toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13523 discussions

RE: Data ONTAP Upgrade
by Hill, Aaron 16 Feb '03

16 Feb '03

Hey there, I welcome questions. Unfortunately, my answers may not be sufficient to satisfy your mental hunger. To be honest, I don't know exactly what the D8 does. I was informed that it fixes the snapmirror code. The error was found to occur only in our "specific" circumstance. So what was/is our circumstance? 1) F880 source snapmirroring 3 batch area volumes to an F820 target across a 20Mbit Ethernet WAN. 2) The amount of data change per day is high. Approximately 10-40Gb per volume. 3) We were experiencing poor throughput across the WAN link (carrier issue) and had to frequently abort the snapmirror and delete snapshots from the F880 source in order to prevent snapshot space over-running production data space. This throughput has since been addressed (before D8). 4) The F820 target panicked a couple of times and dumped to the ok prompt. One of the target volumes was found to be corrupt. It was difficult to say if the source filer caused it or the target filer developed the corruption independently. We had some cases open and ran wafl checks and scans on both filers as a result. No errors were turned up. 5) The crash dump file was ftp'd to NetApp. This lead to the 6.3.1D8 debug release. When I get some more time, I might read into it a bit further. For now, I am more than happy that they have addressed the issue and fixed it very quickly. We have not had any problems with 6.3.1 or the D8 releases. Thanks, Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Chris Blackmor [mailto:chris.blackmor@amd.com] Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 6:48 AM To: Hill, Aaron Cc: 'Paul McGuinness (ext. 771)'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: Data ONTAP Upgrade What does the D8 fix for snapmirror? Inquiring minds want to know. ;) C- On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 07:18:19PM -0600, Hill, Aaron wrote: > We are running 6.3.1 on one filer (F880) and 6.3.1D8 (debug release for a > snapmirror problem we were having) on another (F820). 2 others still running > 6.2.2 I believe. > > As far as I know, all new F960s being shipped have 6.3.1 on them. > > So overall, I have to say I recommend it. If you are snapmirroring, make > sure you put 6.3.1D8 on your destination filer, that is the advice from our > NetApp representative. > > Thanks, > Aaron Hill > Systems Engineer > www.navitaire.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul McGuinness (ext. 771) [mailto:Paul.McGuinness@fineos.com] > Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 2:58 AM > To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: Data ONTAP Upgrade > > Hi, > I have a F720 currently running on Data ONTAP 6.1.2R2 and everything is > running fine. > My question is to those of you 6.6.2 (the current GA release) and those of > you on 6.3.1. > > I was going to upgrade to 6.2.2, just to keep my system up to date, but > according to the NOW site there are a good few more active systems running > 6.3.1. > > Would 6.3.1 be a better upgrade to go to? I also see that there is now a 6.4 > first customer shipment release (12th Feb) but I think I'll leave that for > those of you who have filers to play with.... > :o) > > So 6.6.2 or 6.3.1? > > > > > > ************************************************************************** > The information contained in this e-mail is confidential, > may be privileged and is intended only for the use of the > recipient named above. If you are not the intended > recipient or a representative of the intended recipient, > you have received this e-mail in error and must not copy, > use or disclose the contents of this email to anybody > else. If you have received this e-mail in error, please > notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and > permanently delete the copy you received. This email has > been swept for computer viruses. However, you should > carry out your own virus checks. > > > Registered in Ireland, No. 205721. http://www.FINEOS.com > ************************************************************************** -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- * Chris Blackmor _______ | * * Advanced Micro Devices \____ | | Toto... I've * * Phone: (512) 602-1608 /| | | | a feeling we're * * Fax: (512) 602-5155 | |___| | | not in Kansas * * Email: chris.blackmor(a)amd.com |____/ \| | anymore. * -------------------------------------------------------------------- * My comments are mine, and mine alone. * --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: using vol0 / consolidation
by Alan McLachlan 16 Feb '03

16 Feb '03

Stephane, Apologies for misnaming you in my last post... **** 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

