toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13523 discussions

Bakbone and Netapp
by Levent Kaptanoglu 04 Jan '03

04 Jan '03

Hello , My company is providing security and storage solutions and we are a Netapp Reseller. Nowadays we are looking for a backup software to expand our storage solutions and I am examining Bakbone's Netvault . I read some guides , whitepapers , reports which I have received from Bakbone and they are all positive but I need some real world experience. Any positive/negative feedback from you about using Bakbone with Filer or any other storage products would be very helpful. Thanks in advance Levent Kaptanoglu System Engineer PROLINK *:+90 216 5737300 ext.108 *:+90 532 4507283 *:+90 216 5737307 *:www.prolink.com.tr

2 1

RE: accessing local group
by Bui, Marcus 02 Jan '03

02 Jan '03

I can mapped to the ETC folder, but unable to view/change the contents. Get 'access denied'. -----Original Message----- From: Fox, Adam [mailto:Adam.Fox@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 2:49 PM To: 'Bui, Marcus' Subject: RE: accessing local group The key is to be in the Local Adminstrators group. When you changed domains, perhaps this wasn't updated. Try taking a peek at the filer etc\lclgroups.cfg on the filer and look at the SIDs under the Administrators group. You can use the cifs lookup command to decode the SIDs. If the Domain Admins Group isn't there, fix it by changing the SIDs. BE VERY CAREFUL and have your old copy of this file available either by copying it or having a known good copy in a snapshot because you want to be careful and be able to fall back. In order to make CIFS see changes in this file, you must terminate and restart cifs (at least it's quicker than a reboot). Hope this helps. You may want to consider calling NTAP to walk you through it, but that's how I would approach it. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Bui, Marcus [mailto:Marcus_Bui@AIMFUNDS.COM] Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 2:39 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: accessing local group All, I have a test F85 (ONTAP 6.2.2) in an NT4 Domain but I am unable to access the local group on the filer. The box was previously in W2K AD but was moved to an NT4 domain. The filer is listed in the domain. I logged as Domain Admin but still get 'access denied' when trying to access the filer's local group. Did 'cifs testdc' and it is authenticating to the correct DC. Any suggestions is appreciated. thanks, Marcus Bui

2 1

sizing for space_reservation
by Nicko Demeter 02 Jan '03

02 Jan '03

I have an F840c filer and I am trying to create a VLD drive on another host. Everything is peachy except that I don't have enough disk space. VLD apparently needs space_reservation on but I cannot turn it on because of space. Here's a df -r: Filesystem kbytes used avail reserved Mounted on /vol/vol0/ 551319184 448615848 102691880 11456 /vol/vol0/ /vol/vol0/.snapshot 137829796 74526472 63303324 0 /vol/vol0/.snapshot and here's what I get after trying to turn on space_reservation: vol options: Option 'space_reservations' could not be set. Volume does not have enough free disk space. Is there a sizing tool that I can put my numbers in and tell me how much free or additional space I need to be able to turn on space_reservations? TIA. Nicko

1 0

accessing local group
by Bui, Marcus 02 Jan '03

02 Jan '03

All, I have a test F85 (ONTAP 6.2.2) in an NT4 Domain but I am unable to access the local group on the filer. The box was previously in W2K AD but was moved to an NT4 domain. The filer is listed in the domain. I logged as Domain Admin but still get 'access denied' when trying to access the filer's local group. Did 'cifs testdc' and it is authenticating to the correct DC. Any suggestions is appreciated. thanks, Marcus Bui

