toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13522 discussions

snapmirror.conf, destination_filer must be the "hostname"
by Lim, Weng Kiam 26 Feb '03

26 Feb '03

Hi All, Currently I am having production data traffic and snapmirror traffic both using the Gigabit interface: Source Target Filer1-e0 Filer2-e0 (100Base-T) (inactive) Filer1-e4 Filer2-e4 (Gigabit) Had been trying to set a private network using the inactive onboard interface just to do the snapmirror. Existing snapmirror.conf of Filer2 Filer1-e4:vol1 Filer2-e4:vol1 - 0 5,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,21 * 1,2,3,4,5,6 New snapmirror.conf of Filer2 Filer1-e0:vol1 Filer2-e0:vol1 - 0 5,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,21 * 1,2,3,4,5,6 However, the hostname of Filer2 is Filer2-e4 and the snapmirror destination has to be the hostname according to the DPG, meaning I can't have an exclusive 100Base-T for the snapmirror traffic. The error is /etc/snapmirror.conf: line 2 destination filer "Filer2-e0" does not match hostname "Filer2-e4", ignoring line Is there any way to make this work? Thanks Lim

2 1

"disk fail" command
by Dan OBrien 26 Feb '03

26 Feb '03

Question about "disk fail" command. We are running NetApp Release 5.3.6R2. The System Admin guide says that "[t]he disk fail command permanently marks a disk as failed. You cannot reuse the disk; you must replace it." This is pretty strong statement. Can the disk be *unmarked* with some standalone utility or something? Or are we out of luck? :-( Thanks in advance, Dan O'Brien, dmobrien(a)lcsi.net Cell: 614-783-4859 Work: 614-476-8473 Home: 740-927-2178 Pataskala, OH

3 3

RE: Fragmentation
by Hill, Aaron 25 Feb '03

25 Feb '03

Just jumped in to this thread, hope I am following it ok. My F880 fits the scenario I think. We have had multiple volumes over 80%, one of them hitting 90% occasionally. These are reasonably busy disks, during peak times utilization hits 60-80% on the Sybase db volumes and may be 40-60% on the batch volumes. The only time we noticed a significant performance drop was when our db volumes were at around 85-90%. They ran like that for a month at least with utilization at 100% and cache age <5ms. The wafl scan measure_layout never went above ~3, indicating defragmentation was never an issue. The batch volumes at 90+ % were similar. The db volumes were fixed by adding a shelf of disks to each. Good old-fashioned write bottlenecking being the culprit. Not sure if that helps. Aaron www.navitaire.com -----Original Message----- From: Frank Marxs [mailto:fmarxs@mail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:40 AM To: Deepak Soneji Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Fragmentation Deepak, Filers get fragmented over time ... I guess that's just the basic drawback of having a 'Write Anywhere File Layout'. One one hand I've been told the WAFL is designed to handle Fragmentation but then I'm told to run 'scan' on the filesystem periodically if I'm anywhere near capacity. [I'd say most people don't run their filers empty ... unless they're new ... but over time the filesystem approaches capacity and Fragmentation sets in] ... and I am also told never to add a single drive because that increases fragmentation [all the new data gets written to the new drive if your other drives are full, creates a hot disk for your new files, and your old files get a few new blocks on the new drive ... it'll take a while for the load to balance itself out, if it ever does.] I've just resigned myself that Fragmentation over time is a fact of life, you add a full shelf at a time, and hope the users dont notice or complain about degrading performance over time... If I upgrade my filers yearly they shouldn't have time to get fragmented anyway... My guess is that most users run evaluation or benchmarks on a new, empty [i.e. unfragmented filer]. I'd be curious to see what the Spec FS or other benchmark performance is on a filer which has been in production for 6 months with a filesystem which is 80% full ... then have someone tell me that Fragmentation doesn't make a difference. Cheers Frank "Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new." - Albert Einstein ----- Original Message ----- From: "Deepak Soneji" <sonejideepak(a)hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:46:18 -0800 To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Subject: Fragmentation > Hi > > We have FAS960 filer running ONTAP Release 6.3.1. I have heard that > over the period of time the performance of filer decreases as it is getting > more fragmented. > > How do I check fragmentation ? > How can I defrag ...any scheduled job or internal utility ? > How can I minimize fragmentation and monitor it ? > > Thanks > /Deepak -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