Netapp clustering and NFS failover
by herb kornfeldt 16 Feb '03

16 Feb '03

I'm evaluating NFS server appliances to be used by a couple of dozen clients (currently all solaris, but possibly linux and hpux in future) all running a distributed application. We're looking at how clusters handle failing over NFS serving from one netapp to another. From the research we've done on netapp and other vendors, it looks like it takes about 20 seconds for the nfs server daemon to come back, but the thing that kills many vendors is that client lock recovery is slow and/or buggy. The lockd grace period is tunable down from 45s on most servers, but that still means you are down for 65seconds, and that's pretty painful. And that's assuming that the server implementation is clever enough to correctly transfer knowledge about locks from the dead node to the active server node, something which we have seen not to happen on at least one major vendor's implementation. Has anyone share their experiences of failing over clustered netapps for nfs? What kind of failover times do you see (including lock recovery)? Does anything not work properly? tia --herb _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

1 0

RE: Data ONTAP Upgrade
by Hill, Aaron 15 Feb '03

15 Feb '03

We are running 6.3.1 on one filer (F880) and 6.3.1D8 (debug release for a snapmirror problem we were having) on another (F820). 2 others still running 6.2.2 I believe. As far as I know, all new F960s being shipped have 6.3.1 on them. So overall, I have to say I recommend it. If you are snapmirroring, make sure you put 6.3.1D8 on your destination filer, that is the advice from our NetApp representative. Thanks, Aaron Hill Systems Engineer www.navitaire.com -----Original Message----- From: Paul McGuinness (ext. 771) [mailto:Paul.McGuinness@fineos.com] Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 2:58 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Data ONTAP Upgrade Hi, I have a F720 currently running on Data ONTAP 6.1.2R2 and everything is running fine. My question is to those of you 6.6.2 (the current GA release) and those of you on 6.3.1. I was going to upgrade to 6.2.2, just to keep my system up to date, but according to the NOW site there are a good few more active systems running 6.3.1. Would 6.3.1 be a better upgrade to go to? I also see that there is now a 6.4 first customer shipment release (12th Feb) but I think I'll leave that for those of you who have filers to play with.... :o) So 6.6.2 or 6.3.1? ************************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail is confidential, may be privileged and is intended only for the use of the recipient named above. If you are not the intended recipient or a representative of the intended recipient, you have received this e-mail in error and must not copy, use or disclose the contents of this email to anybody else. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete the copy you received. This email has been swept for computer viruses. However, you should carry out your own virus checks. Registered in Ireland, No. 205721. http://www.FINEOS.com **************************************************************************

2 1

RE: wafl scan reallocate not improving layout?
by jwitham＠takedapharm.com 14 Feb '03

