toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13514 discussions

Question on CIFS and disk scrubbing?
by Art Hebert 25 Jun '02

25 Jun '02

Having never been able to to attend Netapp classes, bear with me if these are fairly simple. 1) CIFS was purchased but never actually used. It currently shows up when you type license. Will this in anyway affect the Netapp nfs performance? 2) Does disk scrubbing run automatically daily and if so is this changeable, by day, by time? 3) Can somebody give me the rundown on running wack? This is what I have off the net (somehow the this is how you do it part never got published). When to use WACK on a NetApp Filer From an email by Dave Hitz (12/1999) on the Toasters mailing list. The main difference between "wack" and fsck or scandisk is that you shouldn't need to run wack during normal operation. In particular, unlike UNIX and NT, you don't need to run "wack" after a system panic, or when you pull the plug without shutting the system down, or after a power failure. The WAFL filesystem uses a database technique called "shadow paging with NV-RAM log replay" to maintain a fully consistent state on disk even in the face of unexpected shutdowns. So when do you need to run wack? Suppose that you have a disk fail in RAID, and then when you try to reconstruct the data from the lost disk you discover that there is a bad sector on one of the other drives. Most of your file system data is just fine, but you've got a couple of blocks that can't be recovered. The RAID subsystem zeros both blocks, since that's the best that you can do, but now you need to run wack in order to fix things up, in case the zeroed blocks contained file system data like inodes, indirect blocks, or the free block map. And yes, I must confess that like any computer, NetApp systems do contain the occasional bug, so WAFL has a number of checks to make sure that the on-disk data looks reasonable, and if it finds a problem it will ask you to perform a wack. Our goal is for customers never to need to run wack, but the reality is that people sometimes do need to use it. this is how you do it. Thanks art hebert

2 1

cifs access on Windows GROUPS
by stephane.bentebba＠fps.fr 24 Jun '02

24 Jun '02

Hi all, in the Ontapp Doc and in the Filerview Doc, I can read that Windows Group are not supported in cifs access command. I.e. You can't restrict or grant access right for Group SID but only to User SID : cifs access <share> [-g] <user|group> <rights> cifs access MYSHARE MYDOM\MYGROUP "Full control" should be impossible if the MYDOM\MYGROUP is a Windows Group. Althought of all I read and was said, an Administer of mine was able to add ACL for Winbdows Groups with Filerview on several shares. He was able to verify that the restrictions were working fine (i.e.: anyone in this group is able to access files in this shares, anyonewhic his not part of this group have no access to those files). He was able to do so with Global Groups. So first question : is it normal ? Did Netapp forget to advertise about this new functionality ? Does Netapp support this function ? Is there a trick the costumer find without knowing it ? He was able to do so for global groups but not for local groups. In order to be able to deal with local groups, I advise him to use the "useradmin" command. Also to check the lclgroups.cfg file which is responsible for local groups (he would know where local groups can be recorded in order to save this SAM-like file). But : - useradmin can add users but not groups, can't it ? - normally User manager Windows tool should permit to create local users and groups but where the resultant file is located ? (in order to save it in case of disaster and not redo all the config) ? The Filer is in 6.1.2R1 in a WinNT/2K domain. Here is all, thank you much in advance.

