toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13514 discussions

CIFS Directory Sizes
by Drew O'Donnell 09 Oct '02

09 Oct '02

Toasters, Anyone know of any good programs to use to check the directory size of a CIFS share that the administrators do not have access to? We use Security Explorer to change the security of shares where we have this situation. We are familiar with diruse, which works great, but will only run under the context of the user executing it. Thanks Drew

1 0

Sybase Backup server and filer
by Bruno Boyer 09 Oct '02

09 Oct '02

We are testing how to backup our Sybase db (dump) on a NFS mounted partition (with a filer). We simulate an NFS problem (by disconnecting the network link) during the backup, so the Backup Server falls in sleep state, the transaction log continues to increase and then Sybase tries to backup it, whereas the Backup Server is still sleeping. During the test, Sybase doesn't detect that the NFS server was not responding. How can I configure (is it possible) my Sybase to detect the problem and tell the backup server to stop instead of falling in sleeping mode ? How can I configure my Sybase server to backup my log transaction in another place (locally) in this case ? Is there an other strategy to backup our database on a filer ? We are running on Solaris 2.6, ASE 11.9.2, F840 Thanks Bruno ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/

1 0

NFS tuning parameters for AIX version 5.1
by sanjay swamy 09 Oct '02

09 Oct '02

Have anyone installed Netapp Filers with IBM rs6000 server in a very high oltp environment. We are runing AIX version 5.1 . Netapp site does not have any recomendations for AIX . Can someone provide us with the recomended setings for NFS parameters on AIX version 5.1 & also recomended pathes for NFS , gigabit card & kernel for performance. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos, & more faith.yahoo.com

1 0

Root permissions failing.
by Chris Josephes 08 Oct '02

08 Oct '02

I have one Solaris host using a NetApp for home directories. I want to transition the content over to a newer NetApp, and take the other system out of commision. However, when I tried to rsync the files, it complained about permissions errors. I tried a manual chown, which failed, and I discovered that chmod fails as well. So, it would look like the Solaris client does not have root permissions on the NetApp. But, the export configs on both NetApps are identical, and I did specify root access in the exports file (and tried a couple of variations using "exportfs -i", including specifying the whole class C the Solaris host was in). Hostname resolution is going through the local files table, and then DNS. The new NetApp and the Solaris client both have host table entries for the IP of the other host. The new NetApp is a 720, running 5.3.6r1. Any ideas? -- _______________ Chris Josephes __/ MRNet/Onvoy \ chrisj(a)mr.net __/ www.onvoy.com / \________________/

1 1

RE: Root permissions failing.
by Toal, Dave 08 Oct '02

08 Oct '02

Chris, To allow world read-write access, try exportfs with 'exportfs -i -o anon=0 /vol/volname'? -----Original Message----- From: Chris Josephes To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Sent: 10/7/02 10:03 PM Subject: Root permissions failing. I have one Solaris host using a NetApp for home directories. I want to transition the content over to a newer NetApp, and take the other system out of commision. However, when I tried to rsync the files, it complained about permissions errors. I tried a manual chown, which failed, and I discovered that chmod fails as well. So, it would look like the Solaris client does not have root permissions on the NetApp. But, the export configs on both NetApps are identical, and I did specify root access in the exports file (and tried a couple of variations using "exportfs -i", including specifying the whole class C the Solaris host was in). Hostname resolution is going through the local files table, and then DNS. The new NetApp and the Solaris client both have host table entries for the IP of the other host. The new NetApp is a 720, running 5.3.6r1. Any ideas? -- _______________ Chris Josephes __/ MRNet/Onvoy \ chrisj(a)mr.net __/ www.onvoy.com / \________________/

1 0

RE: upgrading the ONTAP version
by Paul Caron 07 Oct '02

07 Oct '02

That fixed it. >From: "Potakamuri, Sreenivasa" <Sreenivasa.Potakamuri(a)netapp.com> >To: "'Paul Caron'" <caron(a)sig.com> >Subject: RE: upgrading the ONTAP version >Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:43:58 -0700 >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >Please remove the following line from /etc/registry.local file manually. > > options.cifs.access_logging.buffer_size=4096 > >That should fix your problem. We have filed a bug (number: 60595) for this. >We will make it online soon. > > >Please let me know the result after removing the line. > > >Thanks, >Sreeni

