toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

Shrkinking volume on filer
by frank marxs 18 Apr '03

18 Apr '03

I heard someone tell me that if I had a volume with lots of extra space I could pull a drive from that volume and use it to grow an other volume which was full.... I know we can grow a volume by adding a drive on a filer, but I haven't heard of the possibility of shrinking a volume by pulling a drive. Did I miss something or is this a new feature? BTW: Anyone seen a drop in performance after growing a volume which was almost full? Cheers Frank "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

2 1

Re: Who to buy additional drives from?
by ScottUCE＠aol.com 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

Here are the facts: 1. Adding or attaching uncertified "gray market" NetApp hardware WILL NOT VOID your NetApp warranty or service agreement. In the same vein, attaching other devices to your NetApp (switches, SCSI devices, etc.) will not void your warranties. 2. NetApp DOES NOT REQUIRE "gray market" hardware to be certified, unless the buyer wishes to add the hardware to their NetApp service agreement. If NetApp disputes the above, would an officer of the company please post a detailed response to the Toasters group so that this "debate" can be settled once and for all? Scott Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, MN 55436 email: scott(a)unioncomputer.com phone: 952 935 7282 | fax: 952 935 5056 "Helping our customers make each dollar go further -- since 1991!" www.unioncomputer.com > Subj:RE: Who to buy additional drives from? > Date:4/17/2003 2:33:27 PM Central Daylight Time > From:<A HREF="mailto:iso9@jwiz.org">iso9(a)jwiz.org</A> > To:<A HREF="mailto:ScottUCE@aol.com">ScottUCE(a)aol.com</A>, <A HREF="mailto:d.kindred@telesciences.com">d.kindred(a)telesciences.com</A>, <A HREF="mailto:toasters@mathworks.com">toasters(a)mathworks.com</A> > Sent from the Internet > > > > While this is true, one should also be aware that NetApp requires "gray > market" hardware to be recertified. If it is not recertified ($1000 > minimum, $1500 for "non-business-hours") you will void your warrantee. The > recertification basically involved attaching the shelf, then creating a > volume, and running hammer. > > At least, that's what they made us do. YMMV. > > Jordan > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]On >> Behalf Of ScottUCE(a)aol.com >> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 12:00 PM >> To: d.kindred(a)telesciences.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com >> Subject: Re: Who to buy additional drives from? >> >> >> ......We are maintaining NetApp support, so we would need an >> "approved" vendor, etc....... >> >> ************************************************************************ >> >> Hi, David: >> >> You do not need to buy NetApp hardware from an "approved" vendor, even if >> your filer is on NetApp hardware support. >> >> Should you choose to buy third-party-supplied NetApp hardware, you have >> the choice of: >> >> 1) adding your third-party-supplied NetApp hardware to your NetApp >> support contract, >> 2) utilizing, instead, any hardware warranty provided by your >> third-party supplier, or >> 3) going "bare." >> >> Regards, >> >> Scott >> >> Scott Fischmann >> Union Computer Exchange, Inc. >> 6233 Idylwood Lane >> Minneapolis, MN 55436 >> email: scott(a)unioncomputer.com >> phone: 952 935 7282 | fax: 952 935 5056 >> >> "Helping our customers make each dollar go further -- since 1991!" >> www.unioncomputer.com >> >> >> >>> Subj:Who to buy additional drives from? >>> Date:4/16/2003 4:36:55 PM Central Daylight Time >>> From:<A HREF="mailto:d.kindred@telesciences.com">d.kindred(a)telesciences.com</A> >>> To:<A HREF="mailto:toasters@mathworks.com">toasters(a)mathworks.com</A> >>> Sent from the Internet >>> >>> >>> >>> I need to add some drives to the DS14 on our F810, but had a couple of >>> questions. >>> >>> Since the Filer has performed so well, I haven't had much need to deal >>> with it, which is good, but it also means I'm not as familiar with it as >>> I'd like. It seems I only have time to learn about the things that >>> break :( >>> >>> I have been able to find answers to the technical questions on NOW, so I >>> don't have to act stupid about those. >>> >>> I do have one non-technical questions left though: >>> >>> When the time comes to buy the drives should I go back to the VAR we >>> bought the system from, or direct to NetApp, or should I consider some >>> other source? We are maintaining NetApp support, so we would need an >>> "approved" vendor, etc. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> David L. Kindred <mailto:d.kindred@telesciences.com> >>> Unix Systems & Network Administrator >>> Telesciences, Inc. <http://www.telesciences.com> >>> Support: <http://support.telesciences.com> >>> 2000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 410, Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 >>> Tel: +1.856.866.1000 ext. 4184 >>> Fax: +1.856.866.0185 >>> --- >>> >> >> >> >> >

