toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

Filer Storage Charge Back?
by Infantino, Vincent (Exchange) 30 Apr '02

30 Apr '02

Are there any good utilities (other than quota reports) that NetApp provides or any recommended 3rd Party application that can be used to create a monthly charge back report based on storage allocated to a particular user? Vinny *********************************************************************** Bear Stearns is not responsible for any recommendation, solicitation, offer or agreement or any information about any transaction, customer account or account activity contained in this communication. ***********************************************************************

1 0

Filer takeover
by Jose Celestino 30 Apr '02

30 Apr '02

Hello, I fail to understand the following sentence: "When you configure virtual interfaces for takeover, you must specify the interface name and not the IP address." I have one vif in each filer, separate ones, trunk1=192.168.1.103 on 1st filer and trunk1=192.168.1.104 on 2nd filer. Does the previous sentence mean I have to put: ifconfig trunk1 192.168.1.103 mediatype 100tx-fd partner trunk1 ? That doesn't make much sense. Tried also ifconfig trunk1 192.168.1.103 mediatype 100tx-fd partner 192.168.1.104 but keep getting partner 192.168.1.104 (not in use). TIA. -- Jose Celestino <japc(a)co.sapo.pt> Systems::SAPO.pt http://www.sapo.pt --------------------------------------------------------------------- Titanic 1912 / Hindenburg Zeppelin 1937 / Microsoft Windows 2000 OpenBSD claudia 3.0 GENERIC#94 i386

1 1

RE: Tape drive recommendations
by Peter Bryant 26 Apr '02

26 Apr '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 *** Whilst it's not here yet, decision making should allow for O-MASS technology that should be out (first generation) in 2003. This is a step change that I've been waiting about 18 months for * tape is much shorter therefore read times much faster * silicon head gives much closer tracks (and is less susceptible to alignment errors due to heat expansion) * tape is native 600GB capacity * 64MB per second transfer * third generation product is predicted at 2.4TB per tape, and 256MB per second <g> Obviously still to get here, but if (like me) you have a large DLT platform and were thinking of using SDLT as a compatible upgrade, it might be worth hanging on with DLT8000 drives, and change to O-MASS in a year or two. Have a look here: http://www.tandberg.com/o-mass/ Peter -----Original Message----- From: Ben Rockwood [mailto:BRockwood@homestead-inc.com] Sent: 25 April 2002 22:53 To: Jeff Kennedy; dwald(a)kersey.yi.org Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Tape drive recommendations I can't resist to step in here. The battle of the tape format is continuing day by day. Many vendors are pushing people away from current DLT technology saying it's doomed, and that AIT isn't far behind. The big pushes are on LTO's and newer drives. I've had my eye on StorageTek for awhile now because they are doing some really neat things, namely FC to the drive in their T9840B drive. The T9940's are nice two with 60G native and 120G 2:1 compressed. But then it all comes down to your stratagy. If you have a small enviroment and you only want to back up, say 1-2TB, then you might like some of the 20slot AIT2/3 arrays from ADIC. SDLT is looking good with native capacities for 110G and higher with compression plus descent speed, however a key factor between DLT and AIT right now is also physical size. If you have a cramped facility you may not have adiquate room for DLT robots, which is where the nice and tiny AITs are handy. There are alot of choices. Currently I'm still liking LTO because it has 15MB/sec sustained rates per drive plus a 100G native capacity, but right now it probly comes down to cost more than anything. In which case, if you buy a robot, buy bigger than you need to so you can scale later. As for which is best specifically for a Filer, I know that you supposedly can put a robot directly onto a head, but I haven't seen anyone do it, and probly would opt to use a seperate gig-network with a dedicated backup server and anything I wanted on the back end of it. Maybe that helps. I hope. Ben Rockwood -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Kennedy [mailto:jlkennedy@amcc.com] Sent: Thu 4/25/2002 6:26 AM To: dwald(a)kersey.yi.org Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Tape drive recommendations Here are my thoughts: AIT: pros: Great product, nice access time due to the embedded chip, best choice for nearline tape storage, small footprint cons: only media supplier is Sony, the rest are just re-sellers (chances are they aren't going anywhere but you never know) SDLT: pros: Long track record, can read older DLT media (if BRC drive), supported by everyone cons: potential for mixing media LTO: not a big fan of LTO, thought it would be great in the beginning but the "unified format" fractured long before I thought it would. ~JK dwald(a)kersey.yi.org wrote: > > Hi all. > > We've been using DLT7000 drives off the back of our 740's for some > time now, and are looking to upgrade. > > According to the NOW site, NetApps supports the SuperDL220, AIT-3 and > some of the LTO's, among others. > > Capacity and throughput are somewhat close across the three types, I'm > curious for any thoughts on which is preferred? Any horror stories on > any of these with Filers? > > Thanks -- ===================== Jeff Kennedy Unix Administrator AMCC jlkennedy(a)amcc.com ******************************* 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: Request for Input on Independant Filer tools
by Alek O. Komarnitsky (N-CSC) 26 Apr '02

