toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13514 discussions

Any NDMB backup applications warnings?
by Breniser, Larry 16 Mar '02

16 Mar '02

We are evaluating backup applications for our filers. Currently we are talking to Veritas (NetBackup), Legato (Networker) and CA (BrightStor). We may also speak to Workstation Solutions (Quick Restore). I would be interested in hearing about the communities experience with these products. In particular I would like to hear about any show-stoppers, major problems or even minor problems with any of these products when used to backup NetApp filers. Tanx! Larry

2 1

time/ntp problem
by Ozzie Sabina 16 Mar '02

16 Mar '02

I have a clustered pair of 840s running DOT 6.1.1R2. I also have a clustered pair of 760s running the same version of DOT. I'm talking about the 840s below, but I see the exact same behavior on the 760s. I am attempting to enable ntp on the filers, but it doesn't appear to be working. Here's my "timed" options: cf.timed.enable on (same value in local+partner recommended) timed.enable on (same value in local+partner recommended) timed.log on (same value in local+partner recommended) timed.max_skew 1h (same value in local+partner recommended) timed.min_skew 50 (same value in local+partner recommended) timed.proto ntp (same value in local+partner recommended) timed.sched 30m (same value in local+partner recommended) timed.servers ntp (same value in local+partner recommended) (The host 'ntp' is in the hosts file) Although it reports timing discrepancies, it doesn't actually change the time on the box...at least not the one reported by 'date': fatman> date Fri Mar 15 17:56:45 EST 2002 fatman> Fri Mar 15 17:56:47 EST [fatman: Java Thread:info]: CfTimeDaemon: timed: adjusting time: filer thinks time is Fri Mar 15 22:56:47 GMT 2002. Time reported by time server ntp is Fri Mar 15 23:05:20 GMT 2002 (skew +513.246 secs). fatman> date Fri Mar 15 17:57:00 EST 2002 Behavior is the same on both cluster boxes: littleboy> date Fri Mar 15 17:41:15 EST 2002 littleboy> Fri Mar 15 17:41:22 EST [littleboy: Java Thread:info]: CfTimeDaemon: timed: adjusting time: filer thinks time is Fri Mar 15 17:41:21 EST 2002. Time reported by time server cluster is Fri Mar 15 17:47:06 EST 2002 (skew +345.099 secs). littleboy> date Fri Mar 15 17:41:27 EST 2002 As I mentioned before, the 760s are doing the exact same thing. Is there something here that I'm missing? -=- In addition to this, I observed some additionally disturbing behavior on one of these boxes. After rebooting the box, the clock didn't advance for over 5 minutes: fatman> date Fri Mar 15 17:46:29 EST 2002 fatman> date Fri Mar 15 17:46:29 EST 2002 fatman> date Fri Mar 15 17:46:29 EST 2002 fatman> date Fri Mar 15 17:46:29 EST 2002 fatman> date Fri Mar 15 17:46:29 EST 2002 fatman> date Fri Mar 15 17:46:29 EST 2002 fatman> date Fri Mar 15 17:46:29 EST 2002 ... (Those were typed in over several "real" minutes, then miraculously for no *apparent* reason, it started updating): fatman> date Fri Mar 15 17:46:29 EST 2002 fatman> date Fri Mar 15 17:46:32 EST 2002 fatman> date Fri Mar 15 17:46:57 EST 2002 fatman> date Fri Mar 15 17:46:59 EST 2002 ... I've only seen this with one of the boxes and only once - since the box is in semi-production I can't afford to keep rebooting it to see if the behavior is consistant. Anyone else seen this? I checked NOW for a bug on my version of DOT with 'ntp' or 'date' in the title - no dice. Next up is opening a case with NA, I suppose. Oz