1 0

Summary: Gig Enet and Filer NFS problems
by Darragh, Stephen J 07 Oct '02

07 Oct '02

> Problem: > Clients using nfs (Sun and HP unix workstations) were taking much > longer to open files. > Home, Tools, and Project data was moved to the filer and it was > running GigE > To open a drawing, it took 2hrs vs 20min on a older Sun server > running 100mb ethernet. > Data OnTap v6.1.2R1 > > Once we made changes, it now takes 18min to open the same drawing (this is > a > normal time for the types of schmetics they are working on). > > Solution (so far): > Use options nfs.udp.xfersize 8192 (instead of the default 32768) > Also, set the filer to match the cisco switch for flow control > (cisco has send flow, filer now has receive) > > ToDo: > Investigation to see if full flow control will improve performance > even more. > Try enabling TCP over nfs > Make sure that the xfersize does not serously affect the few > machines we have on GigE that mount from the filer > > Thanks to the following for all the help and email (hope I didn't forget > anyone). > > Philip Meidell > John F. Detke > Paul Jones > Neil Stichbury > Mike Ball > Adam Fox > Neil Stichbury > devnull(a)adc.idt.com (whoever your are :-) > > ----------------- Details from some of the responses > > The major known issue is with NFS over UDP and packet drops causing the > UDP cascading error problem. If you are running NFS over UDP I'd strongly > suggest switching to NFS over TCP. > > I believe this is a buffering issue, where the Gig interface is > "overloading" a buffer somewhere on its way to a 100M interface, and > packets gets dropped. When that happens the entire UDP datagram gets > resent. Also check rsize/wsize on the client, it may work better set to > 8k, rather than the (default?) 32KB. > > This problem is related to network hardware, I've seen in most often on > Cisco gear but it happens with others too. A quick nfsstat on client(s) > can show the problem, look for retrans stats. > --------- > We had a similar problem and solved it by changing the UDP transfer size. > Have a look at bug ID 29146 which includes the following :- > > "In Data ONTAP 5.3.4 and earlier releases the default UDP transfer size > is > > 8192. In 5.3.5 and later releases the default is 32768. This larger value > improves performance in some situations, but may cause problems in others. > > Problem 1 - 100-Mbit client is reading from Gigabit interface With the > larger > default, problems may result when the Gigabit interface on the filer is > sending > to a 100-Mbit client. Switches can drop packets on the outbound 100-Mbit > port > because too many packets become queued due to the difference in line > speeds > and > the larger transfer size. Few complete 32K UDP datagrams are received by > the > > client, and the client assumes the filer has gone away and increases its > delay > between retries. Poor performance may be seen. If a client does not > specify > the > rsize and wsize parameters in the mount command, the filer's default UDP > transfer size is used. If a client does specify rsize and wsize, and the > values > are larger than the default, then the default is used. This means that you > may > see problems after you upgrade from 5.3.4 (or earlier release) to 5.3.5 > (or > later release) if the resulting transfer size is 32768. Problem 2 - > Multiple > > clients are reading from 100-Mbit interface When the UDP transfer size is > 32768 > and multiple clients are reading from a 100-Mbit interface, the driver > transmit > queue on the filer can overflow more readily and packets may be discarded. > This > can lead to erratic or poor performance on the clients." > > --- > First thing to check in GigE is typically flow control settings on the > switch, filer, and client side. Typically it's best to have both > transmit and receive flow control turned on. On the filer, it's > called full flowcontrol. That isn't the default for some switch > vendors and OS NICs. > > It's at least a start. Like most performance issues, you may > have to work several rounds of stuff to find the culprit. Before > you open a case with NTAP, which I strongly suggest, you may need > to quantify your performance in some way. MB/sec is a good one. > By putting a value on your performance it's easier to figure out > what areas could be wrong and also easier to figure out when > you can't get anymore based on your environment. That's the thing > with Gigabit, most clients can't max it out so you will hit a ceiling > for a single client that is less than the capacity of the wire. > Slower forms of Ethernet were easier in this way because you knew > pretty much where the ceiling was. > > --- > now that you have mentioned running Sun boxes try this > in the /etc/system file of one of them and see if you perceive > a performance improvement. > > set sq_max_size=2048 > set nstrpush = 90 > set nfs:nfs3_max_threads = 24 > set nfs:nfs3_nra = 10 > set nfs:nfs_max_threads = 24 > set nfs:nfs_nra = 10 > --- > > When you're using NFS over UDP with disparate speeds, i.e. gigabit to the > switch, then fast ethernet to clients, you can address performance > problems > in > one of two ways: > > 1) If all of your client machines are on fast ethernet (yep, that means NO > > gigabit clients) the simple approach is to set the filer option > > options nfs.udp.xfersize 8192 > > If you do have gigabit clients, doing the above will impact performance to > them, > in which case you have to do the more management intensive step two... > > 2) If you have some gigabit client machines, add the following options to > the > mount command on each 100 Mbit client machine: > wsize=8192,rsize=8192 > > >

1 0

Samba server as PDC ?
by Frank Bonnet 07 Oct '02

07 Oct '02

Hi Does anybody has already used a samba server as PDC for a filer ? We actually use samba servers with LDAP (openldap) authentication and I wonder if it would be possible to use a filer in such configuration ? Actually PCs use samba servers as PDC, the samba servers use NFS to store user's data thru NFS mounts. I know it is far to be the best configuration and I would like to let PC users use SMB directly to the filer using samba servers as PDC only. infos welcome. Thanks a lot -- Frank Bonnet

3 3

is it bad that disk scrubs don't finish
by Daniel Finn 07 Oct '02

07 Oct '02

More often than not the disk scrubbing on the netapps that I have don't finish. I assume this is because most of them see pretty high I/O and the netapp puts that I/O in higher order than the disk scrub. The disk scrub can be though of as a parity check correct?