1 0

CONGRATULATIONS!!!
by ALPHA LOTTERY INTERNATIONAL 02 Jan '03

02 Jan '03

ALPHA LOTTERY INTERNATIONAL FROM: INTERNATIONAL PROMOTION/PRIZE AWARD DEPT. REF: OGS/2311786008/01 BATCH: 14/011/IPD /NL RE: WINNING NOTIFICATION / FINAL NOTICE Sir/Madam We are pleased to inform you of the result of the of the Lottery Winners International programs held on the 1st of January 2003. Your e-mail address attached to ticket number 20511465886-629 with serial number 3772-99 drew lucky numbers 7-14-17-23-31-22 which consequently won in the 2nd category, you have therefore been approved for a lump sum pay out of 1,000,000.00 Euro. (One Million Euro) CONGRATULATIONS!!! Due to mix up of some numbers and names, we ask that you keep your winning information confidential until your claims has been processed and your money Remitted to you. This is part of our security protocol to avoid double claiming and unwarranted abuse of this program by some participants. All participants were selected through a computer ballot system drawn from over 100,000 company and 50,000,000 individual email addresses and names from all over the world. This promotional program takes place every three year. We hope with part of your winning you will take part in our end of year 50 million Euro International lottery. To file for your claim, please contact our fiducially agent MR DUCK HAVARD of the, NORTH ATLANTIC CONSULTANCY TEL:+31-627 431 470 FAX:+31-641 744 645 Email: duckhavard(a)netscape.net Remember, all winning must be claimed not later than 31st of January 2003. After this date all unclaimed funds will be included in the next stake. Please note in order to avoid unnecessary delays and complications please remember to quote your reference number and batch numbers in all correspondence. Furthermore, should there be any change of address do inform our agent as soon as possible. Congratulations once more from our members of staff and thank you for being part of our promotional program. Note: Anybody under the age of 18 is automatically disqualified. Sincerely yours, Mrs. Elizabeth Van Bosch Lottery Coordinator.

1 0

gigabit disappointment
by Piotr KUCHARSKI 31 Dec '02

31 Dec '02

Welcome toasters, I must say I'm pretty disappointed with gigabit. Having ATM OC3 in filer and OC12 in Solaris 2.6 I was getting 12MB/s read. After installing gigabit cards in both it is now max 15MB/s -- I was rather expecting more than 30MB/s. UDP/TCP no matter (well, TCP is a bit slower), rsize and wsize are 32k, so is xfersize. I start to seriously consider buying OC12 for filer and use it for (more or less) back to back connection with that Sun, which might seem to be more effective. (I'll try to get such card for testing, though.) Gigabit in Sun is SunGigabit, in filer is GbE-II in slot 8 (e8: GbE-II is self-configuring - mediatype ignored, so I cannot disable negotation, like I used to in FE). I'm waiting for Sun GigaSwift and perhaps GbE-III, but don't know if it's going to help. Any pieces of advice, perhaps? p. PS Sun processors are 4x450MHz, latest Solaris/GbE patches applied, filer is 740 with 6.2.1 -- Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -- Commissioner Pravin Lal http://nerdquiz.sgh.waw.pl/ -- polska wersja quizu dla nerdów ;)

1 0

Slow Solaris 2.6 NFS client
by Dan O'Brien 31 Dec '02

31 Dec '02

Hello, We are having trouble with a Solaris client having slow read performance. Both the Filer, F630 running 5.3.6R2, and Solaris, Ultra 2 running 2.6, client are on 100BT networks coupled thru Linksys EF24G2 Fast Etherswitch. I looked at the obvious, all ethernet devices are in 100BT mode, running full duplex. SUNW,hme0: Using Internal Transceiver SUNW,hme0: 100 Mbps full-duplex Link Up slot 4: 10BaseT/100BaseTX Quad-Ethernet Controller e4a MAC Address: 00:c0:95:e0:2f:48 (100tx-fd-up) Both are running V3 NFS over UDP. I set the filer to nfs.udp.xfersize=8192. (We changed this from the default value with only small improvement in performance.) The filer is serving just a few clients and at this point the only real, demanding, client is this one Sun. Reads are quote slow. Here's what the filer says during this time: mlswfsa> sysstat CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 1% 0 0 0 0 2 42 42 0 0 >60 1% 0 0 0 0 2 45 52 0 0 >60 1% 0 0 0 0 1 27 27 0 0 >60 1% 2 0 0 1 2 15 14 0 0 >60 1% 0 0 0 0 2 43 52 0 0 >60 3% 18 0 0 3 52 197 83 0 0 >60 I do see a some timeouts and retrans on the Solaris box: Client rpc: Connection oriented: calls badcalls badxids timeouts newcreds badverfs 929582 9 1 8 0 0 timers cantconn nomem interrupts 0 0 0 1 Connectionless: calls badcalls retrans badxids timeouts newcreds 28489619 630 323405 5 324069 0 badverfs timers nomem cantsend 0 238992 0 0 Any pointers? 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: Slow Solaris 2.6 NFS client
by Toal, Dave 30 Dec '02

