toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13523 discussions

RE: Sun Solaris 8 optimal performance with F880
by Art Hebert 20 Sep '02

20 Sep '02

I thought the 880's were supposed to get around 60MB writes. Seems that 12-15 would be worse than an F760. Is there any published numbers for read or write performance for the various models? I think the licensing forbids Netapp users from discussing performance numbers for some reason, am I mistaken on this? art -----Original Message----- From: Deepak Soneji [mailto:sonejideepak@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 11:05 PM To: Brian Long Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Sun Solaris 8 optimal performance with F880 Brian/Tim Great ! READS are greatly improved upto 12-15 mbps after changing xfersize to 8k. Any idea about what magic numbers for read/write I should try to achieve while tuning ? Another question, why TCP ? Thanks -Deepak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Long" <brilong(a)cisco.com> To: "Deepak Soneji" <sonejideepak(a)hotmail.com> Cc: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 6:47 PM Subject: Re: Sun Solaris 8 optimal performance with F880 > UDP and 32K transfers don't mix. Reduce to 8K transfers (nfs.udp.xfersize > 8192) or change to TCP, the preferred method in which to use NFS. > > /Brian/ > > > Toasters > > > > Configuration : Sun E6000 server running Solaris 8 latest patch level > > Filer : F880 > > Cisco Switch 6509(Flowcontrol turned on) > > > > > > We have recently bought 2- F880 filers and we are in the implementation phases. The weird > > performance results we are getting with following system settings and mount parameters. > > The output from "sysstat 1" on filer, shows writes 35 MBPS but reads just very slow > > or not even generate any traffic. Here are the settings > > > > ndd -set /dev/udp udp_recv_hiwat 65535 > > ndd -set /dev/udp udp_xmit_hiwat 65535 > > ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_recv_hiwat 65535 > > ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_xmit_hiwat 65535 > > ndd -set /dev/ge instance 1 > > ndd -set /dev/ge adv_pauseTX 1 > > ndd -set /dev/ge adv_pauseRX 1 > > ndd -set /dev/ge adv_1000autoneg_cap 0 > > ndd -set /dev/ge adv_1000fdx_cap 1 > > > > set sq_max_size = 30 > > set nstrpush = 90 > > set ncsize 8000 > > set nfs:nfs3_max_threads = 24 > > set nfs:nfs3_nra =10 > > set nfs:nfs_max_threads = 24 > > set nfs:nfs_nra = 10 > > > > Mount file system : > > > > mount -o rw,bg,hard,intr,proto=udp,vers=3,rsize=32768,wsize=32768 filer01:/vol/test /test > > > > Test method > > > > dd if=/dev/zero of=/test/foo bs=32k count=50000 > > > > > > I have tried to search some documents on now site for the optimal performance but I could not > > find any optimal numbers which I should try to achieve. > > Why reads are chocking up ? > > anyone has any proven configuration which works optimally ? > > > > Thanks in advance for your inputs and thoughts. > > > > Regards > > > > -Deepak Soneji > > Flextronics International > > > > > > -- > Brian Long | | | > Americas IT Hosting Sys Admin | .|||. .|||. > Phone: (919) 392-7363 | ..:|||||||:...:|||||||:.. > Pager: (888) 651-2015 | C i s c o S y s t e m s >

1 0

Moving data from NT to NetApp painfully slow
by Friedrich, Bernhard 20 Sep '02

20 Sep '02

Hi Toasters, we're in the process of consolidating NT file services on a NetApp Filer. We have an F810 where we want to store all our user's data which is now spread across multiple servers, some of which are close to being maxed out. We now have the problem of moving all the data while we're still servicing our users - we're on 24/7 here. We found that copying the data to the filer is painfully slow; we're suspecting that NT ACLs might be the culprit. We've tried robocopy, secure copy and xxcopy to no avail - moving a small part of the total data took 15 hours. Anybody out there willing to share their experiences with moving several hundreds of GB across the network? We need to keep NT permissions, obviously. On the mailing list I saw references to Fastlane and Aelita's SCW - any experience with those or other 3rd party products? Greetings and thanks in advance Bernhard -- Bernhard Friedrich ZIM Uniklinikum Heidelberg Unix/NT administration