2 1

Summary: Gig Enet and Filer NFS problems
by Darragh, Stephen J 05 Oct '02

05 Oct '02

> Problem: > Clients using nfs (Sun and HP unix workstations) were taking much > longer to open files. > Home, Tools, and Project data was moved to the filer and it was > running GigE > To open a drawing, it took 2hrs vs 20min on a older Sun server > running 100mb ethernet. > Data OnTap v6.1.2R1 > > Once we made changes, it now takes 18min to open the same drawing > (this is anormal time for the types of schmetics they are working on). > > Solution (so far): > Use options nfs.udp.xfersize 8192 (instead of the default 32768) > Also, set the filer to match the cisco switch for flow control > (cisco has send flow, filer now has receive) > > ToDo: > Investigation to see if full flow control will improve performance > Try enabling TCP over nfs > Make sure that the xfersize does not serously affect the few > machines we have on GigE that mount from the filer > > Thanks to the following for all the help and email (hope I didn't forget > anyone). > > Philip Meidell > John F. Detke > Paul Jones > Neil Stichbury > Mike Ball > Adam Fox > devnull(a)adc.idt.com (whoever your are :-) > > ----------------- Details from some of the responses > > The major known issue is with NFS over UDP and packet drops causing the > UDP cascading error problem. If you are running NFS over UDP I'd strongly > suggest switching to NFS over TCP. > > I believe this is a buffering issue, where the Gig interface is > "overloading" a buffer somewhere on its way to a 100M interface, and > packets gets dropped. When that happens the entire UDP datagram gets > resent. Also check rsize/wsize on the client, it may work better set to > 8k, rather than the (default?) 32KB. > > This problem is related to network hardware, I've seen in most often on > Cisco gear but it happens with others too. A quick nfsstat on client(s) > can show the problem, look for retrans stats. > --------- > We had a similar problem and solved it by changing the UDP transfer size. > Have a look at bug ID 29146 which includes the following :- > > "In Data ONTAP 5.3.4 and earlier releases the default UDP transfer size > is > > 8192. In 5.3.5 and later releases the default is 32768. This larger value > improves performance in some situations, but may cause problems in others. > > Problem 1 - 100-Mbit client is reading from Gigabit interface With the > larger > default, problems may result when the Gigabit interface on the filer is > sending > to a 100-Mbit client. Switches can drop packets on the outbound 100-Mbit > port because too many packets become queued due to the difference in line > speeds > and the larger transfer size. Few complete 32K UDP datagrams are received > by the client, and the client assumes the filer has gone away and > increases its delay between retries. Poor performance may be seen. If a > client does not specify > the rsize and wsize parameters in the mount command, the filer's default > UDP > transfer size is used. If a client does specify rsize and wsize, and the > values are larger than the default, then the default is used. This means > that you > may see problems after you upgrade from 5.3.4 (or earlier release) to > 5.3.5 (or > later release) if the resulting transfer size is 32768. Problem 2 - > Multiple > clients are reading from 100-Mbit interface When the UDP transfer size is > 32768 and multiple clients are reading from a 100-Mbit interface, the > driver > transmit queue on the filer can overflow more readily and packets may be > discarded. > This can lead to erratic or poor performance on the clients." > > --- > First thing to check in GigE is typically flow control settings on the > switch, filer, and client side. Typically it's best to have both > transmit and receive flow control turned on. On the filer, it's > called full flowcontrol. That isn't the default for some switch > vendors and OS NICs. > > It's at least a start. Like most performance issues, you may > have to work several rounds of stuff to find the culprit. Before > you open a case with NTAP, which I strongly suggest, you may need > to quantify your performance in some way. MB/sec is a good one. > By putting a value on your performance it's easier to figure out > what areas could be wrong and also easier to figure out when > you can't get anymore based on your environment. That's the thing > with Gigabit, most clients can't max it out so you will hit a ceiling > for a single client that is less than the capacity of the wire. > Slower forms of Ethernet were easier in this way because you knew > pretty much where the ceiling was. > > --- > > When you're using NFS over UDP with disparate speeds, i.e. gigabit to the > switch, then fast ethernet to clients, you can address performance > problems > in > one of two ways: > > 1) If all of your client machines are on fast ethernet (yep, that means NO > > gigabit clients) the simple approach is to set the filer option > > options nfs.udp.xfersize 8192 > > If you do have gigabit clients, doing the above will impact performance to > them, > in which case you have to do the more management intensive step two... > > 2) If you have some gigabit client machines, add the following options to > the > mount command on each 100 Mbit client machine: > wsize=8192,rsize=8192 > > >

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