toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13521 discussions

RE: Gigabit ethernet performance
by Link, Bill (OTS-EDH) 22 Jan '02

22 Jan '02

That's about what I see on an unloaded gbit interface from an ibm s7a to an 840, but it is still nearly twice as fast as the local ssa disks. Bill -----Original Message----- From: Hsueh-Mei Tsai(May Tsai) [mailto:may-tsai@ti.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 9:43 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Gigabit ethernet performance Does anybody knows what kind of performance I can expect from using the Gigabit ethernet on Solaris/NetApp? For example, if mkfile 1024m 1gbfile on a NFS mounted netapp volume thru the gbit interface, how many seconds of response time is considered to be reasonable? I'm getting about 30secs, while I'm hoping within 12secs, am I dreaming? Thanks, -May -- Notice: This e-mail and any attachments are intended only for the individual or company to which it is addressed and may contain information which is privileged, confidential and prohibited from disclosure or unauthorized use under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying of this e-mail or the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited by the sender. If you have received this transmission in error, please return the material received to the sender and delete all copies from your system. Thank you.

2 1

Re: Gigabit ethernet performance
by MCope＠isisph.com 22 Jan '02

22 Jan '02

Check out the NOW site for information on improving the performance of Sun GigE cards. Are you NICs SBUS or PCI cards? My SBUS systems have less than stellar performance using SUN cards. All of my PCI bus systems use a third party card (Alteon) which is definately faster but being from a different vendor makes it hard to do a fair comparison.

1 0

Changing file ownership in NT
by Gifford, Josh 22 Jan '02

22 Jan '02

Hello everyone, Here's the story: Months ago I moved all my user directories to our filer. I wrote (or borrowed) a neat little script to change the permissions in each user directory using the cacls command. Of course, the files are still owned by the administrators group of the filer. The question of user quotas is now coming up and I know that at some point I'm going to need to change the ownership of each user directory so that I can enable these quotas. Is there a command line utility for changing the ownership of files (similar to chown in UNIX)? Best Regards, Josh J Gifford MCP NT Systems Engineer Siemens Power Transmission & Distribution 7000 Siemens Rd Wendell, NC 27591 Phone: (919) 365-2806; Fax: (919) 365-1080

3 2

Summary: Overland Data LXS jukebox and NetApp
by Darragh, Stephen J 22 Jan '02

22 Jan '02

I had a problem getting the LXS7115 library recognized by the filer. I had to go into the jukebox and set the defaults to COMPAQ instead of overland I then set the library id back to 6, and set it to scsi-2 instead of scsi3 (don't know if that was required). This fixed the problem. If I have to go back, I must use the front panel display to manually tell the jukebox that its not a compaq. Stephen Darragh

