toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

pktt trace and Sniffer pro files
by Noll, Kevin 22 Apr '02

22 Apr '02

Hi All I am looking to convert a pktt file so as to look at it using snoop utility supplied with Solaris. I was also provided with the same file converted into a sniffer pro file, however, my sniffer box is not accessible at the moment. Any ideas welcome Thanks KEVIN ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ********************************************************************************************

5 5

RE: Dead Disk Shelf for One of The Clustered Filer
by Knight, Jason 19 Apr '02

19 Apr '02

Nicholas, You are not being too paranoid. I removed clustering from all of our systems after we had repeated events (over a couple years each different and each "rare") that for one reason or another brought down two filers instead of just one. I must add here that this was shortly after clustering was offered (F630's using FC) although it continued up to F760's. I am not saying that clustering is bad, in fact when it worked it worked great. It does add another level of complexity to managing your systems and previously there were a lot of ways you could misconfigure yourself into a real problem. I have not had clustered systems for almost 2 years now and I do not miss them - but I am sure it has improved as most everything else has with the systems being produced by Netapp. It was a hard decision to make, but I reasoned that if you do not failover and it works who cares, it's when you need to failover and can't, or worse, bring down the partner also, that you are better off without it. Because really if you have a spare filer head with the right chip Intel/Alpha you could just put it in and go without worrying about any other dependencies. But to answer your specific question about shelves, I have never seen a shelf go bad and I am guessing it would take some external event to cause it to, such as excessive heat/cold or banging on it with a hammer. I have seen a disk (based on the RCA done by Netapp)chatter enough on a loop as it was going bad to bring down both system loops and hence both filers though. Jason -----Original Message----- From: Nicholas Chua [mailto:nicholas_chuah@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 12:36 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Dead Disk Shelf for One of The Clustered Filer Hi, Is it possible for the disk shelf to completely fail? By this I don't mean the power supply or fans because those are redundant and replacable. I thinking more of a board/ic failure or maybe shelf firmware bug that can completely knock out a disk shelf. If there is a remote possibility of this happening, then I figure the partner would not be able to take over the failed filer through channel B as well under a cluster environment. Am I being too paranoid? I'm looking for something like the Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) for the Disk Shelf if available, be it FC9 or DS14. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Nic __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/

1 0

RFE 1287 - root=/rw= allowing NIS netgroups in exports file
by Chris Blackmor 19 Apr '02

19 Apr '02

Folks, I have just been informed about something that we have been discussing recently on toasters. The issue was exports allowing NIS netgroups to be used in the rw= and root= options on the exports of file systems. The above RFE was posted 7 YEARS AGO The reason for not allowing this was sited as performance issues. Well, we have come an awful long way with speed and abilities in this time. I think it is just plain silly that this RFE has been ignored for so long. Solaris allows this now and I don't think the issue will be resolved until enough people complain. It was suggested that I submit a case about this RFE which I am doing now. Unless it gets a bunch of requests it will continue to be ignored another 7 years. Anyway... if any of you want to hop on this bandwagon and get NAC to address the issue, it was suggested that we all enter cases about this. Soap Box Off. C- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- * | If you get to thinkin' * * Chris Blackmor _______ | you're a person of some * * Advanced Micro Devices \____ | | influence * * Phone: (512) 602-1608 /| | | | try orderin' somebody * * Fax: (512) 602-5155 | |___| | | else's dog around * * Email: chris.blackmor(a)amd.com |____/ \| | Author Unknown* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- * My comments are mine, and mine alone. * -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 7

RE: Replication across Domains!!
by Kumar, Rahul 19 Apr '02

19 Apr '02

If they can't place a BDC at the site with the mirrored Filer, then I guess they are just kind of out of luck. What would happen if they setup a trust relationship between the domains and set permissions to allow certain users from both domains? Regards Rahul -----Original Message----- From: Muhlestein, Mark [mailto:mark.muhlestein@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 4:28 AM To: 'Pramod'; toasters Subject: RE: Replication across Domains!! Oops. I should have read your message more carefully. It's true that MultiStore will completely solve the problem of replicating the servers if the destination has a way to get to the proper domain infrastructure at the remote site. If not, then you will either have to reset permissions, as you say, or use local users on the filer. Even in those cases, using MultiStore is still advantageous since it allows you to keep the servers separate. Out of curiosity, why is it a problem to have the domain infrastructure available at the remote site? I'd think you would want that anyway as part of your disaster recovery strategy. Or is it just a question of one or two users at the remote site that need to access the data? Mark -----Original Message----- From: Muhlestein, Mark [mailto:mark.muhlestein@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 1:52 PM To: 'Pramod'; toasters Subject: RE: Replication across Domains!! You should look into the MultiStore feature available with 6.2. It completely solves this problem, including the issue of local groups in snapmirrored data. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Pramod [mailto:pramod@apara.com] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 9:41 AM To: toasters Subject: Replication across Domains!! Hi All, I have two filers replicating data. The two filers are in different domains. Now if one of my site goes down( along with the PDC and BDCs of that domain), how will I be able to access the data of the mirrored volume on the remote site after breaking the mirror....... as the files will have permmissions of a different NT Domain. I cannot create NT 'Trust' or have a BDC of each domain on the remote site. Is there anyother way of doing this. Can I reset all the permissions on the mirrored volume in the remote site in case of a 'site outage', so that I can access the data there. Thanks Pramod