1 0

Re: Fragmentation
by Frank Marxs 25 Feb '03

25 Feb '03

Deepak, Filers get fragmented over time ... I guess that's just the basic drawback of having a 'Write Anywhere File Layout'. One one hand I've been told the WAFL is designed to handle Fragmentation but then I'm told to run 'scan' on the filesystem periodically if I'm anywhere near capacity. [I'd say most people don't run their filers empty ... unless they're new ... but over time the filesystem approaches capacity and Fragmentation sets in] ... and I am also told never to add a single drive because that increases fragmentation [all the new data gets written to the new drive if your other drives are full, creates a hot disk for your new files, and your old files get a few new blocks on the new drive ... it'll take a while for the load to balance itself out, if it ever does.] I've just resigned myself that Fragmentation over time is a fact of life, you add a full shelf at a time, and hope the users dont notice or complain about degrading performance over time... If I upgrade my filers yearly they shouldn't have time to get fragmented anyway... My guess is that most users run evaluation or benchmarks on a new, empty [i.e. unfragmented filer]. I'd be curious to see what the Spec FS or other benchmark performance is on a filer which has been in production for 6 months with a filesystem which is 80% full ... then have someone tell me that Fragmentation doesn't make a difference. Cheers Frank "Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new." - Albert Einstein ----- Original Message ----- From: "Deepak Soneji" <sonejideepak(a)hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:46:18 -0800 To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Subject: Fragmentation > Hi > > We have FAS960 filer running ONTAP Release 6.3.1. I have heard that > over the period of time the performance of filer decreases as it is getting > more fragmented. > > How do I check fragmentation ? > How can I defrag ...any scheduled job or internal utility ? > How can I minimize fragmentation and monitor it ? > > Thanks > /Deepak -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

1 0

Fragmentation
by April Jenner 25 Feb '03

25 Feb '03

Deepak: Just for emphasis, you should not have any framentation on volume that is less than 90% full. The filer reserves, 10% of the volumes disk space to handle framentation. Even with this said, remember the filer buffers write requests and chooses the disk blocks to write to, in memory so that it can make the best decision before handing the request to the raid manager. If you allowed your volume to become over 90% full and continued running (meaning writing) to the disk, then you might have a problem. Don't look for fragmenation unless you meet that condition and remember, it is best to add disk in multiple (3 or more at a time). Hope this helps. ************Original Message************ Hi We have FAS960 filer running ONTAP Release 6.3.1. I have heard that over the period of time the performance of filer decreases as it is getting more fragmented. How do I check fragmentation ? How can I defrag ...any scheduled job or internal utility ? How can I minimize fragmentation and monitor it ? Thanks /Deepak __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/

1 0

Rackmounted terminals
by Clawson, Simon 25 Feb '03

25 Feb '03

Hello, Do any of you have a rack mounted terminal attached to your filer? I have a Wyse 50 at the moment, but wanted to invest in one of the flat screen pull out type of displays if at all possible, in an effort to tidy up my network room a bit. Anyone seen one, used one or even heard of one? Thanks Simon Simon Clawson Mentor Graphics HDL Designer Series R&D Rivergate Systems Administrator London Road Berkshire RG14 2QB TEL: 01635 811409