1 0

Re: Who to buy additional drives from?
by ScottUCE＠aol.com 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

......We are maintaining NetApp support, so we would need an "approved" vendor, etc....... ************************************************************************ Hi, David: You do not need to buy NetApp hardware from an "approved" vendor, even if your filer is on NetApp hardware support. Should you choose to buy third-party-supplied NetApp hardware, you have the choice of: 1) adding your third-party-supplied NetApp hardware to your NetApp support contract, 2) utilizing, instead, any hardware warranty provided by your third-party supplier, or 3) going "bare." Regards, Scott Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, MN 55436 email: scott(a)unioncomputer.com phone: 952 935 7282 | fax: 952 935 5056 "Helping our customers make each dollar go further -- since 1991!" www.unioncomputer.com > Subj:Who to buy additional drives from? > Date:4/16/2003 4:36:55 PM Central Daylight Time > From:<A HREF="mailto:d.kindred@telesciences.com">d.kindred(a)telesciences.com</A> > To:<A HREF="mailto:toasters@mathworks.com">toasters(a)mathworks.com</A> > Sent from the Internet > > > > I need to add some drives to the DS14 on our F810, but had a couple of > questions. > > Since the Filer has performed so well, I haven't had much need to deal > with it, which is good, but it also means I'm not as familiar with it as > I'd like. It seems I only have time to learn about the things that > break :( > > I have been able to find answers to the technical questions on NOW, so I > don't have to act stupid about those. > > I do have one non-technical questions left though: > > When the time comes to buy the drives should I go back to the VAR we > bought the system from, or direct to NetApp, or should I consider some > other source? We are maintaining NetApp support, so we would need an > "approved" vendor, etc. > > Thanks. > > > -- > David L. Kindred <mailto:d.kindred@telesciences.com> > Unix Systems & Network Administrator > Telesciences, Inc. <http://www.telesciences.com> > Support: <http://support.telesciences.com> > 2000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 410, Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 > Tel: +1.856.866.1000 ext. 4184 > Fax: +1.856.866.0185 > --- >

2 1

RE: Slow NFS filer performance on WAN connection vs Solaris NFS W AN connection
by Mike McBride 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

