host a database on your filer there's no need to spend the money on a Multistore license. I've been doing this for over four years now (long before vfilers/multistore). Just create a dedicated Gigabit Ethernet network segment (seperate switch or port VLAN or simple crossover cable). Create a separate IP range for the dedicated "storage network". Here you can be creative and use jumbo frames (large MTU) if your switch supports it to improve large transfer performance. Because it's a seperate physical network the large frames won't be seen by your routers so you can use them safely. For NFS databases, simply set up a seperate identity in your hosts file for the filer on the storage network and you're done. For CIFS (Windows) things are a little more complicated. If you're using SQL Server 7.0 or 2000, set the trace flag to allow UNC paths ("dbcc traceon 1807"). The only catch is that the UNC path (or mapped drive letter for Sybase/Informix/Oracle) must use the actual dedicated network IP address, not a name or you'll get a "network path not found". Using a LMHOSTS #PRE definition doesn't help here as the issue is the authentication path to the domain controller. (Named paths force a direct DC lookup first to get a token to send with the open file request, IP address paths force the target device to do the lookup itself which is what we need in this case). So, to access your tablespace files the path might be something like "\\192.168.1.100\SQL$\MSSQL\" Certainly the share is still available on both networks - which is what you are trying to avoid, however you use can use the ACL's and hidden shares to reduce or eliminate the risk of user access to the share over the LAN. This approach is recommended in several of the NetApp database integration technical reports available on www.netapp.com regards, Alan McLachlan Senior Systems Engineer Storage Management Solutions ASI Solutions www.asi.com.au Ph +61 2 6230 1566 Fax +61 2 6230 5343 Mobile +61 428 655644 e-mail amclachlan(a)asi.com.au -----Original Message----- From: Dirk Schmiedt [mailto:Dirk.Schmiedt@munich.netsurf.de] Sent: Wednesday, 16 July 2003 9:44 PM To: Holland, William L Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: Restricting volume access to specific network interfaces Holland, William L wrote: >Is it possible to restrict access to volumes/qtrees/shares to specific >network interfaces? For instance, I create a volume and/or qtree to host a >database. I don't want it to be accessed via the onboard 10/100 connection, >instead I only want it to be accessible by a dedicated GbE connection i.e. >e4a. > Hello William Yes. You'll have to buy a MultiStore / VFiler license. This will give you the ability to use multiple independent routing tables for different physical and/or virtual network interfaces, named "IP spaces". Then you create a vfiler and assign your qtrees/volumes and the selected ip space to it, configure the protocol NFS, CIFS, RSH and you are done. Smile & regards! Dirk **** ASI Solutions Disclaimer **** The material transmitted may contain confidential and/or privileged material and is intended only for the addressee. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender and destroy any copies of the material immediately. ASI will protect your Privacy according to the 10 Privacy Principles outlined under the new Privacy Act, Dec 2001. This email is also subject to copyright. Any use of or reliance upon this material by persons or entities other than the addressee is prohibited. E-mails may be interfered with, may contain computer viruses or other defects. Under no circumstances do we accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from your receipt of this message or any attachments. **** END OF MESSAGE ****

1 0

Restricting volume access to specific network interfaces
by Holland, William L 16 Jul '03

16 Jul '03

Is it possible to restrict access to volumes/qtrees/shares to specific network interfaces? For instance, I create a volume and/or qtree to host a database. I don't want it to be accessed via the onboard 10/100 connection, instead I only want it to be accessible by a dedicated GbE connection i.e. e4a.

3 2

gigabit nfs performance
by Dan OBrien 16 Jul '03

16 Jul '03

What can I expect for Gigabit NFS performance between my F630 NetApps and a pretty hefty Linux box, both running Gigabit network devices? My filer is running: NetApp Release 5.3.6R2: Sat Aug 5 09:40:44 PDT 2000 The Gigabit board is: slot 10: Gigabit Ethernet Controller e10 MAC Address: 00:60:cf:20:2b:2f (1000fx) e10: flags=300043<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,TCPCKSUM> mtu 1500 inet 209.41.211.225 netmask 0xffffffc0 broadcast 209.41.211.255 ether 00:60:cf:20:2b:2f (1000fx) I'm using a Transition Networks 1000Base-SX to 1000Base-TX Media converter into a Linksys 2 Gigabit port / 24 100BT port switch. The Linux box is running an Intel e1000 server card e1000: eth0 NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full Duplex All wiring is CAT 5E. I mount the filer on Linux as: mlswna:/ on /backup/mnt/mlswna/rt type nfs (ro,timeo=14,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,nfsvers=3,addr=209.41.211.225) UDP, NFS3, 32K rsize. (Linux TCP NFS support is not quite ready for prime time.) I copied a 100MB file in under 10 seconds. That's around 10Mbytes/second. $ ls -l diskfile -rw-r--r-- 1 34726 34726 104857600 May 9 13:44 diskfile $ time cp diskfile /dev/null 9.85s real 0.00s user 0.31s system $ bs -c 104857600/9.85 10,645,441.6244 I would expect much better than this. The network/switch I'm on has little traffic. The only Gigabit use is the filer and Linux boxes. What other advice can you give me? What other knobs to turn. Regards, Dan O'Brien, dmobrien(a)lcsi.net Cell: 614-783-4859 Work: 614-476-8473 Home: 740-927-2178 Pataskala, OH

