toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

RE: SnapDrive 1.0 / german Win2000 Server
by Kiernan, Michael 23 Aug '02

23 Aug '02

This is likely bug 62022 (find on http:/now.netapp.com) -----Original Message----- From: Phil Hill [mailto:phill@ultra.de] Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 12:42 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: SnapDrive 1.0 / german Win2000 Server Hi all, does anyone have installed SnapDrive 1.0 For SQL server 2000 on a non english Win2000 server ( we have a german Win2000 Server ) When installing the VLD-Manager we get an error message at the point where "VirtualizedLocalDiskManager - InstallShieldWizard" tries to start the service " Error 1920.Service SWSvc (SWSvc) failed to start. Verify that you have sufficent privileges to start system services and check your Event Log for more information" We doublechecked the privileges (domain\Administrator) - everything looks fine We found following message in the eventlog: "Der Dienst "Virtualized Local Disk Manager" wurde mit folgendem Fehler beendet: Die Systemfunktion LookupAccountName ist fehlgeschlagen. " ( system call "LookupAccountName" failed ) Do we need to change some registry entries in our german win2000 server ? thanks in advance Phil

1 0

RE: SnapDrive 1.0 / german Win2000 Server
by Mike Ball 23 Aug '02

23 Aug '02

Phil, Type "cifs sessions" on the Netapp and see if the user is mapping to root? If not, make sure the option wafl.nt_admin_priv_map_to_root is set to on. Also, make sure the \\Netapp\C$\etc\hosts.equiv (/vol/vol0/etc/hosts.equiv) file has the user and machine which you are coming in from. Example of my hosts.equiv file for the Administrator user on PMD domain logging into the Netapp from the Win2k server named PMD-YPJIJ89V6RU: #Auto-generated by setup Thu Aug 15 22:42:38 GMT 2002 PMD-YPJIJ89V6RU PMD\administrator PMD-YPJIJ89V6RU PMD\Administrator Mike -----Original Message----- From: Phil Hill [mailto:phill@ultra.de] Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 6:42 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: SnapDrive 1.0 / german Win2000 Server Hi all, does anyone have installed SnapDrive 1.0 For SQL server 2000 on a non english Win2000 server ( we have a german Win2000 Server ) When installing the VLD-Manager we get an error message at the point where "VirtualizedLocalDiskManager - InstallShieldWizard" tries to start the service " Error 1920.Service SWSvc (SWSvc) failed to start. Verify that you have sufficent privileges to start system services and check your Event Log for more information" We doublechecked the privileges (domain\Administrator) - everything looks fine We found following message in the eventlog: "Der Dienst "Virtualized Local Disk Manager" wurde mit folgendem Fehler beendet: Die Systemfunktion LookupAccountName ist fehlgeschlagen. " ( system call "LookupAccountName" failed ) Do we need to change some registry entries in our german win2000 server ? thanks in advance Phil

1 0

SnapDrive 1.0 / german Win2000 Server
by Phil Hill 23 Aug '02

23 Aug '02

Hi all, does anyone have installed SnapDrive 1.0 For SQL server 2000 on a non english Win2000 server ( we have a german Win2000 Server ) When installing the VLD-Manager we get an error message at the point where "VirtualizedLocalDiskManager - InstallShieldWizard" tries to start the service " Error 1920.Service SWSvc (SWSvc) failed to start. Verify that you have sufficent privileges to start system services and check your Event Log for more information" We doublechecked the privileges (domain\Administrator) - everything looks fine We found following message in the eventlog: "Der Dienst "Virtualized Local Disk Manager" wurde mit folgendem Fehler beendet: Die Systemfunktion LookupAccountName ist fehlgeschlagen. " ( system call "LookupAccountName" failed ) Do we need to change some registry entries in our german win2000 server ? thanks in advance Phil

1 0

XP password woes into NetApp/NIS
by David Lee 22 Aug '02

22 Aug '02

Executive summary: o Two fileservers: one Solaris, other NetApp. Common NIS authentication. o Two clients: one W2K, other XP. Both "plaintext enabled" (for NIS). o W2K connects happily to both servers: XP fails to connect to NetApp. Detail: We are migrating our users' home directories from a Sun/Solaris fileserver to a NetApp (ONTAP 6.1.2R1). Both servers authenticate into a common NIS domain (passwords being in a usual Solaris-style "passwd.adjunct" map). We have hundreds of W2K clients. Using NIS means having their registry tweaked to use plaintext passwords (horrible, I know). This has all been working satisfactorily for months/years. Recently we have also had a small number of Windows XP clients. Until now, these have all (successfully) been connecting to the Solaris server. But the migration of data towards NetApp now means, for the first time, these XPs attempting to connect to the NetApp (same NIS domain). This fails (still OK against Solaris) with: System error 86 has occured The specified network password is not correct. This one has us stumped! Is there a known problem here? -- : David Lee I.T. Service : : Systems Programmer Computer Centre : : University of Durham : : http://www.dur.ac.uk/t.d.lee/ South Road : : Durham : : Phone: +44 191 374 2882 U.K. :

