toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

swapping heads
by Peter D. Gray 05 Mar '03

05 Mar '03

Does anybody know if it safe to simply swap heads between a F720 and a F740 filer? Since the OS and configuration is on the disks I assume this will work ok as long as the OS and/or configuration is not specific to either of these 2 models? Regards, pdg -- See mail headers for contact information.

3 3

RE: swapping heads
by Alan McLachlan 05 Mar '03

05 Mar '03

Hi Peter, How's everything down Wollongong way? Thanswer to your question is yes, bearing in mind that the F720 won't [officially] support as much storage as an F740. They both run alphas so you don't even need to reload OnTap. You must halt the filer properly to make sure NVRAM is flushed. Then power down, swap the heads and boot it up. To go to in Intel based filer head (800 series) you would need to run through the regular OnTap upgrade procedure, including the "download" console instruction, with an Intel version of OnTap first. Then simply halt, power down and swap the heads just as you would normally. regards, Alan. -----Original Message----- From: Peter D. Gray [mailto:pdg@uow.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2003 9:14 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: swapping heads Does anybody know if it safe to simply swap heads between a F720 and a F740 filer? Since the OS and configuration is on the disks I assume this will work ok as long as the OS and/or configuration is not specific to either of these 2 models? Regards, pdg -- See mail headers for contact information. **** 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 ****

2 1

Adding RAM
by David Schairer 05 Mar '03

05 Mar '03

We were told recently by someone who's now left Netapp that it's "routine" inside Netapp to to put more RAM (dynamic, not NVRAM) in 7x0 and 8x0-class boxes than the published maximum. I assume this is with higher-density memory. Has anyone outside netapp seen or heard this done? I'd like to know if it's been observed in the wild before I go try to get this rumor confirmed through our sales channels. --DRS

1 0

��@�P�S�ˁi��Q�j
by ririka＠email.it 03 Mar '03

03 Mar '03

�ʐ^��ς�� O�ɑ��āI http://ririka80.muvc.net/ http://ririka.6server.com/ http://www.sultryserver.com/teen/ririka/ http://www.royalfreehost.com/teen/ririka/ http://www.pornhostz.com/users/ririka/ ��É��c�n�Ƃ��̓��Ƃ��m��Ă�H http://book-i.net/ririka80/ http://host.deluxnetwork.com/~ririka/ http://www.free-xxx-server.com/sites/asians/ririka/

1 0

re-install a F87 ?
by Frank Bonnet 03 Mar '03

03 Mar '03

Hi Due to several install problem I would like to re-install completely a F87 , erase all data and install Ontap how is it possible as there are no boot diskettes ? Thanks -- Frank Bonnet

2 1

Snapvault and 6.4
by Frank Gilmurray 28 Feb '03

28 Feb '03

Anyone using snapvault w/ 6.4? We use snapvault to update a R100 and it was working fine until we upgraded to 6.4 yesterday. We upgraded to get the 255 snapshot limit. I've opened a case on this but was wondering if anyone else has any ideas on what could be going wrong. The client snapshot is fine but the server snapshot has yesterday's contents even though it says it was xfered this morning at 2:05. A directory I created yesterday shows up in the client snapshot but not in the server snapshot. None of the qtrees were updated last night. Thanks, Frank -- Frank Gilmurray Release Engineer Nokia, Inc. phone: (650) 625-2179 313 Fairchild Drive, Blgd. A cell: (650) 892-4029 Mountain View, CA 94043 email: Frank.Gilmurray(a)nokia.com

1 0

R100 vol config for performance
by Mark Bentley 28 Feb '03

28 Feb '03

I'm already spreading disks in a volume across the 7 SCSI controllers, but I'm wondering if there is also a performance advantage/disadvantage to spreading out the disks in a volume across the three IDE-to-SCSI bridges in each R100 disk shelf? For example, if I wanted to create a volume with 3 disks, would it be better to pick three disks on the same bridge (like 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2) or would it be better to pick three across three bridges (like 3.0, 3.8, and 3.12) ? Or doesn't it make a difference? Thanks, Mark -- Mark Bentley TDG Unix Lab Ops AT&T Wireless Services Phone: 425-580-1667

2 3

RE: Filer's security information
by Kumar, Rahul 28 Feb '03

28 Feb '03

Please sync the time on netapp to the match it to the Samba Machines time. This should solve the error. Rahul Kumar, Infrastructure Analyst, EDS PLM Solutions, Pune, India. Tele: +91-20-2930812 Cell: +00-91-9422087523 Email: rahul.kumar(a)eds.com -----Original Message----- From: Frank Bonnet [mailto:bonnetf@bart.esiee.fr] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 4:18 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Filer's security information Hi I'm STILL trying to use a Samba server 3.0 as a PDC at this point I have the following error message Fri Feb 28 11:42:00 CET [rc:CRITICAL]: CIFS - Filer's security information differs from domain controller. thanks for any infos -- Frank Bonnet

2 1

Filer's security information
by Frank Bonnet 28 Feb '03

28 Feb '03

Hi I'm STILL trying to use a Samba server 3.0 as a PDC at this point I have the following error message Fri Feb 28 11:42:00 CET [rc:CRITICAL]: CIFS - Filer's security information differs from domain controller. thanks for any infos -- Frank Bonnet

1 0

inodes/volumes/mildir/Courier IMAP
by George Kahler 28 Feb '03

28 Feb '03

Hi, I'm about to start a conversion project of our University email system based on mbox folders to Courier IMAP maildir. There are about 50K users using about 250 GB of space on F840 cluster; Netapp version 6.2.2. We have been also told that as of this year each student will keep their account for life, therefore this number will keep on growing. I'm very concern about the number of inodes/files/volume and the filer performance. From all the information I could find some of you said that you get about o one inode for every 32 K o can be increased to as much as 1 inode for every 4 K (maxfiles) There was also some discussion that when you do this, the internal WAFL tables become so huge that it will impact performance. 32 million / 50 K users gives me only about 650 files; this is clearly not enough. Will someone having gone thru this type of a conversion give me some pointers of what to do and what not to do ??? Thanks, George ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- George Kahler e-mail: george(a)yorku.ca Sr. Systems Administrator humans: (416) 736-2100 x.22699 Computing and Network Services machines: (416) 736-5830 Ontario, Canada, M3J-1P3

9 17

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