7 11

ndmpcopy problem
by Lincicum, John 15 Jul '03

15 Jul '03

Hi Steve; Engineering has now duplicated this bug and you should be able to monitor it online at the following link.. http://now.netapp.com/NOW/cgi-bin/bol?Type=Detail&Display=99740 Sorry of the inconvenience. Hope you were able to work around it satisfactorily.. Regards Jack

1 0

ONTAP Simulator
by Göran Krebs 15 Jul '03

15 Jul '03

Hi Does anyone know what happend to the ONTAP simulator?? If you browse http://now.netapp.com/NOW/cgi-bin/simulator <http://now.netapp.com/NOW/cgi-bin/simulator> you will only see "Simulator temporarily unavailable", and it has been that for over a week now. Regards Göran Krebs

2 3

you may be interested
by phillip weah 11 Jul '03

11 Jul '03

NOTE REPLY TO phillipweah(a)indiatimes.com IF INTERESTED ATT: Liberia,a country in West Africa is presently torn apart by strife and armed rebellion.These upheavals have led to the intervention of the American government which has insisted that the incumbent president Charles Taylor,vacate his position and allow an international peacekeeping force to act as a transitional government. The embattled president Charles Taylor,has been offered political asylum by the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and he intends to grasp this lifeline that has been provided. The Government of the United States of America have clearly stated their intentions to investigate the finances and financial dealings of president Charles Taylor and have also threatened to freeze his personal accounts.In the light of these circumstances,the president has instructed me,his personal assistant to source for a foreigner who can take possesion and control of a large portion of his personal fortune which he has amassed over the period of his regime, which is stashed away in a financial institution in Europe. These monies amount to approximately four point five million euros (4. 500.000 million euros) Adequate remuneration will be provided for services rendered by you. It is important that you expedite action in this transaction if you are interested, because time is of the essence.Confidentiality is also of great importance. Thankyou Phillip Weah Personal assistant to the president. NOTE REPLY TO phillipweah(a)indiatimes.com IF INTERESTED ___________________________________________________ GO.com Mail Get Your Free, Private E-mail at http://mail.go.com

1 0

RE: gigabit nfs performance
by Göran Krebs 11 Jul '03

11 Jul '03

Hi I belive Jumbo frames is only supported with ONTAP 6.x or higher.. ///Göran -----Original Message----- From: Ariel Moreno [mailto:amoreno@hynet.com.ar] Sent: den 10 juli 2003 22:54 To: 'Dan OBrien'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: gigabit nfs performance Dan: In my opinion you could test setting Jumbo Frame between them, or try increase the MTU in the Lan cards. I hope this helps <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ariel Moreno <amoreno(a)hynet.com.ar> Hynet Networking Solutions <<http://www.hynet.com.ar/>> Av. Presidente Julio A. Roca 620 Piso 7 C1067ABO - Buenos Aires - Argentina Phone: 54-11-5128-1000 Fax: 54-11-5128-1001 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Dan OBrien [mailto:dmobrien@lcsi.net] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 5:25 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: gigabit nfs performance What can I expect for Gigabit NFS performance between my F630 NetApps and a pretty hefty Linux box, both running Gigabit network devices? My filer is running: NetApp Release 5.3.6R2: Sat Aug 5 09:40:44 PDT 2000 The Gigabit board is: slot 10: Gigabit Ethernet Controller e10 MAC Address: 00:60:cf:20:2b:2f (1000fx) e10: flags=300043<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,TCPCKSUM> mtu 1500 inet 209.41.211.225 netmask 0xffffffc0 broadcast 209.41.211.255 ether 00:60:cf:20:2b:2f (1000fx) I'm using a Transition Networks 1000Base-SX to 1000Base-TX Media converter into a Linksys 2 Gigabit port / 24 100BT port switch. The Linux box is running an Intel e1000 server card e1000: eth0 NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full Duplex All wiring is CAT 5E. I mount the filer on Linux as: mlswna:/ on /backup/mnt/mlswna/rt type nfs (ro,timeo=14,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,nfsvers=3,addr=209.41.211.225) UDP, NFS3, 32K rsize. (Linux TCP NFS support is not quite ready for prime time.) I copied a 100MB file in under 10 seconds. That's around 10Mbytes/second. $ ls -l diskfile -rw-r--r-- 1 34726 34726 104857600 May 9 13:44 diskfile $ time cp diskfile /dev/null 9.85s real 0.00s user 0.31s system $ bs -c 104857600/9.85 10,645,441.6244 I would expect much better than this. The network/switch I'm on has little traffic. The only Gigabit use is the filer and Linux boxes. What other advice can you give me? What other knobs to turn. Regards, Dan O'Brien, dmobrien(a)lcsi.net Cell: 614-783-4859 Work: 614-476-8473 Home: 740-927-2178 Pataskala, OH

1 0

virus scan on a network share changes Unix file permissions to 77 7
by Clawson, Simon 11 Jul '03

11 Jul '03

Hi, A user in France has run a virus scan, using NAV 7.5 across a network share to the filer. This resulted in no problems in the PC world, however, the files when viewed from UNIX have a 777 permission set. I tested this on a file on our filer here and did not see this effect. Has anyone else tried this? I know this is not the recommended way to scan the filer, and have advised the user of this. Simon Simon Clawson Systems Administrator HDL Designer Series Team Mentor Graphics Ireland (UK Branch) Rivergate Newbury Business Park London Road Newbury Berks RG14 2QB Tel - 01635 811409 Fax - 01635 810102 <<Clawson, Simon.vcf>>

2 1

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