3 2

OnTap 6.4, Solaris 8, directory caching
by Mike Horwath 25 Feb '03

25 Feb '03

Okay, this is very cool. I updated my pseudo-production F720 for my staff to 6.4 today because I need to test out the newer code for a much bigger filer that is in production for real people :) So, files being dumped into my ~/Maildir/ area (Maildir mail format) as mail is being delivered to me. I am the only person on staff that has this config, rest of the users use /var/mail/<user>. I can watch my procmailrc log and see that mail is being delivered and the filenames involved. But... I can use 'ls' to my hearts content and I can *not* see the new messages being delivered. ie: uranus% ls -lt total 8580 -rw------- 1 drechsau 931 Feb 24 18:58 _BIB.L_rW-.baal -rw------- 1 drechsau 2410 Feb 24 08:29 _GcG.uwiW-.baal -rw------- 1 drechsau 12716 Feb 23 16:21 _fb.elUW-.baal -rw------- 1 drechsau 733045 Feb 23 12:35 _dj.0RRW-.baal ... uranus% But: From drechsau(a)noc.visi.com Mon Feb 24 18:59:25 2003 Subject: test Folder: /home/drechsau/Maildir/new/_pIB.t_rW-.baal 930 From procmail-bounces(a)lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE Mon Feb 24 18:59:37 2003 Subject: Re: Scoring problem Folder: /home/drechsau/Maildir/new/_8IB.7_rW-.baal 7811 From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Feb 24 19:00:04 2003 Subject: failure notice Folder: /home/drechsau/Maildir/new/_wKB.aAsW-.baal 5358 From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Feb 24 19:00:07 2003 Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details Folder: /home/drechsau/Maildir/new/__KB.dAsW-.baal 8080 From mury(a)unknown.net Mon Feb 24 19:01:06 2003 Subject: Re: Issues coming up quick Folder: /home/drechsau/Maildir/new/_YNB.TBsW-.baal 2096 From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Feb 24 19:01:50 2003 Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details Folder: /home/drechsau/Maildir/new/_rOB.ECsW-.baal 8683 So, files are 'there'. Now: uranus% ls -l /home/drechsau/Maildir/new/_rOB.ECsW-.baal -rw------- 1 drechsau 8683 Feb 24 19:01 /home/drechsau/Maildir/new/_rOB.EC sW-.baal uranus% ls -lt Maildir/new total 8580 -rw------- 1 drechsau 931 Feb 24 18:58 _BIB.L_rW-.baal -rw------- 1 drechsau 2410 Feb 24 08:29 _GcG.uwiW-.baal -rw------- 1 drechsau 12716 Feb 23 16:21 _fb.elUW-.baal -rw------- 1 drechsau 733045 Feb 23 12:35 _dj.0RRW-.baal ... uranus% I was wondering, before I hit up netapp support, if anyone else has seen this kind of behaviour before. I turned off nfsv3 and rebooted my workstation and I am now mounted via vers=2,proto=udp and it has been verified via nfsstat -c. Pretty cool problem...one that will cause me to not use 6.4 as it stands right now on my full production filer that is used for mail delivery for 26K accounts in Maildir format... -- Mike Horwath Admin & Manager @ VISI.com WORK: drechsau(a)visi.com IRC: Drechsau http://www.visi.com/ HOME: drechsau(a)geeks.org The only Minnesota ISP with public statistics: http://noc.visi.com/ Garbage In -- Gospel Out. - berkeley fortune(6)

2 2

RE: mapping root -> administrator and vice versa
by Neto, Antonio Jose Rodrigues 24 Feb '03

24 Feb '03

Please try this : DOMAIN\Administrator == root -----Original Message----- From: Colin Eric Johnson [mailto:colinj@ccs.neu.edu] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 2:00 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: mapping root -> administrator and vice versa Ok, so I'm real new at this so please bear with me. I have a filer running 6.1.3 of OnTap (that's the last version that supports the hardware) and I'm having a tough time getting root on my unix host and my domain administrator for Win2k to map properly to each other. I believe that this is the correct syntax for usermap.cfg Administrator -> root Administrator <- root But this doesn't seem to be working. So, here are my questions: 1. What is the correct syntax? 2. Do I need to be explicit about the domain? 3. Should I map the group Domain Admins and not the individual? If there is anything else that I'm missing feel free to let me know. Thanks.

1 0

mapping root -> administrator and vice versa
by Colin Eric Johnson 24 Feb '03

24 Feb '03

Ok, so I'm real new at this so please bear with me. I have a filer running 6.1.3 of OnTap (that's the last version that supports the hardware) and I'm having a tough time getting root on my unix host and my domain administrator for Win2k to map properly to each other. I believe that this is the correct syntax for usermap.cfg Administrator -> root Administrator <- root But this doesn't seem to be working. So, here are my questions: 1. What is the correct syntax? 2. Do I need to be explicit about the domain? 3. Should I map the group Domain Admins and not the individual? If there is anything else that I'm missing feel free to let me know. Thanks.

1 0

ONTAP upgrade license?
by Dan Bethe 24 Feb '03

24 Feb '03

Here's a continuation of my last question. If I was to somehow procure a legal media kit for a version of ONTAP that's older than the revision currently supported by Network Appliance, Inc, can I get a simple upgrade? Does that require a new license purchase? Can I just buy the unlicensed upgrade media kit from somewhere and then instell that and have it inherit my old license? What about going from version Z.X to Z.Y or something like that? Are the upgrades cheap or free? Purchasable online from a used vendor, or downloadable from netapp.com? Thanks! __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/

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