2 1

FCP
by isolde schmitz 22 Aug '02

22 Aug '02

Hi all, need an fcp-license only for testing THX ______________________________________________________________________________ paulchen.panther(a)online.ms - nur eine der witzigsten E-Mail-Adressen! Interesse? Klicken! http://digitaledienste.web.de/MyAdress/?mc=021110

2 1

RE: Oracle using NetApp
by markallen 22 Aug '02

22 Aug '02

Does this only apply to Sun GIGE cards? Has anyone seen this type of issue using Syskonnect GIGE? Thanks -Mark -----Original Message----- From: Peter Bryant [mailto:PBryant@burallplastec.com] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 4:12 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Oracle using NetApp *** Before acting on this e-mail or opening any attachment you are advised to read the disclaimer at the end of this e-mail *** Beg to differ Gents. We had an install with UDP/Solaris/1GB over private circuits Sun to Filer - so no switch or hubs in the way at all. Performance was worse than the kit it replaced. Specifically backing up (I know - over NFS not a good idea - but that's another tale <g>) it took 36 hours for 225GB to go to tape. Switch to TCP and with TCP tuning (that I published to the list a while back) and performance screamed - file I/O via a Sybase control database went from 30-60 seconds down to 3 or 4. And the backups dropped to 4-5 hours. NetApp definitely stated UDP/Solaris/1GB was not a good combination and stick with TCP. It's a Solaris implementation they implied. I posted their notes here as well TTFN Peter -----Original Message----- From: John Clear [mailto:jclear@ati.com] Sent: 20 August 2002 19:02 To: 'igor(a)txc.com'; Jeff Kennedy Cc: Brian Long; Robin Winslett; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Oracle using NetApp -----Original Message----- As far as I'm concerned, this is an urban legend :-) I use UDP v3 on Solaris with NetApp, and I've always had a good performance, no worse than Linux or HPUX. When you say you experienced it yourself, what exactly did you see? Was it reproducible with iozone? What were the numbers? -----Original Message----- In our environment, YMMV, Solaris (100mb) to NetApp (100mb) works fine over UDP. Solaris (100mb) to NetApp (gigabit) was horribly slow for certain operations. Normal file reads were fine, but a compare (`cmp`) of two files from the same filer were unbelievably slow. A cmp that would take 15 seconds to the 100mb interface of the NetApp would take an hour or more to the gigabit interface. To get Sun to actually admit it was their problem, we did a Solaris (100mb) to Solaris (gigabit) test over UDP, and it took 5minutes or so. Not as bad as to NetApp, but bad enough for them to file a bug, which Sun Engineering ignored since there is a work-around (use TCP or the 100mb interface of the filer). This was with Solaris 8. Solaris 7 did not have this problem in our environment. Since nearly all our clients are 100mb, and only our QA group was running into this, we set their automount entries to point to the 100mb interface. John ******************************* 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: Oracle using NetApp
by Peter Bryant 22 Aug '02

22 Aug '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 *** Beg to differ Gents. We had an install with UDP/Solaris/1GB over private circuits Sun to Filer - so no switch or hubs in the way at all. Performance was worse than the kit it replaced. Specifically backing up (I know - over NFS not a good idea - but that's another tale <g>) it took 36 hours for 225GB to go to tape. Switch to TCP and with TCP tuning (that I published to the list a while back) and performance screamed - file I/O via a Sybase control database went from 30-60 seconds down to 3 or 4. And the backups dropped to 4-5 hours. NetApp definitely stated UDP/Solaris/1GB was not a good combination and stick with TCP. It's a Solaris implementation they implied. I posted their notes here as well TTFN Peter -----Original Message----- From: John Clear [mailto:jclear@ati.com] Sent: 20 August 2002 19:02 To: 'igor(a)txc.com'; Jeff Kennedy Cc: Brian Long; Robin Winslett; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Oracle using NetApp -----Original Message----- As far as I'm concerned, this is an urban legend :-) I use UDP v3 on Solaris with NetApp, and I've always had a good performance, no worse than Linux or HPUX. When you say you experienced it yourself, what exactly did you see? Was it reproducible with iozone? What were the numbers? -----Original Message----- In our environment, YMMV, Solaris (100mb) to NetApp (100mb) works fine over UDP. Solaris (100mb) to NetApp (gigabit) was horribly slow for certain operations. Normal file reads were fine, but a compare (`cmp`) of two files from the same filer were unbelievably slow. A cmp that would take 15 seconds to the 100mb interface of the NetApp would take an hour or more to the gigabit interface. To get Sun to actually admit it was their problem, we did a Solaris (100mb) to Solaris (gigabit) test over UDP, and it took 5minutes or so. Not as bad as to NetApp, but bad enough for them to file a bug, which Sun Engineering ignored since there is a work-around (use TCP or the 100mb interface of the filer). This was with Solaris 8. Solaris 7 did not have this problem in our environment. Since nearly all our clients are 100mb, and only our QA group was running into this, we set their automount entries to point to the 100mb interface. John ******************************* 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: Oracle using NetApp
by John Clear 22 Aug '02

