toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

RE: CIFS Performance.
by Geert Jackers 01 Feb '02

01 Feb '02

For all those who responded to my problem with CIFS performance... Thanks, problom solved. We installed the oplocks patch on one system, but no result.The same with disabling the oplocks on the filer. We also have several interfaces on the box but we couldn't find a fault there too. So like some of you mentioned about 'streamlining' traffic, we looked into the networking aspect of this. We found that users on one system didn't have problems because they were connected at 10 Mbit Half Duplex, uplinked to a switch with 100Mbit full duplex and them together with several other 100 Mbit FD links uplinked to the backbone via 1 Gbit . The filer was connected to it via 1 Gbit. The ones experiencing problems didn't have a 1Gbit uplink to the backbone (only 100Mbit FD, but only very low traffic on this link), we changed to a half duplex link and the users to 10Mbit half duplex.....and everything flies. Now we get more than twice as fast as using a normal NT server. Which were fast with the old network config. IMHO these filers are very fast, but you need to have a network adapted to it. So thanks again Geert Geert Jackers Siemens Business Services Belgium

1 0

cifs performance
by Peter D. Gray 01 Feb '02

01 Feb '02

Greetings all, a quick question. We use our netapps for pretty much everything here at least on the UNIX side. We are happy to do this because we know that NFS performance is good. Our head of unit has asked me about using the filers for our NT storage. I really like the the idea of this but I have no feeling for how the NT boxes using CIFS rather than local disk will perform. I know some people are doing this. If you have experience with using CIFS for NT storage (databases etc) could you pls mail me with your experiences? Does anybody have information on CIFS performance in general they wish to share? Regards, pdg -- See mail headers for contact information.

1 0

NDMP restore issues resolved
by Matt Musgrove 31 Jan '02

31 Jan '02

Hi, Thanks to all the people who replied to my questions about NDMP restores from NetApp using Networker 6.1.1 on Solaris. Our issues were resolved (by NetApp) and the following findings made: DAR (Direct Access Restore) =========================== DAR is limited to 1024 files. If you try and recover more than 1024 files the restore will complete without error but only 1024 files will be recovered. This is in my opinion a Networker bug. Could also find no documentation about this1024 files limit. DAR is best used for recovering a few files from a large save set. When trying to recover hundreds of files the recover rate is very slow. In order to use nwrecover for recovering many files you must take out the line "DIRECT=y" in client setup. The restore will parse the whole saveset. Once finished, remember to put DIRECT=y back again. Recovering files past the browse policy ======================================= Our browse policy is set to 3 months but the media database is retained for 15 years. In order to recover files over 3 months old run the following command to get the save set information. % mminfo -aV -c netapp (where netapp is the client name) NetApp1Full.001 netapp 29 GB full /vol/unix 1351792385 1011913207 01/24/02 11:00:07 PM 04/27/02 01/24/17 0 30445916163 3 0 1351780097 30445916164 cbN Load the tape manually and fast forward to the right place on the tape. In the example above the command would be mt -f nrst1a fsf 3 (where nrst1a is the device name) View the contents of the backup with % restore tbf 60 nrst1a To restore to a specific location use the following (rewind and fsf if you ran a restore tbf first) % restore xbfD 60 nrst1a /vol/destination /vol/unix/file_to_recover If you don't specify a restore location it will go to /vol/vol0. Note, 60 is the block size which Networker defaults to. best regards Matt Musgrove Thales

1 0

RE: F720 & HP HVD LTO & NetVault
by graeme_taylor＠agilent.com 31 Jan '02

31 Jan '02

Hi, I'd be interested to know if you get anywhere with the HP LTO drives. We've just purchased a F820, I've had discussions with a few of the folk at NetApp and they've all said that the HP LTO drive isn't supported, something to do with the way HP do their compression. We've now moved onto looking at a StorageTek library with either the IBM or Seagate LTO drives. Regards, Graeme. Graeme Taylor Telecom Systems Division Agilent Technologies, Inc. 0131 331 6473 Tel 0131 331 7987 Fax -----Original Message----- From: Levent Kaptanoglu [mailto:lkaptan@pro-link.net] Sent: 31 January 2002 09:43 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: F720 & HP HVD LTO & NetVault And I am also interested in using netVault with netapp. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Uros Lampret Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 3:55 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: F720 & HP HVD LTO & NetVault Hi! I intend to use F720 with HP ShureStore HVD LTO and NetVault over NDMP. Has any body any comments or recomendations? Best Regards, Uros _____________________________ Uros Lampret Our Space Appliances d.o.o. Tbilisijska 59 1000 Ljubljana - Slovenia tel. +386 1 2425 372 fax +386 1 2425 382 email: uros.lampret(a)ourspace.si <mailto:uros.lampret@ourspace.si> internet: www.ourspace.si <http://www.ourspace.si> _____________________________

