toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13523 discussions

RE: Real Time Virus Scanning with F820 and Norton AV
by tedvanegas 11 Feb '03

11 Feb '03

Right now we are evaluating Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine 4.0, it specifically supports the NetApp filers; and runs in real time. So far our testing of the product has gone well. Ted -----Original Message----- From: Pucky, Todd M. [mailto:Puckyt@timken.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 12:49 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Real Time Virus Scanning with F820 and Norton AV Has anyone had success running real time virus scanning on cifs shares on an F820 (Ontap 6.1.2.R1) or any other filer? I have a dedicated Windows 2000 server with Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition 7.xx, but I have not been able to get real time virus scanning to work correctly. How do you register the filer with the virus scanning software? Do you have to use mapped drives on the Windows 2000 virus scanning server that point to volumes on the filer? Are most of you using real time scanning on your filers or do you use scheduled or manual virus scans? Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, > Todd Pucky > The Timken Company > Global Information Systems > Phone: 330.471.4583 > E-Mail: puckyt(a)timken.com ********************************************************************** This message and any attachments are intended for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not forward, copy, print, use or disclose this communication to others; also please notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. The Timken Company **********************************************************************

1 0

RE: NDMP issues with 6.2.x of DataONTAP
by Jay Newton (Email) 11 Feb '03

11 Feb '03

It's a special release to fix this bug. The bug number is 85559. You have to do a priv set diag and run rtag -t malloc. Look for JAVA having to do with NDMP. If you see this line, watch it for a day or 2. If the numbers increment, you have the leak. You really should never see the JAVA NDMP tape device line at all. Hope this helps! -----Original Message----- From: Francett, Robert D (SAIC) [mailto:FranceRD@BP.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:44 PM To: 'Jay Newton (Email)'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: NDMP issues with 6.2.x of DataONTAP Jay, Checking to see if this is affecting us, however I could not find info on DOT 6.2.2d8 on NOW. Do you know the bug number of the NDMP memory problem? Thanks, Bob Francett BP Exploration -----Original Message----- From: Jay Newton (Email) [mailto:jnewton@chkenergy.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 7:33 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: NDMP issues with 6.2.x of DataONTAP We are experiencing issues with NDMP backups. I'm hoping other people in this group have seen it as well and may have suggestions for us to try. Here's an explanation of what has happened. On 12-13-2002 we upgraded from 6.1.3r2 to 6.2.1r2 to fix issues with Autosupports not being sent in the event of hardware failure. A couple of things went sour after the upgrade. Our SnapManager for Exchange performance went down more than 30%, NDMP backups would run slow intermittently, and general Filer performance got worse. NetApp discovered a memory leak in 6.2.1r2 in the NDMP daemon about the same time we upgraded to 6.2.1r2. We had to upgrade to 6.2.2d8 to fix that issue. However, a backup or two will invariably run slower than the rest. If the backup is restarted, it usually picks up speed and runs normally. By slow I mean 10 gigs in 10 hours on a DLT8000 drive. I used to get 20-30 gig per hour before we upgraded to 6.2.1r2. This can happen with each of the 4 DLT8000 drives attached to the Filer meaning that I can't pin the problem to a bad piece of hardware. Today we have discovered that snapshots for backup are not deleting correctly. The NDMPD process was holding the snapshot hostage. A volume ran out of space due to this issue. We were able to kill the NDMPD sessions that were holding the snapshot open and the snapshot deleted normally. Has anyone else experienced similar issues? For those of you running SnapManager for Exchange, how big are your databases and how long does it take to verify them? Also, those who run multiple backups, what is your CPU utilization like when running 4 simultaneous backups and what is your tape throughput? DataONTAP 6.2.2d8 Commvault Galaxy 3.7.1 SP4 ATL P2000 library with 4 DLT8000 drives attached to Filer on 2 SCSI HVD controllers (2 drives per controller) Thanks! Jay Newton Systems Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation Natural Gas - Natural Advantages Building 6112, Room 114 (405)848-8000 ext. 683 jnewton(a)chkenergy.com