1 0

RE: quota and running CIFS
by Nail, Larry 21 Jun '02

21 Jun '02

6.2 does have sid caching enabled by default... Settings are: cifs.sidcache.enable on cifs.sidcache.lifetime 1440 -----Original Message----- From: Seth Moskowitz [mailto:sethmoskowitz@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 10:57 AM To: guerilla(a)concentric.net; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: quota and running CIFS Scott, You are seeing a performance hit because the Filer needs to do SID lookups to run the quota reports for CIFS. Unfortunately there is no way around this except to not run the quota reports as often (as you discovered) or schedule them to run off hours (if you have any). My understanding is that OnTap 6.2R2 does SID caching so once you get to that version of OnTap (assuming it does the cache the SID) you shouldn't see this as a problem any longer. >From: Scott Mikusko <guerilla(a)concentric.net> >Reply-To: Scott Mikusko <guerilla(a)concentric.net> >To: toasters(a)mathworks.com >Subject: quota and running CIFS >Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 19:29:59 -0400 (EDT) > > >Comrades, > >I have a filer running NFS & CIFS with about 200Gb of data. We run >quota reports fairly often (used to be every 15 minutes but now every 4 >hours) to keep track of user account space. We've noticed that when >quota runs, the performance of the box takes a big hit. The CPU gets >pegged at 100% for up to 2 minutes, the NFS performance degrades such >that moving a large file (say 10MB) can take nearly a minute! > >We don't see this sort of thing on straight-NFS filers, only on our >F840 filer (running 6.1.R1) running both protocols. The mode running >is NFS (not mixed). Normally a quota run on an NFS filer with the same >amount of files/users is less than 30 seconds, if that. But this >NFS/CIFS box is taking AGES. > >The hit on the box is so strong that it's really affecting our serving >files to web users that have webpages hosted on the box. It's reached >a point where I think Netapp's CIFS and/or quota implementation is >seriously screwed. I might have to look at BlueArc or some other vendor >for running our CIFS-based apps, as this is just not cutting it. > >Anyone else notice this sort of thing on other boxes, be it F840s or >F760s? > > >-Scott _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

1 0

Re: quota and running CIFS
by Seth Moskowitz 21 Jun '02

21 Jun '02

Scott, You are seeing a performance hit because the Filer needs to do SID lookups to run the quota reports for CIFS. Unfortunately there is no way around this except to not run the quota reports as often (as you discovered) or schedule them to run off hours (if you have any). My understanding is that OnTap 6.2R2 does SID caching so once you get to that version of OnTap (assuming it does the cache the SID) you shouldn't see this as a problem any longer. >From: Scott Mikusko <guerilla(a)concentric.net> >Reply-To: Scott Mikusko <guerilla(a)concentric.net> >To: toasters(a)mathworks.com >Subject: quota and running CIFS >Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 19:29:59 -0400 (EDT) > > >Comrades, > >I have a filer running NFS & CIFS with about 200Gb of data. We run quota >reports fairly often (used to be every 15 minutes but now every 4 hours) >to keep track of user account space. We've noticed that when quota runs, >the performance of the box takes a big hit. The CPU gets pegged at 100% >for up to 2 minutes, the NFS performance degrades such that moving a large >file (say 10MB) can take nearly a minute! > >We don't see this sort of thing on straight-NFS filers, only on our F840 >filer (running 6.1.R1) running both protocols. The mode running is NFS >(not mixed). Normally a quota run on an NFS filer with the same amount of >files/users is less than 30 seconds, if that. But this NFS/CIFS box is >taking AGES. > >The hit on the box is so strong that it's really affecting our serving >files to web users that have webpages hosted on the box. It's reached a >point where I think Netapp's CIFS and/or quota implementation is >seriously screwed. I might have to look at BlueArc or some other vendor >for running our CIFS-based apps, as this is just not cutting it. > >Anyone else notice this sort of thing on other boxes, be it F840s or >F760s? > > >-Scott _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

1 0

quota and running CIFS
by Scott Mikusko 20 Jun '02

20 Jun '02

Comrades, I have a filer running NFS & CIFS with about 200Gb of data. We run quota reports fairly often (used to be every 15 minutes but now every 4 hours) to keep track of user account space. We've noticed that when quota runs, the performance of the box takes a big hit. The CPU gets pegged at 100% for up to 2 minutes, the NFS performance degrades such that moving a large file (say 10MB) can take nearly a minute! We don't see this sort of thing on straight-NFS filers, only on our F840 filer (running 6.1.R1) running both protocols. The mode running is NFS (not mixed). Normally a quota run on an NFS filer with the same amount of files/users is less than 30 seconds, if that. But this NFS/CIFS box is taking AGES. The hit on the box is so strong that it's really affecting our serving files to web users that have webpages hosted on the box. It's reached a point where I think Netapp's CIFS and/or quota implementation is seriously screwed. I might have to look at BlueArc or some other vendor for running our CIFS-based apps, as this is just not cutting it. Anyone else notice this sort of thing on other boxes, be it F840s or F760s? -Scott