1 1

Using diff on snapshots
by mitch＠netline.com 15 Mar '02

15 Mar '02

Greetings! I've run across an issue that I'm surprised I've never run across before. I needed to find the differences between a file and it's counterpart in the snapshot area. When I ran a diff, it reported no differences. That was quite the shock since I knew for a fact the file had changed, albeit ever so slightly. I used cmp(1) on it, and it quickly noted that the files were different. # diff .snapshot/weekly.0/index.config index.config # cmp .snapshot/weekly.0/index.config index.config .snapshot/weekly.0/index.config index.config differ: char 2787, line 89 # tail -1 .snapshot/weekly.0/index.config index.config ==> .snapshot/weekly.0/index.config <== path: /home/indy ==> index.config <== path: /home/indy/clients There were more differences than this, but I knew the last line had a simple difference for this demonstration. Some observations: 1. If I use sdiff, it shows the files being identical... and always shows the line I know will differ as the one in the first file. 2. If I copy the two files, so neither is in the snapshot area, diff works as one would expect. 3. If I diff two completely different files, it does the right thing. I have reproduced this with clients running several releases of Solaris/SunOS as well as hosts running FreeBSD. Our filer is happily running 5.3.2R1P1D1. -- do svidaniya, ~mitch

4 3

RE: FC_AL in slot 8?
by Walsh, Warren (MN65) 15 Mar '02

15 Mar '02

We had the same problem. Pretty easy to move the QLA 2100 FC-AL card to slot 1. There was a bug in an older version of the 7xx firmware (2.3 maybe?) that caused a panic with certain cards in certain slots. We ended up calling NetApp tech support and removing the gig-E cards to get the filer to boot, and then upgraded the firmware (2.8). The filer would then boot properly with the cards in the recommended slots. What's interesting is that the FC-AL card *came* in slot 8 when we got our 740 directly from NetApp. It's not like we put it in the wrong slot on purpose. We never even thought about the slot positions until we put in the gig-E cards, and then noticed the sysconfig errors. The recommendations from sysconfig -c and the NetApp "put this card in this slot" matrix do not seem to be in agreement. -warren Warren Walsh Honeywell Laboratories Information Technology 612-951-7837 warren.walsh(a)honeywell.com -----Original Message----- From: Öberg Mats [mailto:mats.oberg@tietoenator.com] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 5:13 AM To: Toasters (E-mail) Subject: FC_AL in slot 8? Hi, does anyone know if it's ok to use slot 8 in the F760 for fc-al? I'm asking this because it's in that slot right now, and it seems to be working, but the filer keeps telling me that it should be in any slot but slot8, so I was going to move it, but then I found this on the now site: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- Make optimal use of Slot 8 This method of improving filer performance applies to F700 series filers only. The fastest available PCI slot in an F700 series filer that is not clustered is Slot 8. If your filer uses a 64-bit network interface card, put it in Slot 8 to take advantage of the speed. If the filer does not use a 64-bit network interface card, put the main FC-AL adapter in this slot. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- So, if it´s ok then how can I get rid of theese annoying error messages? By the way were at OnTap 6.1.1R2. ---- Mats

2 1

FC_AL in slot 8?
by Öberg Mats 15 Mar '02

15 Mar '02

Hi, does anyone know if it's ok to use slot 8 in the F760 for fc-al? I'm asking this because it's in that slot right now, and it seems to be working, but the filer keeps telling me that it should be in any slot but slot8, so I was going to move it, but then I found this on the now site: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- Make optimal use of Slot 8 This method of improving filer performance applies to F700 series filers only. The fastest available PCI slot in an F700 series filer that is not clustered is Slot 8. If your filer uses a 64-bit network interface card, put it in Slot 8 to take advantage of the speed. If the filer does not use a 64-bit network interface card, put the main FC-AL adapter in this slot. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- So, if it´s ok then how can I get rid of theese annoying error messages? By the way were at OnTap 6.1.1R2. ---- Mats