22 Aug '02

-----Original Message----- As far as I'm concerned, this is an urban legend :-) I use UDP v3 on Solaris with NetApp, and I've always had a good performance, no worse than Linux or HPUX. When you say you experienced it yourself, what exactly did you see? Was it reproducible with iozone? What were the numbers? -----Original Message----- In our environment, YMMV, Solaris (100mb) to NetApp (100mb) works fine over UDP. Solaris (100mb) to NetApp (gigabit) was horribly slow for certain operations. Normal file reads were fine, but a compare (`cmp`) of two files from the same filer were unbelievably slow. A cmp that would take 15 seconds to the 100mb interface of the NetApp would take an hour or more to the gigabit interface. To get Sun to actually admit it was their problem, we did a Solaris (100mb) to Solaris (gigabit) test over UDP, and it took 5minutes or so. Not as bad as to NetApp, but bad enough for them to file a bug, which Sun Engineering ignored since there is a work-around (use TCP or the 100mb interface of the filer). This was with Solaris 8. Solaris 7 did not have this problem in our environment. Since nearly all our clients are 100mb, and only our QA group was running into this, we set their automount entries to point to the 100mb interface. John

6 6

Re: Oracle using NetApp
by mds＠gbnet.net 20 Aug '02

20 Aug '02

One plea, from the heart: If your site has seen performance issues on NFS between Suns and NetApps please, please log support calls with Sun, NetApp and the switch vendors. And don't let any of them off the hook until you get patches, workarounds explanations and reliable performance all the time. It'll help everyone else - particularly of you have the chutzpah to drive the calls hard and make lots of noise. When this stuff gets back to the engineering groups *then* and *only* then will the decent work get done. Sorry if this is egg-sucking 101, but I find, as a conslutant (or whatever you want to call me) that people are way too backward about pushing the vendors, and far too willing to just moan to friends. This Sun-NetApp discussion crops up again and again on this list, and it's obviously a real bugbear for lots of people, so I'd like to get it squished once and for all. Message ends. -- -Mark ... an Englishman in Delft ...

1 0

RE: secure filer access
by Ehrhart, Rick 20 Aug '02

20 Aug '02

The 'options <protocol>.enable' command enables and disables the <protocol>. With ONTAP 6.2, there is a new feature called protocol access control which allows you to control access to a particular protocol. Check out na_protocolaccess(8) for more details; but the general syntax is: 'options <protocol>.access <access_spec> [[AND|OR <access_spec>] ... ]' where <access_spec> is: host [= | != ] <host_spec> if [= | != ] <network interface spec> legacy none all <host_spec> is a comma-separated list of host names or IP addresses <network interface spcec> is a comma-separated list of network interface names. The legacy keyword means use the old method for control. For telnet and httpd.admin, it is telnet.hosts. However, if you disable telnet, then trusted.hosts is not looked at. The same goes for httpd.admin. To answer the original question: "I'm trying to configure ssh/https admin access from any host to a filer, but no telnet, no http admin" Try this: options ssh.enable on options ssl.enable on options telent.enable off options httpd.admin.enable off The 'options http.enable off' command will disable http access, not http admin access. You do need SecureAdmin installed as well. > -----Original Message----- > From: Piotr KUCHARSKI [mailto:chopin@sgh.waw.pl] > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 11:17 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Cc: Moritz Willers > Subject: Re: secure filer access > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 05:34:30PM +0100, Moritz Willers wrote: > > I'm trying to configure ssh/https admin access from any > host to a filer, > > but no telnet, no http admin > > You need to have SecureAdmin installed and then options: > ssh.enable on > ssl.enable on > httpd.enable off [1] > telnet.enable off > > Plus perhaps trusted.hosts > > and rsh access from one host only (the admin host). > > That I don't know, I use 'option rsh.enable off' > > p. > > [1] Hm, not sure if I still need these options: > httpd.access legacy > httpd.admin.access host=adm.ho.st.ip > httpd.admin.enable on These options above state: 1. for the HTTP protocol, use legacy, which means access is allowed for all users. 2. for administrative HTTP, only the host adm.ho.st.ip is allowed access. Hope this helps, - Rick -

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