1 0

RE: NDMP issues with 6.2.x of DataONTAP
by Francett, Robert D (SAIC) 11 Feb '03

11 Feb '03

Jay, Checking to see if this is affecting us, however I could not find info on DOT 6.2.2d8 on NOW. Do you know the bug number of the NDMP memory problem? Thanks, Bob Francett BP Exploration -----Original Message----- From: Jay Newton (Email) [mailto:jnewton@chkenergy.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 7:33 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: NDMP issues with 6.2.x of DataONTAP We are experiencing issues with NDMP backups. I'm hoping other people in this group have seen it as well and may have suggestions for us to try. Here's an explanation of what has happened. On 12-13-2002 we upgraded from 6.1.3r2 to 6.2.1r2 to fix issues with Autosupports not being sent in the event of hardware failure. A couple of things went sour after the upgrade. Our SnapManager for Exchange performance went down more than 30%, NDMP backups would run slow intermittently, and general Filer performance got worse. NetApp discovered a memory leak in 6.2.1r2 in the NDMP daemon about the same time we upgraded to 6.2.1r2. We had to upgrade to 6.2.2d8 to fix that issue. However, a backup or two will invariably run slower than the rest. If the backup is restarted, it usually picks up speed and runs normally. By slow I mean 10 gigs in 10 hours on a DLT8000 drive. I used to get 20-30 gig per hour before we upgraded to 6.2.1r2. This can happen with each of the 4 DLT8000 drives attached to the Filer meaning that I can't pin the problem to a bad piece of hardware. Today we have discovered that snapshots for backup are not deleting correctly. The NDMPD process was holding the snapshot hostage. A volume ran out of space due to this issue. We were able to kill the NDMPD sessions that were holding the snapshot open and the snapshot deleted normally. Has anyone else experienced similar issues? For those of you running SnapManager for Exchange, how big are your databases and how long does it take to verify them? Also, those who run multiple backups, what is your CPU utilization like when running 4 simultaneous backups and what is your tape throughput? DataONTAP 6.2.2d8 Commvault Galaxy 3.7.1 SP4 ATL P2000 library with 4 DLT8000 drives attached to Filer on 2 SCSI HVD controllers (2 drives per controller) Thanks! Jay Newton Systems Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation Natural Gas - Natural Advantages Building 6112, Room 114 (405)848-8000 ext. 683 jnewton(a)chkenergy.com

1 0

RE: spam
by Carl R. Friend 11 Feb '03

11 Feb '03

James Beal writes: >I refer the gentleman to Kevin's message below and point out that >Kevin and the mathworks are doing the community a favour so I am >willing to give him a reasonable amount of time to fix it as his not >paid to fix this problem. We just turned SpamAssassin back on again. The S/N ratio ought to improve some. +----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+ | Carl Richard Friend (UNIX Sysadmin) | The MathWorks | | Minicomputer Collector / Enthusiast | Natick, Massachusetts | | mailto:carl_friend@mathworks.com +-----------------------+ | http://users.rcn.com/crfriend/museum/ | ICBM: 42:18N 71:21W | +----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+

1 0

spam
by Charles Bartels 11 Feb '03

11 Feb '03

It would be nice if the administrator of this list put in some spam control. It's getting a bit ridiculous. What does everyone else think? -Charles Bartels

5 4

RE: spam
by Toal, Dave 11 Feb '03

11 Feb '03

419 spam, collect the whole set! Maybe forwarding them to each other would be best? Mu, it's a chuckle. vol0, as long as it doesn't fill up from snapshots or data, shouldn't be a problem. Several of the filers I work on have root vols named something else entirely: /images or whatever, the same sizes as the other, data-only, vols on the box. -----Original Message----- From: Charles Bartels To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Sent: 2/11/03 11:15 AM Subject: spam It would be nice if the administrator of this list put in some spam control. It's getting a bit ridiculous. What does everyone else think? -Charles Bartels

1 0

RE: spam
by Joseph Bishop 11 Feb '03

11 Feb '03

Even here at work where people are paid to eliminate Spam...we still get it. At 04:47 PM 2/11/03 +0000, James Beal wrote: > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >I refer the gentleman to Kevin's message below and point out that >Kevin and the mathworks are doing the community a favour so I am >willing to give him a reasonable amount of time to fix it as his not >paid to fix this problem. > >If you have been a mail admin looking after a large distribution list >you will know that is not a zero effort exercise. > > > >From: Charles Bartels [mailto:cbartels@openharbor.com] >Sent: 11 February 2003 16:16 >To: toasters(a)mathworks.com >Subject: spam > > > > >It would be nice if the administrator of this list put in some spam >control. It's getting a bit ridiculous. >What does everyone else think? >- -Charles Bartels > > >- -----Original Message----- >From: Kevin Davis [mailto:kdavis@mathworks.com] >Sent: 17 January 2003 15:14 >To: toasters(a)mathworks.com >Subject: Toasters list is not dead yet! > > >Sorry for the disappearance of the list this past week, all. It >seems a >majordomo error went undetected, and all posts were aborted as they >were being >detected as spam. > >We're working to fix it. In the meantime, some junk _may_ sneak >through. > >- -- > >________________________________________________ > >Kevin Davis The MathWorks >508.647.7660 Natick, MA 01760 > http://www.mathworks.com >UNIX Administrator > >________________________________________________ > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: PGP 7.1.1 > >iQA/AwUBPkkp0Twjg8ghD/dFEQIPZQCglScXjYZQOtCDK8vvTcj8+A0o6uAAoMWw >iWm8pFOlGf0hsIi2OJ1h3/VF >=hrVj >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Joseph Bishop ICIS Data Access Services (DTA) joseph.bishop(a)jpl.nasa.gov voice (818) 354-9539 pager 8864354(a)skytel.com

