toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

RE: upgrading the ONTAP version
by Clawson, Simon 04 Oct '02

04 Oct '02

I upgraded last night, and see this message now. Any news from NetApp? Simon -----Original Message----- From: Paul Caron [mailto:caron@sig.com] Sent: 03 October 2002 17:10 To: DFinn(a)studentadvantage.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: upgrading the ONTAP version We were in a similar situation with a clustered pair of F740 filers running ONTAP 5.3.4R2. They are now running ONTAP 6.2.1D11. The steps I always follow are: 1) Upgrade filer firmware to latest rev. 2) Upgrade ONTAP version 3) Upgrade disk firmware to latest rev. Note that the disk firmware upgrades MAY have to come before the ONTAP version upgrade. There are a few field alerts about the types of disks that fall into this category on the NOW site. Also, the newer versions of ONTAP will handle the disk firmware upgrade automagically, unless you have clustered filers. The install is not very difficult. The best approach is to just follow the upgrade steps posted on the NOW site. So far, they have always been accurate. There is a set of upgrade steps posted with each version of ONTAP. Also, I have never had a problem with license carry-over. I believe that the latest system board firmware rev. you want is 2.8_a2 (also posted on the NOW site). The only weirdness I've seen since the upgrade is the following CIFS audit messages: [toaster: registry_control:notice]: Restarting CIFS auditing with new buffer size. [toaster: registry_control:warning]: option cifs.audit.membufsize: Value (4096) is out of range (10240 to 262144), using 65536 instead. I'm still trying to figure out what's causing this. The cifs.audit.membufsize option is actually set to 65536 on both of the filers. Also, I've turned CIFS auditing off. However, it mysteriously turns itself back on every hour. Strange, but it hasn't caused any problems that I've found yet. >From: Daniel Finn <DFinn(a)studentadvantage.com> >To: "'toasters(a)mathworks.com'" <toasters(a)mathworks.com> >Subject: upgrading the ONTAP version >Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:29:05 -0400 >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >we have a F740 running an older version of ONTAP, version 5.3.5R2. The rest >of our netapps run 6.1.3. What would I need to do in order to bring this >netapp up to date? I think I can get my hands on the floppy disks. How >hard is the install? Do all the licenses carry over? Also, the firmware >release below, 2.3._a2, can/should that be upgraded also? > > > NetApp Release 5.3.5R2: Tue Mar 28 15:48:22 PST 2000 > System ID: 0016791464 (na4m-be) > slot 0: System Board (NetApp System Board V N0) > Model Name: F740 > Serial Number: 221290 > Firmware release: 2.3_a2 > Memory Size: 512 MB > >Thanks >Dan

1 0

RE: ndmpcopy question
by Chitre, Amol 04 Oct '02

04 Oct '02

Hi Premanshu, Seems to me that the /etc/tmp directory on the filer were changed manually. Could you confirm that for me please? Dump/Restore create some temporary files and leave them in /etc/tmp. When a dump/restore is running, it actively refers to those files. If the files are deleted or resized from underneath it, the reference to the files will become stale. Which results in the error you are seeing. Hope that helps, Amol. *-----Original Message----- *From: Premanshu Jain [mailto:Premanshu.Jain@synopsys.com] *Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:35 PM *To: toasters(a)mathworks.com *Subject: ndmpcopy question * * *While doing level 1 ndmpcopy, i encounter the following error *message in the *log: * *nacktheknife: LOG: RESTORE: nacktheknife: LOG: Inconsistent *dumpmap on inode *1819691. *nacktheknife: LOG: RESTORE: nacktheknife: LOG: Inconsistent *dumpmap on inode *1819692. *nacktheknife: LOG: RESTORE: nacktheknife: LOG: Inconsistent *dumpmap on inode *1819693. *nacktheknife: LOG: RESTORE: nacktheknife: LOG: Inconsistent *dumpmap on inode *1819694. *nacktheknife: LOG: RESTORE: nacktheknife: LOG: Inconsistent *dumpmap on inode *1819695. *nacktheknife: LOG: RESTORE: nacktheknife: LOG: Inconsistent *dumpmap on inode * *WHAT DOES THIS MEAN ? *