30 Dec '02

Dan, What does iostat -xnp 1 on the sun box look like? Are nfs mounts at 100% busy? 2.6 is a real dog when it comes to concurrent nfs i/o; start a cp in a mounted dir, and ls (from another terminal, cd to that same dir) will hang for 30 seconds sometimes. 2.8, no problem. -- Dave Toal Systems Architect Thomson & Thomson N. Quincy, MA -----Original Message----- From: Dan O'Brien To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Cc: Wijit Siripun Sent: 12/30/02 4:17 PM Subject: Slow Solaris 2.6 NFS client Hello, We are having trouble with a Solaris client having slow read performance. Both the Filer, F630 running 5.3.6R2, and Solaris, Ultra 2 running 2.6, client are on 100BT networks coupled thru Linksys EF24G2 Fast Etherswitch. I looked at the obvious, all ethernet devices are in 100BT mode, running full duplex. SUNW,hme0: Using Internal Transceiver SUNW,hme0: 100 Mbps full-duplex Link Up slot 4: 10BaseT/100BaseTX Quad-Ethernet Controller e4a MAC Address: 00:c0:95:e0:2f:48 (100tx-fd-up) Both are running V3 NFS over UDP. I set the filer to nfs.udp.xfersize=8192. (We changed this from the default value with only small improvement in performance.) The filer is serving just a few clients and at this point the only real, demanding, client is this one Sun. Reads are quote slow. Here's what the filer says during this time: mlswfsa> sysstat CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 1% 0 0 0 0 2 42 42 0 0 >60 1% 0 0 0 0 2 45 52 0 0 >60 1% 0 0 0 0 1 27 27 0 0 >60 1% 2 0 0 1 2 15 14 0 0 >60 1% 0 0 0 0 2 43 52 0 0 >60 3% 18 0 0 3 52 197 83 0 0 >60 I do see a some timeouts and retrans on the Solaris box: Client rpc: Connection oriented: calls badcalls badxids timeouts newcreds badverfs 929582 9 1 8 0 0 timers cantconn nomem interrupts 0 0 0 1 Connectionless: calls badcalls retrans badxids timeouts newcreds 28489619 630 323405 5 324069 0 badverfs timers nomem cantsend 0 238992 0 0 Any pointers? Thanks in advance. Dan O'Brien, dmobrien(a)lcsi.net Cell: 614-783-4859 Work: 614-476-8473 Home: 740-927-2178 Pataskala, OH

1 0

Weird error
by July ＠ Zerowait 30 Dec '02

30 Dec '02

Hi. Anyone ever seen output like this on booting a F700 series filer? If so, how do I get rid of it!!!? TIA-- July ----------------------- NetApp Release 6.2.1: Tue Jun 25 01:22:35 PDT 2002 Copyright (c) 1992-2002 Network Appliance, Inc. Starting boot on Thu Dec 26 16:56:30 GMT 2002 Thu Dec 26 16:57:09 GMT [net_e0:info]: Ethernet e0: Link up. Thu Dec 26 16:57:09 GMT [snmp.link.up:debug]: Interface 1 is up fm_run: completed stage B4ASSIM Thu Dec 26 16:57:19 GMT [fmmbx_instanceWorke:info]: Disk 7.4 is a primary mailbo x disk Thu Dec 26 16:57:19 GMT [fmmbx_instanceWorke:info]: Disk 7.3 is a primary mailbo x disk Thu Dec 26 16:57:19 GMT [fmmbx_instanceWorke:info]: normal mailbox instance on p rimary side fm_run: completed stage 1 processing Loading volume vol0 fm_run: completed stage 2 processing fm_run: completed stage 3 processing Thu Dec 26 16:57:22 GMT [rc:notice]: The system was down for 136 seconds Thu Dec 26 16:57:26 GMT [ems.engine.startReplay:info]: Replay begins for EMS boo t-time cache Thu Dec 26 16:57:26 GMT [ems.engine.endReplay:info]: Replay ends for EMS boot-ti me cache July Linett Zerowait Corporation tel: 302.266.9408

2 1

NearStore questions
by Haber, David J. 27 Dec '02

27 Dec '02

I'm setting up a new R100 and I'm hoping someone can clarify a few things for me: 1. I was told by a NetApp sales engineer to reserve 4 disks for spares. This sounded like overkill to me. Does anyone have an opinion about this? 2. After the NearStore disks are right sized, how much usable space is left? 3. Is it a bad thing to have the root volume contain data? I will be using the NearStore to store radiology images. The image files are large, static files.

4 3

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