toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13514 discussions

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

21 Jan '02

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

RE: Netapp alternatives
by Steve Roche 21 Jan '02

21 Jan '02

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

2 1

RE: Solstice Backup (Legato) question
by Mike Carroll 21 Jan '02

21 Jan '02

I'm no expert, but I have the same setup you do. You do not have to use nwrecover to restore your data. You could always manually load a tape and use the restore/dump commands on your NetApp. All that the NDMP module does is make the native dump and restores work with Legato. This question would probably have a better chance of being answered if you send the message to: NETWORKER(a)LISTMAIL.TEMPLE.EDU It's a Legato Networker group!! Hope this helps! Mike -----Original Message----- From: Matt Musgrove [mailto:matt.musgrove@thales-is.com] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 4:11 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Solstice Backup (Legato) question Hello, We have just purchased our first filer (an F820) and are trying to get the backups/restores working before we put it into production. We are using Solstice Backup with NDMP and have a DLT jukebox directly connected to the F820. We can get backups to work but are having trouble with restores. Do you have to use nwrecover (which I can get to work) or can you use the save set recover facility. I get "Invalid fh_info" messages with save set recover. Really I need to know the best way to recover a whole volume in the quickest way in the event of a disaster. thanks Matt Musgrove Thales Information Systems ----------------------------------------- (on Chiaro SMTP Relay) This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property of Chiaro Networks, Ltd., and may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s), or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete all copies from your system. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. ---------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: Netapp alternatives
by Joe Luchtenberg 21 Jan '02