14 Feb '03

Hi Art: What kind of data is contained on the vol? Is it one huge file (DB) or a bajillion little ones? Have you thought about trying the reallocate when things are quiet? (no users or db offline) -john -----Original Message----- From: Art Hebert [mailto:art@arzoon.com] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 5:42 PM To: 'jwitham(a)takedapharm.com'; Ambrose_Earle(a)shamrockfoods.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: wafl scan reallocate not improving layout? I have a volume that shows a layout of 5 when doing a wafl scan measure layout. I have tried reallocating it but it never gets below 5. Using statit the data seems to be laid out evenly, 4.2 is the parity disk. disk ut% xfers ureads--chain-usecs writes--chain-usecs cpreads-chain-usecs /vol/vol0 group 0: 4.2 3 4.22 0.43 1.00 23079 2.72 3.80 2986847599971 1.06 2.46 2182 4.4 39 79.56 77.18 1.91 2574 1.33 4.46 3793820692012 1.04 2.40 2365 4.1 37 76.72 74.81 1.91 2553 0.93 5.28 3193299281907 0.97 3.02 1613 4.6 41 83.67 81.56 1.88 2624 1.35 4.72 2462422822812 0.76 2.51 2198 4.0 40 83.62 81.77 1.87 2562 1.03 5.83 2711737467108 0.82 2.61 1959 4.3 40 83.70 81.83 1.86 2594 1.06 5.74 2738534194560 0.81 2.47 2055 4.5 40 84.04 82.17 1.86 2579 1.07 5.72 2611584689054 0.80 2.50 2099 Should I cease activity to the filer and run the wafl reallocate then? Thoughts and thanks art -----Original Message----- From: jwitham(a)takedapharm.com [mailto:jwitham@takedapharm.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:39 AM To: Ambrose_Earle(a)shamrockfoods.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: wafl scan We use 'wafl scan reallocate' weekly to reorder our Exchange 5.5 databases. They keep growing, and are over 100GB apiece. The wafl scan reallocate helps our use of SnapManager verifications greatly. We have been known to run it in the middle of the day, but with a big performance hit (as you have seen). Haven't tried it in conjunction with SnapMirror. Just for grins, we also use 'wafl scan measure_layout' before and after the reallocate to ensure that we've accomplished something. We affectionately refer to the process as 'reshuffling the wafl house'. HTH, -john -----Original Message----- From: Ambrose_Earle(a)shamrockfoods.com [mailto:Ambrose_Earle@shamrockfoods.com <mailto:Ambrose_Earle@shamrockfoods.com> ] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:28 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: wafl scan Does anyone have any (good) experience with the wafl scan commands? I am testing Snapmirror and used it to mirror 7x34's to 10x34's. Of course, the data was only written to the first seven drives, so I used 'wafl scan reallocate <volume>' and it seemed to improve the layout quite dramatically. Is this a good use of the command? Other than affecting performance, I'm assuming everything is accessible during the run of this command? Thanks in advance, This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited. This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited.

1 0

OS/2 on NetApp
by Jeff Burton 14 Feb '03

14 Feb '03

Is anyone accessing data on a NetApp from an OS/2 client using CIFS? I have heard of people using NFS and it works fine, but because of some extensions OS/2 adds to the CIFS protocol, NetApp does not support OS/2 CIFS clients. While NFS is an option, this will be difficult to implement because we would need to create unix type accounts for all the OS/2 users to map their AD accounts to. I am running 6.2.1R2 and am about to test with the newer versions of ONTAP. Thanks, ______________________________________________________________ Jeff Burton Storage Architect Abbott Laboratories EMAIL: Jeffrey.Burton(a)Abbott.com Dept. GB16/Bldg. AP9A-LL PHONE: 847-935-5778 100 Abbott Park Rd. FAX: 847-935-0142 Abbott Park, IL 60064-6115

1 0

Data ONTAP Upgrade
by Paul McGuinness (ext. 771) 14 Feb '03

14 Feb '03

Hi, I have a F720 currently running on Data ONTAP 6.1.2R2 and everything is running fine. My question is to those of you 6.6.2 (the current GA release) and those of you on 6.3.1. I was going to upgrade to 6.2.2, just to keep my system up to date, but according to the NOW site there are a good few more active systems running 6.3.1. Would 6.3.1 be a better upgrade to go to? I also see that there is now a 6.4 first customer shipment release (12th Feb) but I think I'll leave that for those of you who have filers to play with.... :o) So 6.6.2 or 6.3.1? ************************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail is confidential, may be privileged and is intended only for the use of the recipient named above. If you are not the intended recipient or a representative of the intended recipient, you have received this e-mail in error and must not copy, use or disclose the contents of this email to anybody else. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete the copy you received. This email has been swept for computer viruses. However, you should carry out your own virus checks. Registered in Ireland, No. 205721. http://www.FINEOS.com **************************************************************************