2 1

RE: Legato Backups.
by Mike Sphar 20 Sep '02

20 Sep '02

We've been backing up 3 of our filers over NFS for 4-5 years now with no significant problems. We've done lots of restores as well. The only real caveat would be that NT ACL's are not preserved, but since all our qtrees are UNIX, that's not a problem for us. We tried a demo of the NDMP Legato solution shortly after it was made available, but we found it flaky and unreliable, so we went back to NFS. I'd imagine it's much improved now over what it was then. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Remedy Corporation -----Original Message----- From: Peter Bryant [mailto:PBryant@burallplastec.com] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:47 AM To: 'Paul J. Bell' Cc: 'Netapp Toasters Mailing List' Subject: RE: Legato Backups. *** Before acting on this e-mail or opening any attachment you are advised to read the disclaimer at the end of this e-mail *** Erm... Well sort of, and it works. As far as I remember that's how some data was moved about shortly after the install (of the Filer) early this year. But we've been discussing <bg> the supported framework ever since and that is why we are moving over to NDMP very soon now. But I cannot claim any great competency in doing it. If we have that kind of need (for now) we involve our support partner. However I did speak to a techie deep within the bowels of Legato, and it's essentially "of course it all works - why shouldn't it? but of course that's not our position". Peter -----Original Message----- From: Paul J. Bell [mailto:paul.bell@rbccm.com] Sent: 20 September 2002 12:41 To: Peter Bryant Cc: 'Netapp Toasters Mailing List' Subject: Re: Legato Backups. have you every tried to restore files backed up via nfs mounts? -paul Peter Bryant wrote: > > Technically speaking (as we found out and are correcting) this is an > unsupported Legato configuration. They'll not help you out if there > is an issue. I consider this to be a marketing ploy as much as > anything to sell NDMP licences. > > Legato's position is that they do not support ANY backup of NFS > attached mounts (whether filer or another server). > > Practically speaking it works, but sometimes the load on the backup > servers is just too great and a few things "pop loose" for the users. > > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: devnull(a)adc.idt.com [mailto:devnull@adc.idt.com] > Sent: 19 September 2002 14:57 > To: Toasters (E-mail) > Subject: Legato Backups. > > Dear Toasters, > > I was wondering if any of you guys were using Legato for backing up > your NetApps. I currently have 2 filers that i am backing up to a > Legato server running Solaris 2.8 over NFS. I mount the NetApp volumes > onto the legato server and then backup those mount points. > > I am not sure this is the best thing to do in terms of performance. > > Is there an alternate, easier solution. > > Thanks, ******************************* Disclaimer ***************************** Confidentiality: This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the addressee(s) only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please reply to this e-mail and highlight the error. Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. ********************** http://www.burallplastec.com ********************

1 0

RE: Moving data from NT to NetApp painfully slow
by Haber, David J. 20 Sep '02

20 Sep '02

We've moved about 500G to the filer from our file servers using SecureCopy. Have you checked the port speed and duplex settings on your servers and switches and filer. We have found that if they don't match you will have excruciating performance. -----Original Message----- From: Friedrich, Bernhard [mailto:Bernhard.Friedrich@med.uni-heidelberg.de] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:29 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Moving data from NT to NetApp painfully slow Hi Toasters, we're in the process of consolidating NT file services on a NetApp Filer. We have an F810 where we want to store all our user's data which is now spread across multiple servers, some of which are close to being maxed out. We now have the problem of moving all the data while we're still servicing our users - we're on 24/7 here. We found that copying the data to the filer is painfully slow; we're suspecting that NT ACLs might be the culprit. We've tried robocopy, secure copy and xxcopy to no avail - moving a small part of the total data took 15 hours. Anybody out there willing to share their experiences with moving several hundreds of GB across the network? We need to keep NT permissions, obviously. On the mailing list I saw references to Fastlane and Aelita's SCW - any experience with those or other 3rd party products? Greetings and thanks in advance Bernhard -- Bernhard Friedrich ZIM Uniklinikum Heidelberg Unix/NT administration

1 0

RE: Legato Backups.
by Peter Bryant 20 Sep '02

20 Sep '02

*** Before acting on this e-mail or opening any attachment you are advised to read the disclaimer at the end of this e-mail *** Erm... Well sort of, and it works. As far as I remember that's how some data was moved about shortly after the install (of the Filer) early this year. But we've been discussing <bg> the supported framework ever since and that is why we are moving over to NDMP very soon now. But I cannot claim any great competency in doing it. If we have that kind of need (for now) we involve our support partner. However I did speak to a techie deep within the bowels of Legato, and it's essentially "of course it all works - why shouldn't it? but of course that's not our position". Peter -----Original Message----- From: Paul J. Bell [mailto:paul.bell@rbccm.com] Sent: 20 September 2002 12:41 To: Peter Bryant Cc: 'Netapp Toasters Mailing List' Subject: Re: Legato Backups. have you every tried to restore files backed up via nfs mounts? -paul Peter Bryant wrote: > > Technically speaking (as we found out and are correcting) this is an > unsupported Legato configuration. They'll not help you out if there > is an issue. I consider this to be a marketing ploy as much as > anything to sell NDMP licences. > > Legato's position is that they do not support ANY backup of NFS > attached mounts (whether filer or another server). > > Practically speaking it works, but sometimes the load on the backup > servers is just too great and a few things "pop loose" for the users. > > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: devnull(a)adc.idt.com [mailto:devnull@adc.idt.com] > Sent: 19 September 2002 14:57 > To: Toasters (E-mail) > Subject: Legato Backups. > > Dear Toasters, > > I was wondering if any of you guys were using Legato for backing up > your NetApps. I currently have 2 filers that i am backing up to a > Legato server running Solaris 2.8 over NFS. I mount the NetApp volumes > onto the legato server and then backup those mount points. > > I am not sure this is the best thing to do in terms of performance. > > Is there an alternate, easier solution. > > Thanks, ******************************* Disclaimer ***************************** Confidentiality: This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the addressee(s) only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please reply to this e-mail and highlight the error. Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. ********************** http://www.burallplastec.com ********************