1 0

Re: Netapp alternatives
by ScottUCE＠aol.com 21 Jan '02

21 Jan '02

Hello, Art: NetApp's standard Software License Agreement permanently ties their software to both 1) the machine's serial number and 2) the end user. Thus, if the machine is ever sold, the new end user must purchase new software licenses from NetApp (very expensive!). However, some companies -- prior to purchase -- have negotiated agreements with NetApp that allow them to freely transfer the software user licenses on their purchased machines to a new end user. When Union Computer receives a purchase order for one of these used machines, we arrange for the original owner of the system to provide Network Appliance with information on the new end user: 1) company name and address, 2) where the machine is to be located, and 3) contact names and phone numbers. Network Appliance then processes the license transfers, free of charge. Our buyers usually confirm the transfer of the licenses with Network Appliance before we even ship the machine. We advise all buyers of new NetApp machines -- or any other computer hardware and software, for that matter -- to insist on transferable software licenses for the protection of their investments. All of us --- dealers, users and the manufacturer --- benefit greatly from an active secondary market. Regards, Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, MN 55436 Phone: 952 935 7282 FAX: 952 935 5056 scott(a)unioncomputer.com ************************************ In a message dated 1/21/2002 5:38:20 PM Central Standard Time, art(a)arzoon.com writes: > Scott -- please explain how some are transferable and some aren't? Do you > set this up before you buy the gear? Is it additional money? > > thanks > > art > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ScottUCE(a)aol.com [mailto:ScottUCE@aol.com] >> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 10:05 AM >> To: SRoche(a)datalink.com; joe.luchtenberg(a)data-line.com; pdg(a)uow.edu.au; >> toasters(a)mathworks.com >> Subject: Re: Netapp alternatives >> >> >> There ARE used NetApp systems with "used software" that CAN be re-sold, >> and NetApp itself will process the license transfer, free of charge, to >> the new owner. We have sold many of them ourselves, and NetApp has always >> cooperated fully. >> >> Yes, it is true that many NetApp systems do not have transferable licenses >> -- but many do. >> >> Scott Fischmann >> Union Computer Exchange, Inc. >> 6233 Idylwood Lane >> Minneapolis, MN 55436 >> Phone: 952 935 7282 >> FAX: 952 935 5056 >> scott(a)unioncomputer.com >> >> *************************************************** >> >> In a message dated 1/21/2002 11:14:30 AM Central Standard Time, >> SRoche(a)datalink.com writes: >> >> >> >>> This was taken off of Netapps web page regarding transferring licences. >>> I think it speaks for itself as far a Netapps legal position. >>> >>> All Network Appliance software license terms and conditions specify a >>> "license to use," therefore software cannot legally transfer from one >>> owner to another. Anyone purchasing used hardware equipment must also >>> purchase new software licenses directly either from Network Appliance or >>> from an authorized Network Appliance reseller. Software includes all >>> protocols as well as streaming licenses, Snap products, and other >>> software. Anyone trying to sell you "used software" would be violating >>> the terms of the license. Support contracts such as warranty and >>> maintenance agreements are also non-transferable. >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: ScottUCE(a)aol.com [mailto:ScottUCE@aol.com] >>>> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 10:09 AM >>>> To: joe.luchtenberg(a)data-line.com; pdg(a)uow.edu.au; >>>> toasters(a)mathworks.com >>>> Subject: Re: Netapp alternatives >>>> >>>> >>>> In a message dated 1/18/2002 4:06:48 PM Central Standard Time, >>>> joe.luchtenberg(a)data-line.com writes: >>>> >>>> >>>> but if you're just looking >>>> to save a few $, then I would suggest considering stepping down to an >>>> F810 >>>> or even F87 before ruling out NetApp on price (I may be reading too much >>>> into your post here). >>>> >>> >>> Hello, Joe: >>> >>> You don't necessarily have to "step down" to an F810 or F87 -- let alone >>> abandon NetApp altogether for Sun or Procom or Compaq -- to save money. >>> >>> There are great buys on a limited number of used NetApp filers available >>> today -- F720s, F740s and F760s with transferable NFS, CIFS and even >>> CLUSTER licenses. As such, I don't believe there is any reason a NAS >>> user has to settle for a "non-NetApp" solution because of price. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> Scott Fischmann >>> Union Computer Exchange, Inc. >>> 6233 Idylwood Lane >>> Minneapolis, MN 55436 >>> Phone: 952 935 7282 >>> FAX: 952 935 5056 >>> scott(a)unioncomputer.com >> >

1 0

Virus Alert
by postmaster＠mathworks.com 21 Jan '02

21 Jan '02

The MathWorks' scanner detected a virus called "PE_NIMDA.E" from lois(a)deas.harvard.edu in your mail traffic on 01/21/2002 21:45:34. We quarantined it.

1 0

(sampledesktopsct9fdesktopsamplesct9fsct9fsampledesktopsct9csct9csct9csct9fdesktopsct9fsamplesct9csct9csct9fsct9csct9fsct9fsct9csamplesct9fsct9cdesktopsct9fsct9fsamplesct9fsct9csamplesamplesct9csamplesamplesampledesktopsamplesamplesamplesamplesct9csct9cssmtp.mathworks.com.sample
by lois＠deas.harvard.edu 21 Jan '02

21 Jan '02

------------------ Virus Warning Message (on scanner) Found virus PE_NIMDA.E in file sample.exe The uncleanable file sample.exe is moved to /etc/iscan/virus/virGLCKFaWnJ. --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ Virus Warning Message (on scanner) sample.exe is removed from here because it contains a virus. ---------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: Performance Issues
by Art Hebert 21 Jan '02