1 0

RE: XP refreshing
by Bui, Marcus 14 Feb '03

14 Feb '03

Matt, Microsoft has identify this to be a problem with the XP client. A hotfix is available but I you need to request it from MS support. The patch will be roll up into the next XP service pack (3). More details here: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;330929 I applied the hotfix and the Registry changes and it does resolve the 'refresh' problem. Hope this helps. Cheers, Marcus Bui -----Original Message----- From: Matt Miller [mailto:m.miller@duke.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 2:58 PM To: Bui, Marcus Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: XP refreshing sorry for the delay, we have ~300 XP machines which map the same share. matt "Bui, Marcus" wrote: > Matt, > > How many XP clients are using the filer? Or connecting to the same > share? Does the filer experience any performance issue? > > thanks, > Marcus > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Miller [mailto:m.miller@duke.edu] > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 9:40 AM > To: Bui, Marcus; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: Re: XP refreshing > > Let me take that back... the refresh does happen, but at our site it > is only every 20 seconds. > > matt > > Matt Miller wrote: > > > We have XP clients in a mixed mode AD environment with an F820 > > running DOT > 6.3. > > > > I do not see the refresh traffic you refer to below; however, every > > time > you > > move the mouse in the active explorer window, explorer asks the > > filer for summary information for the directory/file. When I leave > > the mouse still, > no > > traffic is seen. Is this what you are experiencing? > > > > matt > > > > "Bui, Marcus" wrote: > > > > > Hello Toasters, > > > > > > I have an F740c running 6.1.2R1 in NT4 domain. Currently, the > > > client PC > are > > > being migrated to XP into W2K AD (mixed mode). Came across a > > > peculiar problem and wondering if anyone else experience it. > > > > > > XP client with Windows Explorer open is continually refreshing > > > when open against a Filer volume, share folder. Analysis has > > > shown that it seems to be every two seconds a refresh > > > occurs, and when using a network trace tool, it seems to average out at > > > around 50K per second. As soon as explorer's focus is placed elsewhere, > or > > > shut down, this network load stops. This 'refreshing' only > > > appears if > the > > > share folder is highly utilize. Connecting to a share folder that > > > is no busy, the 'refreshing' does not exist. Notice this with W2K > > > Pro client > as > > > well, but not as frequent as XP Client. > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > Marcus Bui > > > > -- > > Matt Miller > > IT Infrastructure Team > > Duke University - Fuqua School of Business > > -- > Matt Miller > IT Infrastructure Team > Duke University - Fuqua School of Business -- Matt Miller IT Infrastructure Team Duke University - Fuqua School of Business

1 0

sanity check, 2 ndmpd sessions @ once?
by Toal, Dave 14 Feb '03

14 Feb '03

Noticed this on a 740 that's only got 1 DLT. Veritas netbackup is scheduling bkp jobs with ndmp, from a sun box. There've been some odd failures where the tape fails to unload after the bkp, recently. ndmpd status doesn't show any sessions active when that happens though. Right now I'm seeing 2 ndmp sessions; I don't recall that before, and I'm wondering if this means netbackup is having problems. The ip addr is the sun box running nb, for both sessions; there's a bkp running while I'm looking at this. 6.1.3R2 statler> ndmpd status ndmpd ON. Session: 47 Active version: 2 Operating on behalf of primary host. tape device: nrst0a mover state: Idle data state: Idle data operation: None Session: 36 Active version: 2 Operating on behalf of primary host. tape device: not open mover state: Paused data state: Active data operation: Backup statler> sysstat 1 CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 8% 16 0 0 465 10 0 27 0 442 >60 7% 38 0 0 466 47 35 0 0 438 >60 statler> ndmpd probe 47 ndmpd ON. Session: 47 isActive: TRUE protocol version: 2 effHost: Local authorized: TRUE client addr: 206.229.36.82:52341 spt.device_id: none spt.ha: -1 spt.scsi_id: -1 spt.scsi_lun: -1 tape.device: nrst0a tape.mode: Read/Write mover.state: Idle mover.mode: Read mover.pauseReason N/A mover.haltReason N/A mover.recordSize: 0 mover.recordNum: 0 mover.dataWritten: 0 mover.seekPosition: 0 mover.bytesLeftToRead: 0 mover.windowOffset: -1 mover.windowLength: -1 mover.position: 0 mover.connect.addr_type:LOCAL data.operation: None data.state: Idle data.haltReason: N/A data.connect.addr_type: LOCAL data.bytesProcessed: 0 statler> ndmpd probe 36 ndmpd ON. Session: 36 isActive: TRUE protocol version: 2 effHost: Local authorized: TRUE client addr: 206.229.36.82:51967 spt.device_id: none spt.ha: -1 spt.scsi_id: -1 spt.scsi_lun: -1 tape.device: not open tape.mode: Read only mover.state: Paused mover.mode: Read mover.pauseReason EOM mover.haltReason N/A mover.recordSize: 64512 mover.recordNum: 242736 mover.dataWritten: 15659384832 mover.seekPosition: 0 mover.bytesLeftToRead: 0 mover.windowOffset: -1 mover.windowLength: -1 mover.position: 0 mover.connect.addr_type:LOCAL data.operation: Backup data.state: Active data.haltReason: N/A data.connect.addr_type: LOCAL data.bytesProcessed: 15659709440 statler> bash-2.03# bpps -a | grep stat root 3281 1 0 17:03:55 ? 12:39 bptm -w -pid 3273 -c statler -den 13 -rt 8 -rn 0 -stunit statler-dlt -cl statle root 3273 1 0 17:03:54 ? 0:00 bpbrm -backup -mt 3 -to 0 -S netback -c statler -hostname statler -ru root -cl bash-2.03# -- Dave Toal Systems Architect Thomson & Thomson N. Quincy, MA