1 0

RE: spam
by Mike Sphar 11 Feb '03

11 Feb '03

If memory serves, this happens because when the Spam controls were put in place (only registered subscribers can post), then Netapp employees were no longer able to post because they receive the list through an internal remailer/exploder. It was decided at the time that having Netapp able to post was more important than preventing the occasional Spam. What I find really interesting is that the only Spam we ever seem to get is variations on the Nigerian thing. I guess nobody thinks Network Appliance administrators need to make money fast, or make certain things bigger. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Remedy, a BMC Software Company -----Original Message----- From: Charles Bartels [mailto:cbartels@openharbor.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:16 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: spam It would be nice if the administrator of this list put in some spam control. It's getting a bit ridiculous. What does everyone else think? -Charles Bartels

1 0

RE: spam
by James Beal 11 Feb '03

11 Feb '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I refer the gentleman to Kevin's message below and point out that Kevin and the mathworks are doing the community a favour so I am willing to give him a reasonable amount of time to fix it as his not paid to fix this problem. If you have been a mail admin looking after a large distribution list you will know that is not a zero effort exercise. From: Charles Bartels [mailto:cbartels@openharbor.com] Sent: 11 February 2003 16:16 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: spam It would be nice if the administrator of this list put in some spam control. It's getting a bit ridiculous. What does everyone else think? - -Charles Bartels - -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Davis [mailto:kdavis@mathworks.com] Sent: 17 January 2003 15:14 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Toasters list is not dead yet! Sorry for the disappearance of the list this past week, all. It seems a majordomo error went undetected, and all posts were aborted as they were being detected as spam. We're working to fix it. In the meantime, some junk _may_ sneak through. - -- ________________________________________________ Kevin Davis The MathWorks 508.647.7660 Natick, MA 01760 http://www.mathworks.com UNIX Administrator ________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.1.1 iQA/AwUBPkkp0Twjg8ghD/dFEQIPZQCglScXjYZQOtCDK8vvTcj8+A0o6uAAoMWw iWm8pFOlGf0hsIi2OJ1h3/VF =hrVj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

WILL THIS BE YOU?
by Kayode Coker 11 Feb '03

11 Feb '03

FROM THE OFFICE OF BARRISTER KAYODE COKER TEL/FAX:+234-1-4400357 EMAIL:kaycoker@ Attn: I am Barrister Kayode Coker the attorney to Late F. T Williams, I am writing this letter to solicit for support and assistance from you to transfer out a business of mutual benefit and concern, Lying unaccounted for is the sum of US$3.7million in deposit made by my client in a trust account that is domicile for a period running 2 years. Late Dr. F .T williams who was a former expertriate official/employee with the National Petroleum corporation. He died with his wife and two children in a tragic road accident while on his way to his onshore residence in Port harcourt at Okumagba in september 15th 2001. The bank has been expecting his next of kin to come and lay a claim to the fund but till now no one or group has written in respect of the case, the bank has issued me an ultimatum to seek out the relative of my client or they would have the account liquidated and the funds donated to the federal treasury. Hence I have decided to carry out a rigorous research via the internet for Anyone whose name is the same with my clients first name, so if you recieve this mail, it's simply because you bear the same first name with my client and I am asking you to help ensure that a man who worked hard for his money and who is not a citizen of this country should not have his money confisticated by those who are not related to him. I would want me and you to work together in full colaboration to actualise the funds successful transfer into your account as next of kin, as indicated in the signatory form he filled with the bank guideline. Kindly note that this is a priviledged information and should be treated as such. I wait your response in anticipation. Best Regards Kayode Coker (esq)

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