3 2

RE: MS SQL Server
by Venkat, Narayan 15 Mar '02

15 Mar '02

Paul, SnapDrive for Microsoft SQL Server 2000 is designed using NetApp's Virtual Local Disk technology, which enhances NTFS volume management to provide local disk emulation. With SnapDrive, you get high reliability and is ideal for high-volume transaction environments. In addition, SnapDrive supports front-end application clustering (using Microsoft Cluster Server) and allows the usage of a filer volume as a quorum disk. If you need more information, please feel free to contact me. My contact number is below. Thanks. Narayan Venkat Manager, Windows Marketing Tel: (408) 822-3718 Cell: (408) 221-4297 -----Original Message----- From: Jay Newton (Email) [mailto:jnewton@chkenergy.com] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 7:47 AM To: 'Carruthers, Paul A'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: MS SQL Server We tried it for several months and had nothing but problems with it. We connected our SQL servers to our F840 Filer using a private GigE backbone as NetApp suggested. Using both NT4 and Windows 2000, the transactions we were making would end up causing the redirector to fail and we would lose connection to the database. This is a flaw with Microsoft and not NetApp. These disconnects caused multiple database corruptions making us restore from older dumps. We have since moved all our SQL and Oracle databases back to local storage due to this problem. There is a product called SnapDrive (I think) from NetApp. It basically replaces the redirector. You have to be using Win2k and SQL2k with a dedicated volume per database server. Unless you use that, I wouldn't recommend putting SQL databases on a Filer. -----Original Message----- From: Carruthers, Paul A [ mailto:Paul_Carruthers@AIMFUNDS.COM <mailto:Paul_Carruthers@AIMFUNDS.COM> ] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 8:53 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: MS SQL Server Anybody willing to share their experiences running SQL Server against their filers. Good or bad, both appreciated... :) Cheers -- Paul.

1 0

RE: MS SQL Server
by Jay Newton (Email) 15 Mar '02

15 Mar '02

We tried it for several months and had nothing but problems with it. We connected our SQL servers to our F840 Filer using a private GigE backbone as NetApp suggested. Using both NT4 and Windows 2000, the transactions we were making would end up causing the redirector to fail and we would lose connection to the database. This is a flaw with Microsoft and not NetApp. These disconnects caused multiple database corruptions making us restore from older dumps. We have since moved all our SQL and Oracle databases back to local storage due to this problem. There is a product called SnapDrive (I think) from NetApp. It basically replaces the redirector. You have to be using Win2k and SQL2k with a dedicated volume per database server. Unless you use that, I wouldn't recommend putting SQL databases on a Filer. -----Original Message----- From: Carruthers, Paul A [mailto:Paul_Carruthers@AIMFUNDS.COM] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 8:53 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: MS SQL Server Anybody willing to share their experiences running SQL Server against their filers. Good or bad, both appreciated... :) Cheers -- Paul.

1 0

RE: FC_AL in slot 8?
by Sam Schorr 15 Mar '02

15 Mar '02

We have had both FCALs and Gig NICs in what the filer considers a non-optimal slot. However, these are just warnings - the impact, if there is any, can be in performance, as far as I know. We have run 4 F760s for a couple of years getting this same message, but since we did not want to take them down (24x7x235 availability) for something that was just a warning, we left them alone. No problems ever encountered. -----Original Message----- From: Öberg Mats [mailto:mats.oberg@tietoenator.com] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 3:13 AM To: Toasters (E-mail) Subject: FC_AL in slot 8? Hi, does anyone know if it's ok to use slot 8 in the F760 for fc-al? I'm asking this because it's in that slot right now, and it seems to be working, but the filer keeps telling me that it should be in any slot but slot8, so I was going to move it, but then I found this on the now site: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- Make optimal use of Slot 8 This method of improving filer performance applies to F700 series filers only. The fastest available PCI slot in an F700 series filer that is not clustered is Slot 8. If your filer uses a 64-bit network interface card, put it in Slot 8 to take advantage of the speed. If the filer does not use a 64-bit network interface card, put the main FC-AL adapter in this slot. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- So, if it´s ok then how can I get rid of theese annoying error messages? By the way were at OnTap 6.1.1R2. ---- Mats

1 0

MS SQL Server
by Carruthers, Paul A 15 Mar '02

15 Mar '02

Anybody willing to share their experiences running SQL Server against their filers. Good or bad, both appreciated... :) Cheers -- Paul.

1 0

Re: FC_AL in slot 8?
by Rune Bakken 15 Mar '02

15 Mar '02

Öberg Mats <mats.oberg(a)tietoenator.com> writes: > Hi, does anyone know if it's ok to use slot 8 in the F760 for fc-al? Which card do you have, the X2030A or the X2040B ?? You may want to check the System Configuration Guide NOW. >>>>>>>>>>>>.rune -- Rune Bakken Senior System Administrator Telenor Business Company (Nextra), IP-Services Ph: +47 22 77 03 93

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