2 1

RE: using vol0
by Clawson, Simon 14 Feb '03

14 Feb '03

The only benefit as I see it to having the smallest possible vol0 is recovery time. You can back up and recover the small amount of data in a few minutes on most tape devices, meaning you are up and running fairly quickly in the event of losing the volume. However, there are methods of replicating the /etc data to another volume, then telling the filer to boot this as vol0. This would of course mean any NIS maps etc are broken until you change their paths, but the filer would be up and running quicker than if you were to have to restore the whole root volume first, and you would not be using two 72Gb disks for 40mb of data. -----Original Message----- From: Alan McLachlan [mailto:amclachlan@asi.com.au] Sent: 13 February 2003 01:29 To: Charles Bartels; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: using vol0 Hi Charles, Don't understand why you're asking this. In most cases that I'm aware of vol0 is used for data. In some cluster scenarious, particularly with local or remote syncmirror, it becomes necessary to burn two disks to have a root volume that's just for the filer's config files - usually only on one half of the cluster. I can't imagine apart from that why someone would want to consume two whole drives for the 40MB or so of data in the /etc directory. In fact, many of my customers have only configured a second volume in order to support a database. User home directories and workgroup data stay on vol0. You should of course make use of qutoa'd qtrees within vol0 extensively to prevent it filling up - theoretically this could cause a panic in some circumstances although Data OnTap is much more robust than a Unix or Linux in this regard. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- On a related note, one issue that crops up from time to time is that when a filer is used to replace a bunch of Windows fileservers on a large CIFS network, it can happen that well-meaning Domain Admins that don't directly look after the filer and aren't trained in Data OnTAP may accidently corrupt config files in the /etc directory. It would be nice to restrict access to just a select group of trained admins. Using a Windows domain group is not the answer, as any Domain Admin can take ownership of the resource. A solution is to turn the /etc directory into a unix security style qtree: * make a new qtree called say "etcnew" * copy the files from /etc to /etcnew * rename /etc to "etcold" * rename /etcnew to "etc" * set the security style of etc to unix This works even if you only have a CIFS licence. You should then install ssaccess on a workstation to manage the security on the /etc qtree. Then, in the usermap.cfg file in /etc put an entry for each trusted admin like so: *\root => nobody (security defensive entry) DOMAIN\fred => root DOMAIN\wilma => root As the final step, set options wafl.nt_admin_priv_map_to_root to OFF. The result is that, in the example above, only the domain users "fred" and "wilma" can make changes to the /etc directory. For all the other resources on the filer (which have NTFS security style), normal domain security rules apply. -----Original Message----- From: Charles Bartels [mailto:cbartels@openharbor.com] Sent: Wednesday, 12 February 2003 3:45 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: using vol0 Hi, I'm configuring an F810 and space is going to be a little tight. How do people feel about adding disks to vol0 and using that instead of creating a whole separate volume (and burning a another parity disk) ? -Charles Bartels **** 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 ****

3 2

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