I would like to add a few more details to the problem i'm having with the poor NFS performance on the Filers using NFS over the WAN(See towards the bottom). The remote Solaris system is 2.8 The NetApp filer(740) is 6.2.2 The Filer has a quad board to Etherchannel ports on a Cisco switch 100mb is the backbone on LAN My first suspicion was maybe the filers were slow on the LAN also but since i was running 100mb I didn't notice the problem. However, this is not the case. I forgot to add i did do extensive testing on the LAN at corporate and I was getting between 6-8.5MBytes/sec from Filer to Solaris system and from Solaris(local disk) to another Solaris(local disk) system. There really was not much difference between the performance on the Filer or the Solaris box. Also, when I used the UDP transport for the remote NFS the performance was terrible. I was seeing a lot of retransmissions. TCP definitely works better on the WAN. Also, the RTT's were the same from the Remote Solaris system to the corporate Filer or from the Remote Solaris system to the corporate Solaris system. I also want to thank several people for their comments on this subject. Unfortunately, i still have been unable to identify the source of the problem. Jeff Mohler Neil Stichbury Alan McLachlan Jeff Wolfe Hunter Wylie Mike McBride Silicon Wave, Inc. (858) 404-5210 mcbride(a)siliconwave.com http://www.siliconwave.com <http://www.siliconwave.com/> -----Original Message----- From: Hunter Wylie [mailto:hwylie@stpaultel.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 10:39 PM To: Mike McBride Subject: Re: Slow NFS filer performance on WAN connection vs Solaris NFS WAN connection Mike, Here's a simple test to try isolate the problem. From a third system ("C") at the same central site run the test talking the Sun ("A") and the 740 ("B"). Run the test on the local LAN and see what you get. If the filer speeds are the same and the Filer is loafing you have a networking problem in the LAN. Try manually setting all network interfaces to Full. Never use auto detection mode. What speed interface is each system, A & B? If the Filer runs at about 6-8.5mbytes per second, assuming a 100mbit LAN interface on the file you still have network problems somewhere between the filer and the VPN box The problems you describe are normally found in the network when the filer is loafing. Check the stats on the LAN interfaces on the filer too, lost frames, retries, etc.. Might be a bad Filer LAN interface. Hunter ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike <mailto:mcbride@siliconwave.com> McBride To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' <mailto:'toasters(a)mathworks.com'> Cc: Mike McBride <mailto:mcbride@siliconwave.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 4:32 PM Subject: Slow NFS filer performance on WAN connection vs Solaris NFS WAN connection We have several engineers working from home using Solaris boxes and utilizing VPN's to the office. Typical application use is Cadence. What i have noticed is the NFS performance on the Filers are almost 50% slower than the performance of the Solaris machines. I have run several tests including cp, ftp and utilizing ping roundtrip times, traceroute, snoop and tcpdump to monitor activities between home SUN systems and file systems at work. I have also tested NFS using different transport protocols(tcp/udp) modifying rsize/wsize buffers and using NFS2 and NFS3 versions of NFS. The filers and the Solaris systems at cooperate are on the same subnet - there is no differences in the routing. FYI - the VPN's at home are all Linksys VPN cable/dsl routers configured for Site to Site VPN connections to corporate office. The problem is definitely with NFS and it is isolated to the Filers. I am confused why the performance of the NetApp NFS would be so poor compared with NFS on the Solaris systems. Now, I know NFS on a WAN is slow and VPN encryption is going to degrade the performance severely, but I am wondering why NetApp NFS performance is much worse than Solaris NFS performance. Basically, when accessing files on a Solaris system(local disk) at the corporate office from home i'm getting about 915KBits/sec. When accessing the same files on a NetApp(F740) at the corporate office from home i'm getting about 510KBits/sec. The transfer mechanism is NFS. When using FTP i get the same 915KBits/sec on the Solaris(local disk) and Filer. The load on the Filer at the time of testing is minimal. Anyone have any insight on this subject? Any feedback would be appreciated since I put quite a bit of time in this to try and understand the problem here. Thanks, Mike McBride Silicon Wave, Inc. (858) 404-5210 mcbride(a)siliconwave.com http://www.siliconwave.com <http://www.siliconwave.com>

1 0

Can you speed up the time it takes to browse large CIFS shares?
by Hight, Steve - Perot 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

Anyone know of any client specific or filer tunable parameters that will speed the time it takes to browse large directories in windows explorer? We have several CIFS shares with 2k or more files/directories in the root of a share. The performance seems to be the same from an NT4, Win2k Pro, XP or Citrix client. This is not really a NetApp issue, the same performance problems exist when trying to browse a share of this size located on an NT server. Any ideas? Thanks, Steve

3 2

RE: Shrkinking volume on filer
by Bui, Marcus 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

Don't know about your first question.. But just a few days ago, both of my F760c were constantly 100% CPU usage. Accessing files was really slow. Both home folder (MS clients) volume on each of Filer was at 92% capacity. Expanded the volume (added 6 drives). CPU usage is now around 60% on both Filers. You won't see the performance improvements right away because it takes a while for the new disk to even out with the existing ones. It took about 4 hours before I see any performance gain. Be careful not to add too few disks causing the new disks to be 'hot'. Marcus -----Original Message----- From: frank marxs [mailto:fmarxs@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 1:15 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Shrkinking volume on filer I heard someone tell me that if I had a volume with lots of extra space I could pull a drive from that volume and use it to grow an other volume which was full.... I know we can grow a volume by adding a drive on a filer, but I haven't heard of the possibility of shrinking a volume by pulling a drive. Did I miss something or is this a new feature? BTW: Anyone seen a drop in performance after growing a volume which was almost full? Cheers Frank "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