21 Jan '02

Make sure your cards are on the 64bit bus not the 32bit bus. We moved our 100mb cards from the Netapp certified slots and doubled performance. art -----Original Message----- From: Noll, Kevin [mailto:kevin.noll@cgey.com] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 4:20 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: Performance Issues I have the same problem. I have also tried ndmpcopy, and have found performance has increased, however not substantial enough to jump up and down for joy. We have added Gig patches to our solaris 2.6 installation. (Presumably ins olaris 2.8 the patches would be included. Flow control is set to full, No CRC errors. Full Duplex enabled. Gig Network running NFS Version3 with UDP and I could get better performance with Sun to Sun or /tmp to Netapp. Our Netapps are in cluster and combinations of large file transfer between volume to volume on the same Netapp or even volume to volume between Netapps in cluster gives poor performance. CPU utalisation is not over 20%. Our Gig cards are Version 3. Thanks Kevin -----Original Message----- From: Mike Carroll [mailto:mcarroll@chiaro.com] Sent: 21 January 2002 22:11 To: 'Rick Gardner'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: Performance Issues If you use ndmpcopy provided from the now site, it will not copy your files across the network. basically like: ndmpcopy <filer_name>:/vol/vol0/test <filer_name>:/vol/shares/test Would copy from one volume to another without the network. The command also works copying between filers if you have more than one, that's why the hostname before the filenames. Search for ndmpcopy at the NOW site, it will help more!! Mike Carroll -----Original Message----- From: Rick Gardner [mailto:rgardner@westernelectronics.com] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 12:39 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Performance Issues Anyone seen this problem? I have performance problems when I copy large amounts of data between directories within the same volume on the NetApp. It is about 10 times faster to copy it back to my Sun box /tmp and then back to the filer.. I have a Cluster 820 with Gig NICs and the Sun box is a SunFire 280R, Solaris 8, with Gig NICs. No options with the mount commands. No CRC errors on the switch, NetApps, or Suns... Any ideas? Thanks! **************************************************************************** **************** " 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 ". **************************************************************************** ****************

1 0

Are snapshots still available only per volume?
by Art Hebert 21 Jan '02

21 Jan '02

I have the need to snapshot just some directories and not the entire volume, have they made any progress in this area? Art Hebert Email: art(a)arzoon.com <mailto:art@arzoon.com> Arzoon IT Dept. Phone: 650 995-6125 Mobile: 650 444-8667

1 0

RE: Performance Issues
by Noll, Kevin 21 Jan '02

21 Jan '02

I have the same problem. I have also tried ndmpcopy, and have found performance has increased, however not substantial enough to jump up and down for joy. We have added Gig patches to our solaris 2.6 installation. (Presumably in solaris 2.8 the patches would be included. Flow control is set to full, No CRC errors. Full Duplex enabled. Gig Network running NFS Version3 with UDP and I could get better performance with Sun to Sun or /tmp to Netapp. Our Netapps are in cluster and combinations of large file transfer between volume to volume on the same Netapp or even volume to volume between Netapps in cluster gives poor performance. CPU utalisation is not over 20%. Our Gig cards are Version 3. Thanks Kevin -----Original Message----- From: Mike Carroll [mailto:mcarroll@chiaro.com] Sent: 21 January 2002 22:11 To: 'Rick Gardner'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: Performance Issues If you use ndmpcopy provided from the now site, it will not copy your files across the network. basically like: ndmpcopy <filer_name>:/vol/vol0/test <filer_name>:/vol/shares/test Would copy from one volume to another without the network. The command also works copying between filers if you have more than one, that's why the hostname before the filenames. Search for ndmpcopy at the NOW site, it will help more!! Mike Carroll -----Original Message----- From: Rick Gardner [mailto:rgardner@westernelectronics.com] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 12:39 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Performance Issues Anyone seen this problem? I have performance problems when I copy large amounts of data between directories within the same volume on the NetApp. It is about 10 times faster to copy it back to my Sun box /tmp and then back to the filer.. I have a Cluster 820 with Gig NICs and the Sun box is a SunFire 280R, Solaris 8, with Gig NICs. No options with the mount commands. No CRC errors on the switch, NetApps, or Suns... Any ideas? Thanks! ******************************************************************************************** " 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 ". ********************************************************************************************

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