21 Jan '02

Yes, we do sell NetApp products, along with those from many other vendors. I tried to be up front about that, but perhaps not sufficiently so. I apologize if my earlier post rubbed anyone the wrong way, since this is a forum for engineering discussions. As a sales rep, there may be some differences in where I perceive value compared to IT admins and engineers, although I imagine there's a lot of overlap. The issues I posed to Mr. Gray (reliability, performance, features, breadth of offerings, investment protection and support) merit elaboration. reliability - When we first started selling filers three years ago, NetApp promoted availability of over 99.99% for a stand-alone filer head and even better for clusters, based on auto-support statistics. That's actual user data from 85% of their installed customer base, and it includes planned downtime. I just recently saw an updated graph, and this still holds true. NetApp will tell you it's because of the simplicity of their code relative to other general purpose OSes, their h/w design, QA, etc. Regardless of why, the proof is in the statistic. Nobody else can touch this. performance - The competition is getting better, but so is NetApp. I just checked the SPEC SFS97_R1 results page (http://www.spec.org/osg/sfs97r1/results/sfs97r1.html). Still thin, but there are at least a few more results posted now. I can't speak to all of the posted results, but I can tell you the NetApp systems tested are real-world configs. By contrast check out the HP rp4700 -- if memory serves me, it is configured with 180+ RAID sets, each with its own file system. The Procom system posts impressive numbers here. features - Essentially every vendor now has snapshot-equivalent capability (I know NetApp's approach is unique, and the distinctions _may_ be significant, but from a sales perspective it's essential to recognize that everybody can do this). However, adding capabilities similar to SnapRestore and SnapMirror, if available from a competitor, can sometimes be kludgey (sp?). Procom's SAM (Safe Asynchronous Mirroring) appears to deliver the same functionality and implementation as SnapMirror, although I don't see where they have anything to compete with SnapRestore. SnapManager for Exchange is without competition in the NAS market space. breadth of offerings - NetApp is a leader in the data management market: high-end data center clusters down to low-end remote office/department filers; SnapRestore, SnapMirror, SnapManager; SecureAdmin; NetCache; integrated products to manage data from the data center to the edge of the network in a distributed global infrastructure (CD, CR, DFM). Third-party offererings are a strength, too. It stands to reason that when Veritas releases their next version of NetBackup (for instance), they will certify NDMP interoperability with NetApp (and the 25,000+ installed filer customer base) well before they test Procom. Competitors will point to the lack of a FC SAN strategy or application servers. I won't argue those issues here except to assert it is not a hole in NetApp's offerings, merely reflective of their different focus and strategy. investment protection - You can swap out filer heads from an alpha-based F700-series to an Intel-based F800 and have your same disks serving the same data to the network with minimal downtime. Since you mentioned Sun, I'll pick on them a little bit. Sun has pursued (and killed) several NAS strategies over the last several years, and expecting a similar level of consistent component interoperability and user-friendly migration path for upgrades would seem optimistic. This new ServPoint strategy is somewhat different, because it's simply a Sun Enterprise line Solaris server running Veritas NAS s/w. Not exactly an appliance. Regardless, your investment protection in this case hinges on a third party relationship, which is inherently higher risk even though Sun and Veritas have a longstanding history of working together. support - Customers on the Toasters discussion list can attest better than I. NetApp's support is top rate. Hopefully, my customers have few occurrances to test this out. :-) In my original list, I failed to mention ease of administration. Ostensibly, this should be an advantage for any NAS "appliance," but there are still some differentiators. For instance, NetApp is the only vendor that utilizes RAID-4, making dynamic RAID set expansion possible. Other vendors who utilize RAID-5 (including Procom and almost everybody else) must either concatenate onto existing storage (forfeiting increased spindle density and other desirables) or require you to rebuild the RAID set. There are certainly other significant issues, but I have gone on far too long for now. I hope you find this helpful. I would reiterate, if you want to compare competing offerings, do what you can to get demo boxes. Shy of that, ask for references you can call. (BTW, thanks for the support Barry!) Joe Joe Luchtenberg Dataline, Inc. Email: joe.luchtenberg(a)data-line.com Phone: 757-457-0504 (direct line) 757-858-0600 (front desk) 757-285-1223 (mobile) Fax: 757-858-0606 Please visit us at www.data-line.com -----Original Message----- From: grey jolly To: Joe Luchtenberg; 'Peter D. Gray'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Sent: 1/21/2002 8:47 AM Subject: RE: Netapp alternatives Hi Joe: Isn't Data-Line a reseller of NetApp? You don't mention that you might be biased toward NetApp in your note. Does your company also sell other Data Storage solutions? What are their strengths? GJ --- Joe Luchtenberg <joe.luchtenberg(a)data-line.com> wrote: > Peter, > > If, as a current NetApp user, you have grown > accustomed to their standard of > reliability, performance, features, breadth of > offerings, investment > protection and support, I believe you will find more > than just reputation > lacking in most competitors' offerings. (Of course > YMMV; I am certainly > familiar with NetApp owners who have been less than > satisfied, too.) I > state this as one who can sell you not only NetApp > filers but also competing > storage solutions from Sun and Procom, as well as > Compaq, EMC, and others. > Obviously your requirements are unique and there are > solid solutions from > myriad competitors that may satisfy your needs, 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). > > Explore your options. If you can, try to get a few > demo boxes in from > competing vendors and try them out in your > environment. I imagine NetApp > would welcome the opportunity to reinforce their > dominance in the NAS market > by going head-to-head. I'd feel confident with them > in there, were I the > reseller competing for your business. > > Very general reply to a very general question. > > Joe > > > Joe Luchtenberg > Dataline, Inc. > > Email: joe.luchtenberg(a)data-line.com > Phone: 757-457-0504 (direct line) > 757-858-0600 (front desk) > 757-285-1223 (mobile) > Fax: 757-858-0606 > > Please visit us at www.data-line.com > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Peter D. Gray [mailto:pdg@uow.edu.au] > > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:49 PM > > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: Netapp alternatives > > > > > > Has anybody on this list experience with procom > > filers or the veritas "servpoint" software. > > > > We are in the process of upgrading our NAS > > and procom and SUN (with veritas servpoint) are > > options along with staying with netapp. > > > > The veritas product looks interesting (see the > > veritas web site if you want details) but is > pretty new. > > The procom filers are a lot cheaper but do not > have > > the reputation of netapp. The latest spec results > > though seem to indicate that the procom filers > > offer pretty good performance. > > > > Regards, > > pdg > > > > -- > > > > See mail headers for contact information. > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/