1 0

F720 & HP HVD LTO & NetVault
by Uros Lampret 31 Jan '02

31 Jan '02

Hi! I intend to use F720 with HP ShureStore HVD LTO and NetVault over NDMP. Has any body any comments or recomendations? Best Regards, Uros _____________________________ Uros Lampret Our Space Appliances d.o.o. Tbilisijska 59 1000 Ljubljana - Slovenia tel. +386 1 2425 372 fax +386 1 2425 382 email: uros.lampret(a)ourspace.si internet: www.ourspace.si _____________________________

2 1

nt inheritance
by neil lehrer 30 Jan '02

30 Jan '02

ontap 6.1.1r2 can anyone tell me a good way to tell if a dir or qtree has autoinheritance blocked? the different tools i have are giving me different results. -- regards +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Neil Lehrer + + United States International Broadcasting Bureau + System Development Division + + voice 202 619-2524 + fax 202 619-3576 + nlehrer(a)ibb.gov + + " is this crisis an opportunity or just + another grab the fire extinguisher moment?" + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 0

RE: CIFS Performance.
by Haber, David J. 30 Jan '02

30 Jan '02

We had similar problems, especially when copying files and with Microsoft Office products. We solved these problems by making two changes in our configuration. We have a 4-port 10/100 VIF with channeling on our Cisco switch. The default gateway was set for the VIF subnet on the switch. We also had ("had" is the key word here!) the e0 interface set up on a different subnet than the VIF. There was a problem with the switch determining the proper gateway for the e0 interface since the filer can only have one default gateway. Once we disabled the e0 interface performance improved for clients who were on remote (T1 linked) subnets. We still had a problem for some users when they tried to copy files from the filer. We found that these users were on 10/100 ports that were set to full duplex, 100Mb port speed. We changed the setting to half duplex, 100Mb port speed and that solved the problem for these users. We currently have over 2000 user home directories and group shares on the filer with excellent performance at our primary sites and at our 40 T1-linked sites. Maybe this will help with some of your problems. -----Original Message----- From: Geert Jackers [mailto:gj@pandora.be] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 1:33 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: CIFS Performance. Hi, we have F740 and F820 running only CIFS. We hear everywhere that the performance is great of these boxes. We installed the latest 6.1.1R2 (I think) which would solve some problems with virusscanning (trendmicro) on the boxes and clients. When we read a file (doc file) it is somewhat fast, but when we save it it takes twice as long as on a NT box. When we do the same with a RTF file....or TXT it is much faster. Not to say when opening or working with outlook and .pst files on that share, it takes forever.....almost. We see that when we open a file on the box a ~file is created on the same directory too, can this have an influence ? A copy from a file to and from the box....also slow. We have a 100 Mbit switched network and 1 Gbit links to the filers....other traffic on the network is fast etc. We disabled viruschecking on the filer and the pc's...no difference. Do we need to tune or set special parameters on the filer ? Somebody has had the same experience....? Please any info is appreciated. Geert Geert Jackers Siemens Business Services Belgium

1 0

RE: CIFS Performance.
by Andrew Yee 30 Jan '02

30 Jan '02

FYI, we also played with the oplocks configuration and even tried an undocumented oplocks feature that didn't help during our investigation/trouble-shooting phase. We still have oplocks enabled. I will probably call NetApp and review one of my closed cases with a TSE about disabling oplocks. However, we sorta want oplocks enabled... >>> "Drew O'Donnell" <drew(a)cooperneff.com> Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:12:50 AM >>> We had a similar problem and it ended up being oplocks. It also seemed to manifest itself in office files only, not txt files. Turn oplocks off on one of the qtrees which was having the issue and see if you get the same problem. The command to turn oplocks off is "qtree oplocks qtreename disable" If this fixes the issue I would call support because this should have been fixed in 6.1.1Rx. Later Drew -----Original Message----- From: Geert Jackers [mailto:gj@pandora.be] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 1:33 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: CIFS Performance. Hi, we have F740 and F820 running only CIFS. We hear everywhere that the performance is great of these boxes. We installed the latest 6.1.1R2 (I think) which would solve some problems with virusscanning (trendmicro) on the boxes and clients. When we read a file (doc file) it is somewhat fast, but when we save it it takes twice as long as on a NT box. When we do the same with a RTF file....or TXT it is much faster. Not to say when opening or working with outlook and .pst files on that share, it takes forever.....almost. We see that when we open a file on the box a ~file is created on the same directory too, can this have an influence ? A copy from a file to and from the box....also slow. We have a 100 Mbit switched network and 1 Gbit links to the filers....other traffic on the network is fast etc. We disabled viruschecking on the filer and the pc's...no difference. Do we need to tune or set special parameters on the filer ? Somebody has had the same experience....? Please any info is appreciated. Geert Geert Jackers Siemens Business Services Belgium