1 0

RE: Legato Backups.
by Caven, Marilyn 19 Sep '02

19 Sep '02

For three years I did just that, back up 7 Netapp filers by way of nfs mounts, using Networker 6.0.1 build 174 on a Solaris 2.8 OS, two E250 Servers. and using two L1000 tape library w/4 DLT7000 drives each. The Networker servers have a Gigabit connection to the network, (2) 296MHz CPU's and 768mb memory and I'm backing up 1.5 TB of Netapp data. We recently went to LTO tapes, one Sun 220R server w/ (1) 450MHz, 1GB memory, gig card for the Solaris side and a NT box to map mount our CIFS only server, both connected to a single Dell Powervault 60 slot tape library. One of the reasons we went this way was because we were already invested in Legato Networker software licenses for 60 clients and 2 servers. I do weekly full backups of the 1.5 TB Netapp data and another half TB of Solaris and NT clients and daily incrementals. So my final statement is, performance is not an issue for me. Regards, Marilyn Caven Next Level Communications -----Original Message----- From: devnull(a)adc.idt.com [mailto:devnull@adc.idt.com] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 6:57 AM To: Toasters (E-mail) Subject: Legato Backups. Dear Toasters, I was wondering if any of you guys were using Legato for backing up your NetApps. I currently have 2 filers that i am backing up to a Legato server running Solaris 2.8 over NFS. I mount the NetApp volumes onto the legato server and then backup those mount points. I am not sure this is the best thing to do in terms of performance. Is there an alternate, easier solution. Thanks, /dev/null devnull(a)adc.idt.com

1 0

NFS security concerns
by Allen, Pat 19 Sep '02

19 Sep '02

Hi all, I hope that this isn't too obvious a question but here goes.... I'm wondering how people are handling NFS security in environments where you have a lot of Mac OS X or Linux computer systems. For ease of administration, I would love to be able to specify that any computer within our network has read access to various qtrees. But this opens up a can of worms in that anybody with root access on their local Mac or Linux box can spoof user accounts with legitimate UID's and GID's. This essentially gives away the keys to the kingdom. The other obvious alternative is using netgroups but that would be a lot of administration as machines come and go. It's certainly better than opening up access to everybody but not a course that I'd like to take. Are there any other alternatives that I'm missing? Thanks! --- Pat Allen (pat(a)mbari.org) Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) 7700 Sandholdt Rd, Moss Landing, CA 95039 (voice) 831-775-1724; (fax) 831-775-1620

10 11

SV: antivirus ?
by Vibeke Ostensvik 19 Sep '02

19 Sep '02

Hi, You can run Trend Micro (serverprotect) ,Mcafee and Symantec - your ontap-version has to be 6.1 or higher. http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3107.html?fmt=print Vibeke -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: Frank Bonnet [mailto:bonnetf@bart.esiee.fr] Sendt: 19. september 2002 10:46 Til: toasters(a)mathworks.com Emne: antivirus ? Hi Does anyone knows some anti-virus scanning solutions that could run on a F85 filer ? or a third party software that could runs thru NFS mounted partitions ? Thx -- Frank Bonnet

1 0

antivirus ?
by Frank Bonnet 19 Sep '02

19 Sep '02

Hi Does anyone knows some anti-virus scanning solutions that could run on a F85 filer ? or a third party software that could runs thru NFS mounted partitions ? Thx -- Frank Bonnet

1 0

NAC on "Using the Linux® NFS Client with Network Appliance?"
by Quentin Fennessy 18 Sep '02

18 Sep '02

I don't recall seeing this mentioned on the toasters list. Netapp has a new (12 Aug 2002) white paper on Linux NFS client tuning, done by Chuck Lever. http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3183.html I think you can get to this paper without NOW access. The paper is self-described as: This report provides advice for getting the best from your Linux NFS clients in an environment that includes Network Appliance filers. You'll learn what level of performance to expect from your Linux systems. You'll learn how to tune your Linux clients and diagnose performance and reliability problems. We'll recommend software levels and hardware combinations that are known to work well. Finally, you'll learn where to look for more information when faced with problems that are difficult to diagnose. Good stuff. two thumbs way up. This paper should perhaps be read while using an internal voice with a Scottish burr. -- Quentin Fennessy Quentin.Fennessy(a)amd.com Office: 512.602.3873 Cell: 512.694.7489

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