1 0

RE: Replication across Domains!!
by Muhlestein, Mark 18 Apr '02

18 Apr '02

Oops. I should have read your message more carefully. It's true that MultiStore will completely solve the problem of replicating the servers if the destination has a way to get to the proper domain infrastructure at the remote site. If not, then you will either have to reset permissions, as you say, or use local users on the filer. Even in those cases, using MultiStore is still advantageous since it allows you to keep the servers separate. Out of curiosity, why is it a problem to have the domain infrastructure available at the remote site? I'd think you would want that anyway as part of your disaster recovery strategy. Or is it just a question of one or two users at the remote site that need to access the data? Mark -----Original Message----- From: Muhlestein, Mark [mailto:mark.muhlestein@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 1:52 PM To: 'Pramod'; toasters Subject: RE: Replication across Domains!! You should look into the MultiStore feature available with 6.2. It completely solves this problem, including the issue of local groups in snapmirrored data. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Pramod [mailto:pramod@apara.com] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 9:41 AM To: toasters Subject: Replication across Domains!! Hi All, I have two filers replicating data. The two filers are in different domains. Now if one of my site goes down( along with the PDC and BDCs of that domain), how will I be able to access the data of the mirrored volume on the remote site after breaking the mirror....... as the files will have permmissions of a different NT Domain. I cannot create NT 'Trust' or have a BDC of each domain on the remote site. Is there anyother way of doing this. Can I reset all the permissions on the mirrored volume in the remote site in case of a 'site outage', so that I can access the data there. Thanks Pramod

1 0

Gigabit Ethernet and Baystack 450
by devnull＠adc.idt.com 18 Apr '02

18 Apr '02

Fellow Toasters, I am planning on getting a gigabit module for my baystack 450 switch(its a 100Mb switch, with an expansion slot for GigE from nortel) and use the gigabit card on my F740, running 6.1.1R2. Is anybody done this before ? Was wondering if you could share your experiences, gotchas to look out for, oh-Sh*t's etc. The F740 has a gigabit ethernet Controller II in Slot 8. Any recommendations for reading to understand auto-negotiation etc. Thanks for your time. Regards. /dev/null devnull(a)adc.idt.com

1 0

RE: Replication across Domains!!
by Muhlestein, Mark 18 Apr '02

18 Apr '02

You should look into the MultiStore feature available with 6.2. It completely solves this problem, including the issue of local groups in snapmirrored data. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Pramod [mailto:pramod@apara.com] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 9:41 AM To: toasters Subject: Replication across Domains!! Hi All, I have two filers replicating data. The two filers are in different domains. Now if one of my site goes down( along with the PDC and BDCs of that domain), how will I be able to access the data of the mirrored volume on the remote site after breaking the mirror....... as the files will have permmissions of a different NT Domain. I cannot create NT 'Trust' or have a BDC of each domain on the remote site. Is there anyother way of doing this. Can I reset all the permissions on the mirrored volume in the remote site in case of a 'site outage', so that I can access the data there. Thanks Pramod

1 0

RE: Max number of CIFS shares?
by Sam Schorr 18 Apr '02

18 Apr '02

From the System Administrator guide, pg 235 (of ONTap 6.1): For the F8xx model: CIFS limits by filer memory 3 GB Maximum number of users 48,000 Maximum number of shares 96,000 Maximum number of open files 960,000 Maximum number of locked files 1,058,304 -----Original Message----- From: Carl R. Friend [mailto:cfriend@mathworks.com] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 11:56 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Max number of CIFS shares? Greetings, Does anybody here have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, as to the maximum number of CIFS shares one may have configured on an F840c, and what the performance impact of large numbers (>400) of shares might be? Any ideas are welcome; there doesn't seem to be much in the way of doco on the matter. Thanks in advance. +----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+ | Carl Richard Friend (UNIX Sysadmin) | The MathWorks | | Minicomputer Collector / Enthusiast | Natick, Massachusetts | | mailto:carl_friend@mathworks.com +-----------------------+ | http://www.ultranet.com/~crfriend/museum/ | ICBM: 42:18N 71:21W | +----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+

1 0

Max number of CIFS shares?
by Carl R. Friend 18 Apr '02

18 Apr '02

Greetings, Does anybody here have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, as to the maximum number of CIFS shares one may have configured on an F840c, and what the performance impact of large numbers (>400) of shares might be? Any ideas are welcome; there doesn't seem to be much in the way of doco on the matter. Thanks in advance. +----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+ | Carl Richard Friend (UNIX Sysadmin) | The MathWorks | | Minicomputer Collector / Enthusiast | Natick, Massachusetts | | mailto:carl_friend@mathworks.com +-----------------------+ | http://www.ultranet.com/~crfriend/museum/ | ICBM: 42:18N 71:21W | +----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+

2 1

RE: Dead Disk Shelf for One of The Clustered Filer
by Art Hebert 18 Apr '02

18 Apr '02

Nic -- I've never had it happen, if you are really worried you can buy a spares kit. Contact your sales rep. :-) art -----Original Message----- From: Nicholas Chua [mailto:nicholas_chuah@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 10:36 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Dead Disk Shelf for One of The Clustered Filer Hi, Is it possible for the disk shelf to completely fail? By this I don't mean the power supply or fans because those are redundant and replacable. I thinking more of a board/ic failure or maybe shelf firmware bug that can completely knock out a disk shelf. If there is a remote possibility of this happening, then I figure the partner would not be able to take over the failed filer through channel B as well under a cluster environment. Am I being too paranoid? I'm looking for something like the Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) for the Disk Shelf if available, be it FC9 or DS14. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Nic __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

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