1 0

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

21 Jan '02

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

RE: Netapp alternatives
by Joe Luchtenberg 21 Jan '02

21 Jan '02

Peter, If, as a current NetApp user, you have grown accustomed to their standard of reliability, performance, features, breadth of offerings, investment protection and support, I believe you will find more than just reputation lacking in most competitors' offerings. (Of course YMMV; I am certainly familiar with NetApp owners who have been less than satisfied, too.) I state this as one who can sell you not only NetApp filers but also competing storage solutions from Sun and Procom, as well as Compaq, EMC, and others. Obviously your requirements are unique and there are solid solutions from myriad competitors that may satisfy your needs, 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). Explore your options. If you can, try to get a few demo boxes in from competing vendors and try them out in your environment. I imagine NetApp would welcome the opportunity to reinforce their dominance in the NAS market by going head-to-head. I'd feel confident with them in there, were I the reseller competing for your business. Very general reply to a very general question. Joe Joe Luchtenberg Dataline, Inc. Email: joe.luchtenberg(a)data-line.com Phone: 757-457-0504 (direct line) 757-858-0600 (front desk) 757-285-1223 (mobile) Fax: 757-858-0606 Please visit us at www.data-line.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter D. Gray [mailto:pdg@uow.edu.au] > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:49 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Netapp alternatives > > > Has anybody on this list experience with procom > filers or the veritas "servpoint" software. > > We are in the process of upgrading our NAS > and procom and SUN (with veritas servpoint) are > options along with staying with netapp. > > The veritas product looks interesting (see the > veritas web site if you want details) but is pretty new. > The procom filers are a lot cheaper but do not have > the reputation of netapp. The latest spec results > though seem to indicate that the procom filers > offer pretty good performance. > > Regards, > pdg > > -- > > See mail headers for contact information. >

4 3

Intermittent ACL Problems
by Chuah, Nicholas 21 Jan '02

21 Jan '02

I'm having this issue of my folders' ACL intermittently lost and re-appeared at a later stage and happened on random basis on some of the folders. In short, random ACL lost on random folders. How should I start to diagnose the problem when it appear? Any hints would be greatly appreciated. Nic

1 0

RE: filestats
by Thompson, Tim 21 Jan '02

21 Jan '02

> ran filestats on an F740. After noticing the cpu load he wanted to > interrupt but could not do it with Ctrl-C This is bug 16909. There's currently no way to interrupt it. The fix has been implemented and will appear in the next major release. > I ran filestats on one of the F630s with 256 RAM and Ontap version > 6.0.1R3. It took over 6 hours to complete and for 4 hours, CPU was > running at 100%. Does this sound right? Doesn't sound right. I just ran the same command on an F630 with 256 MB running ONTAP 6.0.3, on a volume with 600654 inodes used (6gig of data), and it took only 80 seconds, with the CPU running at 60%. I'll be following up with Daniel. ...Tim Thompson...Network Appliance, Inc...

2 1

HSM and SRM
by Steven Boyer 19 Jan '02

19 Jan '02

Is anyone using HSM or SRM and if so what products are you using. we are looking into Highground and SAM FS from Sun, and BrightStor by Computer Associates. -- Steven N. Boyer UNIX/NT Support HQ USCENTCOM General Dynamics 813-828-1515 --

1 0

Solstice Backup (Legato) question
by Matt Musgrove 18 Jan '02

18 Jan '02

Hello, We have just purchased our first filer (an F820) and are trying to get the backups/restores working before we put it into production. We are using Solstice Backup with NDMP and have a DLT jukebox directly connected to the F820. We can get backups to work but are having trouble with restores. Do you have to use nwrecover (which I can get to work) or can you use the save set recover facility. I get "Invalid fh_info" messages with save set recover. Really I need to know the best way to recover a whole volume in the quickest way in the event of a disaster. thanks Matt Musgrove Thales Information Systems

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