1 0

RE: CIFS Problems
by Nail, Larry 19 Jun '02

19 Jun '02

One thing to help Citrix out is to set: options cifs.max_mpx 1124 -----Original Message----- From: Ambrose_Earle(a)shamrockfoods.com [mailto:Ambrose_Earle@shamrockfoods.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 8:58 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: Bryan_West(a)shamrockfoods.com Subject: CIFS Problems We were one of the first (apparently) to upgrade to 6.2R1 and find the many "issues" with CIFS in that release. These problems actually forced us to revert_to 6.1 again. Unfortunately, it seems that some of these issues have not been corrected by the revert_to and I'd like to know if anyone has seen or solved any of the following problems: 1) Drives becoming disconnected quite frequently, usually leading to - Windows XP claiming to be offline and later trying to synchronize files - DOS applications running within Windows crashing - unable to write files - Being unable to save an Excel file that has been autosaving itself just fine to the same filer all day 2) Winframe servers showing high packet loss/retransmissions when reading files from the filer - Writes to the filers do not seem to be affected - Reading files from a Windows 2000 server does not show the same degree of packet loss 3) One of our filers no longer listens on port 445 and I don't even see an option to disable that anywhere If you have any Citrix tuning hints in general, or are running just fine without needing to do anything, please let me know. Thank you for your time,

2 1

CIFS Problems
by Ambrose_Earle＠shamrockfoods.com 19 Jun '02

19 Jun '02

We were one of the first (apparently) to upgrade to 6.2R1 and find the many "issues" with CIFS in that release. These problems actually forced us to revert_to 6.1 again. Unfortunately, it seems that some of these issues have not been corrected by the revert_to and I'd like to know if anyone has seen or solved any of the following problems: 1) Drives becoming disconnected quite frequently, usually leading to - Windows XP claiming to be offline and later trying to synchronize files - DOS applications running within Windows crashing - unable to write files - Being unable to save an Excel file that has been autosaving itself just fine to the same filer all day 2) Winframe servers showing high packet loss/retransmissions when reading files from the filer - Writes to the filers do not seem to be affected - Reading files from a Windows 2000 server does not show the same degree of packet loss 3) One of our filers no longer listens on port 445 and I don't even see an option to disable that anywhere If you have any Citrix tuning hints in general, or are running just fine without needing to do anything, please let me know. Thank you for your time,

1 0

cleaning up rmtab
by Igor Schein 17 Jun '02

17 Jun '02

Hi, my rmtab file is huge and has a lot of obsolete entries. I wanna clean it up. Has any1 done that? I know that if it's possible at all, there must be some trickery involved, because just removing the file doesn't work - it creates recreated on the file - possibly from memory? Maybe removing AND rebooting will do the job? Thanks Igor