1 0

upgrading the ONTAP version
by Daniel Finn 03 Oct '02

03 Oct '02

we have a F740 running an older version of ONTAP, version 5.3.5R2. The rest of our netapps run 6.1.3. What would I need to do in order to bring this netapp up to date? I think I can get my hands on the floppy disks. How hard is the install? Do all the licenses carry over? Also, the firmware release below, 2.3._a2, can/should that be upgraded also? NetApp Release 5.3.5R2: Tue Mar 28 15:48:22 PST 2000 System ID: 0016791464 (na4m-be) slot 0: System Board (NetApp System Board V N0) Model Name: F740 Serial Number: 221290 Firmware release: 2.3_a2 Memory Size: 512 MB Thanks Dan

2 1

Restoring NetApp dumps with Solaris ufsrestore
by Chris Thompson 03 Oct '02

03 Oct '02

Following some very nasty experiences with Veritas (vxvm & vxfs) on one of our systems, we are currently in paranoia mode about our ability to restore from backups, and have been doing more than usually extensive tests. I have come across a serious problem with ONTAP restore, but I am in communication with NetApp about that and it's not the subject of this message. Maybe later on ... :-) NetApp have said on a number of occasions that it's a design feature of their dump format that it is a compatible extension of good old BSD dump format, so that if all else fails one can feed them to a BSD-type restore program (losing ACLs and such-like info, of course). Solaris "ufsrestore" is usually explicitly or implicitly mentioned. So I have been testing that, and have fallen over a problem that I knew about (at least since May 2000, as I see I mentioned it in passing on toasters then) but have been ignoring. Maybe it's time to do something about it! What happens is that ufsrestore says write error extracting inode NNNNN, name ./path/name/to/file write: Bad address and gives up. One can see that it has half-written the file involved. It seems to happen only on files that have holes (often many of them) at odd multiples of 4K: in our case they are usually *.pag files that are part of (n)dbm databases. Now I very strongly suspect that this is a bug in Solaris ufsrestore, not in the NetApp dump contents, and I would like to be able to report it to Sun and get it fixed. But it seems to be very difficult to reproduce with a small example: it's far from the case that every file with oddly-aligned holes causes a problem, or even that a file with exactly the same hole pattern will provoke the bug if it occurs at a different point in the dump. Even worse, it apparently depends on what sort of filing system ufsrestore is restoring into: I have never had it happen if it is a local ufs filing system, but often if it was an nfs one (usually on a NetApp filer, of course). If all these variables are reproduced, though, the effect is repeatable. It's possible that Sun would reject such a bug report unless one could show that it failed on a dump generated by Solaris ufsdump. Solaris ufs filing systems have always been blocked at 8K by default (so that hole boundaries must be on multiples of 8K). On UltraSPARC (sun4u) systems one can't even mount ones that are blocked at 4K any longer. I tried making a ufsdump of a filing system blocked at 4K on a SPARCstation 5 (sun4m) - sometimes it's useful to have such an out of date machine as one's personal workstation! - with a suitably holey file in it, but I couldn't get the ufsrestore bug to show up... :-( If anyone else has ever come across this problem, and/or has any suggestions on how to proceed with homing in on the bug, I would very much like to hear from them. The latest experiments were done with Solaris 8 ufsrestore as patched by 109091-05, but as I said above I believe the bug has been there for many years. Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1(a)ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QH, Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.

1 1

Re: UNIX /var/mail on NetApp?
by Paul Caron 03 Oct '02

03 Oct '02

We've been using the following auto_direct entry for mounting /var/mail on Solaris 2.6, Solaris 8, and <cough> SunOS 4.1.3 clients for years without incident: /var/mail -rw,intr,hard,actimeo=0 toaster:/vol/fs0/mail_spool However, we don't use the standard Sun Sendmail configs. either.