1 0

Re: CIFS Performance.
by Andrew Yee 30 Jan '02

30 Jan '02

We've encountered issues like that in our environment. Obviously, we bought the FILER for its redundancy as well as speed in serving data. I had opened several cases on the NOW site about the apparent slowness. Our FILER was setup with a 100-base-t connection directly to our 3Com CoreBuilder 9000, which has a Gigabit backbone. We found that it would take 75 seconds to open a 250 KB Excel Spreadsheet and 110 seconds to save it to the FILER. Sometimes, it wouldn't save and would give "delayed-write" errors. However, our NT 4 Server that the FILER was replacing also had similar delays BUT these spreadsheets would eventually save OK. NetApp had us do a lot of pktt'ing and other configuration testing. For our specific environment, it turned out the culprit was the fact that users were connecting to a 3Com 10-base-t hub that was connected to a 3Com SuperStack Switch. We also found hubs interconnected to each other and then connected to the switch. According to their analysis of the pktt traces, it appeared that the FILER was handling data fine, but there were some sort of network bottlenecks on our side. Kudos for NetApp TSE's willingness to help us trouble-shoot some of our non-FILER-related network investigation. Reconfiguring users to connect to the switch at 100/Full-Duplex fixed access speed issues. (The users also felt that somehow, we had sped up all of their computers.) We found it a bit odd that the FILER seemed to desire high-speed network connections vs. being able to handle pokey slow network connections. Of course, this may specifically be due to our network setup and all of the 20 year-old CAT-3 wiring everywhere, plus mice chewing up cables. We recently purchased the McAfee NetShield 4.5 for NetApp but have yet to implement it. As the FILER's virus scan feature is somewhat immature, I do not look forward to setting this us. >>> Geert Jackers <gj(a)pandora.be> Wednesday, January 30, 2002 10:32:39 AM >>> Hi, we have F740 and F820 running only CIFS. We hear everywhere that the performance is great of these boxes. We installed the latest 6.1.1R2 (I think) which would solve some problems with virusscanning (trendmicro) on the boxes and clients. When we read a file (doc file) it is somewhat fast, but when we save it it takes twice as long as on a NT box. When we do the same with a RTF file....or TXT it is much faster. Not to say when opening or working with outlook and .pst files on that share, it takes forever.....almost. We see that when we open a file on the box a ~file is created on the same directory too, can this have an influence ? A copy from a file to and from the box....also slow. We have a 100 Mbit switched network and 1 Gbit links to the filers....other traffic on the network is fast etc. We disabled viruschecking on the filer and the pc's...no difference. Do we need to tune or set special parameters on the filer ? Somebody has had the same experience....? Please any info is appreciated. Geert Geert Jackers Siemens Business Services Belgium

1 0

RE: CIFS Performance.
by Drew O'Donnell 30 Jan '02

30 Jan '02

We had a similar problem and it ended up being oplocks. It also seemed to manifest itself in office files only, not txt files. Turn oplocks off on one of the qtrees which was having the issue and see if you get the same problem. The command to turn oplocks off is "qtree oplocks qtreename disable" If this fixes the issue I would call support because this should have been fixed in 6.1.1Rx. Later Drew -----Original Message----- From: Geert Jackers [mailto:gj@pandora.be] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 1:33 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: CIFS Performance. Hi, we have F740 and F820 running only CIFS. We hear everywhere that the performance is great of these boxes. We installed the latest 6.1.1R2 (I think) which would solve some problems with virusscanning (trendmicro) on the boxes and clients. When we read a file (doc file) it is somewhat fast, but when we save it it takes twice as long as on a NT box. When we do the same with a RTF file....or TXT it is much faster. Not to say when opening or working with outlook and .pst files on that share, it takes forever.....almost. We see that when we open a file on the box a ~file is created on the same directory too, can this have an influence ? A copy from a file to and from the box....also slow. We have a 100 Mbit switched network and 1 Gbit links to the filers....other traffic on the network is fast etc. We disabled viruschecking on the filer and the pc's...no difference. Do we need to tune or set special parameters on the filer ? Somebody has had the same experience....? Please any info is appreciated. Geert Geert Jackers Siemens Business Services Belgium

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