2 1

RE: TCP v UDP performance
by Peter Bryant 14 Jun '02

14 Jun '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 *** Thanks for the tip Kevin (and others), as we've a managed solution for the Sun kit I'll pass this on them as knows (and who should have got the damn thing working properly in the first place). Strange that with only a modest amount of filer and Solaris knowledge (but of course access to this list) that I ended up finding the information that got the performance sorted instead of the paid for professionals <g> Thanks toaster world! Peter -----Original Message----- From: kevin graham [mailto:kgraham@dotnetdotcom.org] Sent: 14 June 2002 06:02 To: Peter Bryant Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: TCP v UDP performance > Thanks for the tip though. I suspect the drivers are probably OK, > install was only done a couple of months back and up to date versions > used - unless you know a previous driver is better.... <g> For 2.6, do make sure you have 106764-08 installed. Since SUNWged is an unbundled driver, patches for it will _not_ be included in 'Recommended' clusters (one of the reasons I despise them), nor will patchdiag include it (unless its logic has been altered significantly since I last read source). I didn't take the time to read all the bug reports, but there were resolved performance issues with ttcp workloads which will resemble udp to the driver since IIRC that card doesn't do anything like tcp checksum offloading. ..kg.. . o O ( still wondering what was so wrong with the rebranded Alteon ACEnic Sun Gigabit Ethernet 1.0 that they stuck us with this crap. Do yourself a favor and buy a SysKonnect or IntraServer card) > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason S. Cash [mailto:cash@UDel.Edu] > Sent: 12 June 2002 19:02 > To: Peter Bryant > Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: Re: TCP v UDP performance > > > On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Peter Bryant wrote: > > > Sometime ago I posted some performance tweaks for TCP performance, > > which (when the filer was switched to TCP) worked a treat. I was > > hoping to get the same for UDP. However... > > > > It seems that UDP on Sun over 1GB Ethernet and above is problematic. > > Some details below (words and details have been changed to protect the > > guilty!). As a result we're sticking to TCP for now. > > What version of solaris and what gig-e card? I would look for a new > driver for the gigaswift adaptor that helps immensly w/ UDP NFS perf. > > Jason > > > > > > Peter > > > > ===================================================== > > > > I've done a bit of research and found out that testing of a very > > similar setup to yours, by another customer, showed that there is a > > performance bug in the NFS UDP implementation of Solaris. > > > > We all know that NFS over UDP is about 20% faster than NFS over TCP > > however, the Solaris implementation of UDP breaks this rule when > > gigabit Ethernet is involved..! It seems to be that when NFS is used > > with UDP for internet, 10Mb and 100Mb connectivity then the rule > > applies and also when you have a gigabit Ethernet connection under low > > load then again all is fine. > > > > The performance problem appears when you try to load the gig > > connection heavily - Solaris's UDP simply cannot perform at the > > required rate. Now, thankfully, the TCP implementation in Solaris is > > very good and is up to the job - hence, the situation you find whereby > > NFS over TCP is much better than NFS over UDP. This matches exactly > > with your findings where under normal database usage your Gig + > > NFS/UDP connection is fine - but when you try to backup over the Gig > > Ethernet link the load on the network goes up and UDP can't perform. > > You switched from UDP to TCP and the problem went away. > > > > My recommendation to you is to keep using NFS over TCP - the other > > customer has decided to stay with TCP as it works well and they can't > > see any benefit in moving back to UDP. > > > > > > ******************************* 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 ******************** > > > > /* Jason S. Cash - Systems Programmer > IT/Network and Systems Services > University of Delaware, Newark Delaware > e:cash@udel.edu v: 302-831-0461 */ >

1 0

RE: TCP v UDP performance
by mds＠gbnet.net 14 Jun '02

14 Jun '02

On Thu 13 Jun, 2002, kevin graham <kgraham(a)dotnetdotcom.org> wrote: > > For 2.6, do make sure you have 106764-08 installed. Since SUNWged is an > unbundled driver, patches for it will _not_ be included in 'Recommended' > clusters (one of the reasons I despise them), nor will patchdiag include > it (unless its logic has been altered significantly since I last read > source). Yeah, the patchdiag and patchcheck scripts will believe what they're told in the .xref. However, I always use the '-l' flag which appends a list of patches worth considering based on your other installed packages. If you'd like the output to be in html with links to the patch pages in sunsolve, then take a look at http://www.gbnet.net/~mds/pd.pl . There's an extra switch '-w' which makes it stuff random bits of HTML into the output and I find it saves me hours when assembling bespoke patch lists. For the US sunsolve use '-W'. The output is way faster for the browser to handle than that from patchcheck and in some ways more useful. Needless to say this is a complete hack, is unsupported by everyone, is a mild abuse of Sun copyright and I should probably be hung by the RIAA and the Fatherland Defence Force for even thinking about it. But if it's useful then I hope I earn some forgiveness along the way. >-- End of excerpt from kevin graham -- -Mark ... an Englishman in London ...

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