1 0

Re: upgrading the ONTAP version
by Paul Caron 03 Oct '02

03 Oct '02

We were in a similar situation with a clustered pair of F740 filers running ONTAP 5.3.4R2. They are now running ONTAP 6.2.1D11. The steps I always follow are: 1) Upgrade filer firmware to latest rev. 2) Upgrade ONTAP version 3) Upgrade disk firmware to latest rev. Note that the disk firmware upgrades MAY have to come before the ONTAP version upgrade. There are a few field alerts about the types of disks that fall into this category on the NOW site. Also, the newer versions of ONTAP will handle the disk firmware upgrade automagically, unless you have clustered filers. The install is not very difficult. The best approach is to just follow the upgrade steps posted on the NOW site. So far, they have always been accurate. There is a set of upgrade steps posted with each version of ONTAP. Also, I have never had a problem with license carry-over. I believe that the latest system board firmware rev. you want is 2.8_a2 (also posted on the NOW site). The only weirdness I've seen since the upgrade is the following CIFS audit messages: [toaster: registry_control:notice]: Restarting CIFS auditing with new buffer size. [toaster: registry_control:warning]: option cifs.audit.membufsize: Value (4096) is out of range (10240 to 262144), using 65536 instead. I'm still trying to figure out what's causing this. The cifs.audit.membufsize option is actually set to 65536 on both of the filers. Also, I've turned CIFS auditing off. However, it mysteriously turns itself back on every hour. Strange, but it hasn't caused any problems that I've found yet. >From: Daniel Finn <DFinn(a)studentadvantage.com> >To: "'toasters(a)mathworks.com'" <toasters(a)mathworks.com> >Subject: upgrading the ONTAP version >Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:29:05 -0400 >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >we have a F740 running an older version of ONTAP, version 5.3.5R2. The rest >of our netapps run 6.1.3. What would I need to do in order to bring this >netapp up to date? I think I can get my hands on the floppy disks. How >hard is the install? Do all the licenses carry over? Also, the firmware >release below, 2.3._a2, can/should that be upgraded also? > > > NetApp Release 5.3.5R2: Tue Mar 28 15:48:22 PST 2000 > System ID: 0016791464 (na4m-be) > slot 0: System Board (NetApp System Board V N0) > Model Name: F740 > Serial Number: 221290 > Firmware release: 2.3_a2 > Memory Size: 512 MB > >Thanks >Dan

1 0

RE: UNIX /var/mail on NetApp?
by Andrew Richards 01 Oct '02

01 Oct '02

> ...snip... > If you can direct all your mail client accesses through IMAP or POP, > leaving no programs but the delivery agent and the imap/pop daemon > doing direct mailbox accesses, then you get the ability to > relatively painlessly change mailbox formats. That's worthwhile; > Maildir+NetApp is one of the sweetest spots in the whole mail server > design spectrum. Forget locking, forget recovery, everything Just > Works. > When I build a server, even if it's a single box for everything, I > go with maildrop delivering to virtual user Maildirs, with > Courier-IMAP (which offers pop, and the /ssl varients) providing > access for MUAs; this sets me up to grow as big as ever I could > want and never worry about mailbox correctness. I'd like to echo those sentiments: I build mail systems - the Maildir / NetApp combo means that my largest client currently has a system with 1.6 million Maildirs ( = users) and it's still growing nicely. I wrote to highlight qmail - "The original and best" mailserver to use Maildirs. Qmail is a particularly strong mailserver implementation and is very stable - I have some concerns with Courier mentioned by Bennett in that a new version seems to appear frequently. The other nice thing about Maildirs is that because of their (as Bennett says) "everything Just Works" design, you can have multiple machines writing entries (messages) to the same Maildir without their needing to be aware of one another's existence; that really helps systems to scale. More info on qmail at www.qmail.org and cr.yp.to/qmail.html cheers, Andrew.

4 3

can't login at 6.2.1R1 ...
by Frank Bonnet 01 Oct '02

01 Oct '02

Hi Since I've installed the 6.2.1R1 GA release NFS is working well BUT I am unable to login from the console or to perform a telnet/rsh session from authorized hosts . .. I haven't change anything in configuration files. Is there some special things to do to recover the login ability ? The machine is a F85 Thanks a lot. -- Frank Bonnet

1 0

Recital Database
by Matej Moskon 01 Oct '02

01 Oct '02

Is there anybody using Recital Database stored on NetApp? Has anybody tried to move datafiles on Filer yet? We done that, but we have noticed that there have been a huge performace impact from the application point of view, since copying the files under NFS has worked just fine. Any suggestions? Matej

1 0

Gig Enet and Filer NFS problems
by Darragh, Stephen J 30 Sep '02

30 Sep '02

Hi, We have some F820s running Gig E (fibre, not copper) and are starting to get complaints about nfs performance. We have taken all the defaults for the network setting and just wanted to do a quick sanity check with the group to see if there are known issues. Thanks Steve Darragh

2 1

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