26 Apr '02

> From owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com Thu Apr 25 18:03 MDT 2002 > > Hello Mighty Toasters, > > As some may have noticed recently, I've become very interested in > monitoring tool development for the filers. I've recently had > a minor breakthrough using SNMP tables and mutli-dimensional arrays > in PERL. This is particularly interesting because it gives > me the ability to develope tools that can run sorts on the raid tables, > disk usage tables, and more. > > Here's the problem, most of the tools I'm building now have little to no value. > They are amusing and fun to write, but especially if you use FilerView these tools are useless. While this is a credit to NetApp, I'm curious if there are any tools people would like to see. > > What types of monitoring tools would you guys like to see? Performance > tools are pretty well taken care of with MRTG and Cricket, though it would > be fairly simple to use an snmp polling loop to drop files into either a > MySQL/PostGreSQL backend or maybe just a BerkleyDB and then run GNUplot on > 'em for a more simplified Cricket replacement, but since Cricket is so trusted > it's unlikely for any of my tools be replace it. > > In essence, I've solved the problems I need to solve and now what to find > some way to use all the kool tricks I've learned in the proccess. Ideas? > > If nothing else, I'm hoping to write an article soon about how to easily > develop your own in-house tools for the Filers, which is probly the most > useful thing I could do. > > Thanx in advance. > > Ben Rockwood It's not very high-tech, but I think syslog analysis from any machines (including filers) can by QUITE helpful. Simply centrally logging events, using a log-parsing tool such as Swatch, and then appplying appropriate filtering rules over time results in a pretty decent signal-noise ratio of "significant" events that merit watching. You still need some other stuff (ex: simple remote monitoring via ping/CIFS/NFS functionality), and doesn't help you too much in the performance area, but syslog is good stuff IMHO. alek P.S. Here's a presentation on using Swatch: http://www.komar.org/ -> Misc. Tech Stuff -> Swatch

1 0

RE: Backups to 6 tapes failing
by Clawson, Simon 26 Apr '02

26 Apr '02

I dont think Multiplexing is on. I will check. Its a 7 slot robot with 1 drive. Simon -----Original Message----- From: Ben Rockwood [mailto:BRockwood@homestead-inc.com] Sent: 25 April 2002 22:39 To: Clawson, Simon Subject: RE: Backups to 6 tapes failing Just a thought, is it maybe a mutliplexing issue? Do you have mutliplexing turned on or off? Off is probly best. And when you say "slot" I assume you actually me drive? Or do you have a robot with only 1 drive and 7 tapes? Maybe you could mention which type of robot it is? Almost sounds like a L280. benr. -----Original Message----- From: Clawson, Simon [mailto:simon_clawson@mentorg.com] Sent: Thu 4/25/2002 1:38 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Cc: Subject: Backups to 6 tapes failing Hi! We are using Veritas Netbackup Datacenter to backup a filer running 5.3R2 to a DLT 4700 7 slot device. I am seeing a backup on one volume to 3 tapes working fine, but a backup to more than 4 tapes seems to fail. The backup runs and selects tape 6, tape 5, tape 4 and tape 1, missing tapes 3 & 2. It will then time out and error saying cannot allocate new media. Has anyone else seen this behaviour? Simon Simon Clawson TEL:- +44 (0)1635 811409 HDL Designer Series Team Systems Administrator FAX:- +44 (0)1635 810108 Mentor Graphics Ireland Ltd (UK Branch) MOB:- +44 (0)7788 716071 Rivergate London Road Newbury Berkshire RG14 2QB

1 0

Request for Input on Independant Filer tools
by Ben Rockwood 26 Apr '02

26 Apr '02

Hello Mighty Toasters, As some may have noticed recently, I've become very interested in monitoring tool development for the filers. I've recently had a minor breakthrough using SNMP tables and mutli-dimensional arrays in PERL. This is particularly interesting because it gives me the ability to develope tools that can run sorts on the raid tables, disk usage tables, and more. Here's the problem, most of the tools I'm building now have little to no value. They are amusing and fun to write, but especially if you use FilerView these tools are useless. While this is a credit to NetApp, I'm curious if there are any tools people would like to see. What types of monitoring tools would you guys like to see? Performance tools are pretty well taken care of with MRTG and Cricket, though it would be fairly simple to use an snmp polling loop to drop files into either a MySQL/PostGreSQL backend or maybe just a BerkleyDB and then run GNUplot on 'em for a more simplified Cricket replacement, but since Cricket is so trusted it's unlikely for any of my tools be replace it. In essence, I've solved the problems I need to solve and now what to find some way to use all the kool tricks I've learned in the proccess. Ideas? If nothing else, I'm hoping to write an article soon about how to easily develop your own in-house tools for the Filers, which is probly the most useful thing I could do. Thanx in advance. Ben Rockwood