1 0

RE: MRTG - MIB for Filer Capacity vs Utilization
by Manny Ortega 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

I don't know if this might help you but this is what I'm doing with my filer and MRTG: http://redhook.univ-wea.com/mrtg/ Pike is the name of my filer, look for that..... -MannyO -----Original Message----- From: Deepak Soneji [mailto:sonejideepak@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 7:57 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: MRTG - MIB for Filer Capacity vs Utilization Hello I am using MRTG - MIB downloaded from netapp.com which provides me wonderful historical data. I was wondering if there is add-on or other utility which shows the similar historical data for total filer storage capacity vs utilization charts(not volume level). Appreciate your input. Thanks Deepak

1 0

RE: tmp files
by Bui, Marcus 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

Steven, Where/what folder are these tmp files being created in? -----Original Message----- From: Steven Boyer [mailto:sboyer1@tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 10:44 PM To: Bui, Marcus; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: tmp files Marcus; Thanks but these tmp files appear to be generated word, excel .... not ie. ----- Original Message ----- From: Bui, Marcus <mailto:Marcus.Bui@aiminvestments.com> To: 'Steven <mailto:sboyer1@tampabay.rr.com> Boyer' ; toasters(a)mathworks.com <mailto:toasters@mathworks.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 5:46 PM Subject: RE: tmp files Steven, Are you using roaming profile with your MS client and saving the profile on the Filer? If so, check if temporary Internet files created by IE are being uploaded when the profiles are updated when clients logged off. C:\winnt\profiles\username\local settings\temp\........ compare this with profile stored on the Filer. cheers, Marcus -----Original Message----- From: Steven Boyer [mailto:sboyer1@tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 9:20 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: tmp files I use a SRM product to manage our storage and have noticed an abundant amount of Microsoft temp files which start with ~. I know these are created as a backup 'till the file is saved but we have way to many.... any ideas. Thanks Steve

1 0

System will not boot with tape
by Rogers, Jamie 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

I have a 760 running 6.3.1 firmware 2.8_a2 and I have connected a working Sun DLT7000 with active termination LDV SE, and when I try to boot I get a Mailbox timeout, followed by a Timeout! which repeats. Any ideas? It works fine with out the tape drive, and I have tried 3 identical drives with the same error. Jamie

3 2

RE: Resize existing volume
by Alan McLachlan 17 Apr '03

17 Apr '03

Patrick, This type of situation in mixed size volumes can be alleviated somewhat by double rebuilding with manual fail/unfail operations. However, if you're getting bigger replacements in a mixed size volume this situation can be difficult to avoid. See if NetApp or your will loan you a shelf of 36's for a weekend. Then you can build a new temporary volume and copy your data to it. Then blow away and rebuild your existing shelf as permitted by the physical disks (36GB Parity, 3x36GB data, 3x18GB data - I assume your hot spare is a 36). Then copy your data back and return the loan shelf. Voila! An extra 68 odd GB will appear. 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: Patrick Lee [mailto:pat@patlee.org] Sent: Saturday, 15 March 2003 7:59 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Resize existing volume I have a Filer 720. Is there any way to resize an existing volume short of re-creating it? Originally the volume started with all 18 GB drives. Overtime, as disks failed, they were replaced with 36 GB drives. So now we have some 36 GB drives that are only half used. See below: RAID Disk HA.ID HA SHELF BAY CHAN Used (MB/blks) Phys (MB/blks) --------- ----- ------------ ---- -------------- -------------- parity 8.1 8 0 1 FC:A 34500/70656000 35003/71687368 data 8.4 8 0 4 FC:A 17000/34816000 34732/71132960 data 8.9 8 0 9 FC:A 17000/34816000 34732/71132960 data 8.3 8 0 3 FC:A 17000/34816000 17366/35566480 data 8.2 8 0 2 FC:A 17000/34816000 17366/35566480 data 8.0 8 0 0 FC:A 17000/34816000 17366/35566480 data 8.7 8 0 7 FC:A 34500/70656000 34732/71132960 Thanks, -- Patrick Lee <pat(a)patlee.org> **** 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

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