1 0

RE: Tape drive recommendations
by Ben Rockwood 25 Apr '02

25 Apr '02

I can't resist to step in here. The battle of the tape format is continuing day by day. Many vendors are pushing people away from current DLT technology saying it's doomed, and that AIT isn't far behind. The big pushes are on LTO's and newer drives. I've had my eye on StorageTek for awhile now because they are doing some really neat things, namely FC to the drive in their T9840B drive. The T9940's are nice two with 60G native and 120G 2:1 compressed. But then it all comes down to your stratagy. If you have a small enviroment and you only want to back up, say 1-2TB, then you might like some of the 20slot AIT2/3 arrays from ADIC. SDLT is looking good with native capacities for 110G and higher with compression plus descent speed, however a key factor between DLT and AIT right now is also physical size. If you have a cramped facility you may not have adiquate room for DLT robots, which is where the nice and tiny AITs are handy. There are alot of choices. Currently I'm still liking LTO because it has 15MB/sec sustained rates per drive plus a 100G native capacity, but right now it probly comes down to cost more than anything. In which case, if you buy a robot, buy bigger than you need to so you can scale later. As for which is best specifically for a Filer, I know that you supposedly can put a robot directly onto a head, but I haven't seen anyone do it, and probly would opt to use a seperate gig-network with a dedicated backup server and anything I wanted on the back end of it. Maybe that helps. I hope. Ben Rockwood -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Kennedy [mailto:jlkennedy@amcc.com] Sent: Thu 4/25/2002 6:26 AM To: dwald(a)kersey.yi.org Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Tape drive recommendations Here are my thoughts: AIT: pros: Great product, nice access time due to the embedded chip, best choice for nearline tape storage, small footprint cons: only media supplier is Sony, the rest are just re-sellers (chances are they aren't going anywhere but you never know) SDLT: pros: Long track record, can read older DLT media (if BRC drive), supported by everyone cons: potential for mixing media LTO: not a big fan of LTO, thought it would be great in the beginning but the "unified format" fractured long before I thought it would. ~JK dwald(a)kersey.yi.org wrote: > > Hi all. > > We've been using DLT7000 drives off the back of our 740's for some time > now, and are looking to upgrade. > > According to the NOW site, NetApps supports the SuperDL220, AIT-3 and some > of the LTO's, among others. > > Capacity and throughput are somewhat close across the three types, I'm > curious for any thoughts on which is preferred? Any horror stories on any > of these with Filers? > > Thanks -- ===================== Jeff Kennedy Unix Administrator AMCC jlkennedy(a)amcc.com

1 0

Quantum/ATL P14000, gigabit Ethernet sdlt -- anyone else using this?
by Quentin Fennessy 25 Apr '02

25 Apr '02

We recently purchased a Quantum/ATL P14000 (2xP7000), configured with Gigabit Ethernet sdlt tape drives on a Cisco switch. We are using Workstation Solutions QuickRestore, version 2.7.10. We're trying to backup Netapps (F760s, 840s, 880s) via a Solaris QR host. Unsuccessfully. Is anyone else using the P7000 or P14000 changer? With Gig SDLT? With QR? Our challenges are legion. Are we alone? I'd like to correspond with or talk with someone who has made this configuration work. Thanks -- Quentin Fennessy Quentin.Fennessy(a)amd.com Office: 512.602.3873 Cell: 512.694.7489

1 0

Tape drive recommendations
by dwald＠kersey.yi.org 25 Apr '02

25 Apr '02

Hi all. We've been using DLT7000 drives off the back of our 740's for some time now, and are looking to upgrade. According to the NOW site, NetApps supports the SuperDL220, AIT-3 and some of the LTO's, among others. Capacity and throughput are somewhat close across the three types, I'm curious for any thoughts on which is preferred? Any horror stories on any of these with Filers? Thanks

2 1

Backups to 6 tapes failing
by Clawson, Simon 25 Apr '02

25 Apr '02

Hi! We are using Veritas Netbackup Datacenter to backup a filer running 5.3R2 to a DLT 4700 7 slot device. I am seeing a backup on one volume to 3 tapes working fine, but a backup to more than 4 tapes seems to fail. The backup runs and selects tape 6, tape 5, tape 4 and tape 1, missing tapes 3 & 2. It will then time out and error saying cannot allocate new media. Has anyone else seen this behaviour? Simon Simon Clawson TEL:- +44 (0)1635 811409 HDL Designer Series Team Systems Administrator FAX:- +44 (0)1635 810108 Mentor Graphics Ireland Ltd (UK Branch) MOB:- +44 (0)7788 716071 Rivergate London Road Newbury Berkshire RG14 2QB

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