toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

Re: quota problem ?
by Andrew Curry 16 Nov '01

16 Nov '01

On Fri 16 Nov 2001 at 16:39, daniel wrote: > I have a user who can not upload any files to his home dir using ftp and > the error message he gets is "disk quota exceeded". > > When I did du -sk on his home dir as root , I find that it is not even > close to his maximum quota limit. Quota is set as follows for this volume, > qtree, X disk limit and no limit on # of files. > > I checked his users quota from the filer and noticed that he is indeed > over the limit of his quota. > > Filer is F840 and Ontap version is 6.0.1R3. > > Any ideas? I imagine he must own some files which are not in his home directory. Do 'find <home dir> -user <uname>| wc -l' to count the number of files that he owns in his directory and compare that with the number of files that quota reports. Do 'find <disk> -user <uname>' to find all the files on the disk that he owns. Andrew Curry Faculty of Computing Sciences and Engineering De Montfort University, Leicester, UK

1 0

quota problem ?
by daniel 16 Nov '01

16 Nov '01

Hi all, I have a user who can not upload any files to his home dir using ftp and the error message he gets is "disk quota exceeded". When I did du -sk on his home dir as root , I find that it is not even close to his maximum quota limit. Quota is set as follows for this volume, qtree, X disk limit and no limit on # of files. I checked his users quota from the filer and noticed that he is indeed over the limit of his quota. Filer is F840 and Ontap version is 6.0.1R3. Any ideas? Thanks in advance. Daniel Jung System Administrator GMO inc

1 0

F840 or F880
by Jennifer Armenta 14 Nov '01

14 Nov '01

Do you see any point in upgrading from a F840 to a F880 or F880c, besides the clustering factor? Does anyone have any good advantage point to this type of upgrade that would justify the cost. Jennifer )

3 2

RE: F840 or F880
by Joe Luchtenberg 14 Nov '01

14 Nov '01

Yes, it dies. That's what I was referring to (earlier reply that you may not have seen posted yet) when I indicated that the 2nd CPU is for performance, not availability (see http://now.netapp.com/Knowledgebase/solutionarea.asp?id=ntapcs2897 <http://now.netapp.com/Knowledgebase/solutionarea.asp?id=ntapcs2897> ). I think one CPU is dedicated to indexing and other such processes. Joe -----Original Message----- From: Honeycutt, Michael [mailto:MichaelHoneycutt@NC.SLR.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 3:15 PM To: 'Jennifer Armenta'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: F840 or F880 Good quesiton. Does anyone know if the filer dies if a CPU fails? It would be nice if it paniced and came back up on 1 CPU while support was working to get it replaced. -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:25 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: F840 or F880 Do you see any point in upgrading from a F840 to a F880 or F880c, besides the clustering factor? Does anyone have any good advantage point to this type of upgrade that would justify the cost. Jennifer )

1 0

RE: F840 or F880
by Honeycutt, Michael 14 Nov '01

14 Nov '01

Good quesiton. Does anyone know if the filer dies if a CPU fails? It would be nice if it paniced and came back up on 1 CPU while support was working to get it replaced. -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:25 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: F840 or F880 Do you see any point in upgrading from a F840 to a F880 or F880c, besides the clustering factor? Does anyone have any good advantage point to this type of upgrade that would justify the cost. Jennifer )

1 0

RE: F840 or F880
by Joe Luchtenberg 14 Nov '01

14 Nov '01

F880 dual-CPU is for performance purposes only. It is not for redundancy and does not enhance availability. There are some other enhancements, such as the PC card boot. If you need clustering for high(er) availability, F840c or F880c both deliver. Considering you already have the F840, it would seem to me that an F840c is the better option from an investment protection perspective. I.e. you're not going to get full purchase price (by any stretch) back as trade in for your F840 if you go with the F880c. Joe -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:25 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: F840 or F880 Do you see any point in upgrading from a F840 to a F880 or F880c, besides the clustering factor? Does anyone have any good advantage point to this type of upgrade that would justify the cost. Jennifer )

1 0

heavy CPU and NIC usage, not so heavy ops usage
by Todd C. Merrill 14 Nov '01

14 Nov '01

Funny thing has started happening of late. The CPU is pegged or nearly pegged on an F760 running 6.1R1, but yet the ops usage isn't all that high. The NIC card seems to be doing an incredible amount of work (I've seen it in the 90-95% range over about a minute sampling time.) No errors or anything unusual on the port on the Cisco switch. A decent amount of network output, a goodly amount of disk reads, hardly any writes, a low but not disasterous cache age, not too many cp-from-cp points, etc. I'm stumped. Any ideas? Just plain overloaded? filer00*> ps -h Process statistics over 365.789 seconds... ID State Domain %CPU StackUsed %StackUsed Name 1 RR i 6% 464 11% idle_thread0 22 RR k 81% 7232 14% GbE-II/e7 filer00*> sysconfig -v [...] slot 7: Gigabit Ethernet Controller II e7 MAC Address: 00:d0:b7:b9:f7:6d (auto-1000sx-fd-up) Device Type: Rev 3 [...] filer00*> sysstat -x 2 CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Total Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache Cache CP CP Disk in out read write read write age hit time ty util 98% 2657 2883 0 5540 1950 5418 5733 305 0 0 3 94% 22% : 42% 92% 2254 2679 0 4933 2590 7882 3888 0 0 0 3 96% 0% - 40% 99% 2512 2462 0 4974 1910 4408 2519 828 0 0 3 96% 49% F 33% 99% 2333 2128 0 4461 3463 2552 1827 3647 0 0 3 95% 55% : 72% 95% 2082 2565 0 4647 1156 3400 2648 7 0 0 3 95% 0% - 30% 97% 2535 2296 0 4831 1378 3683 1922 1189 0 0 3 98% 28% F 44% 95% 3445 2236 0 5681 1660 3850 2788 122 0 0 3 92% 14% : 33% 97% 2772 2059 0 4831 1466 4029 3219 7 0 0 3 95% 0% - 35% 95% 2878 2312 0 5190 1414 3455 1735 7 0 0 3 95% 0% - 30% 99% 2246 1665 0 3911 2398 3821 2664 1506 0 0 3 97% 43% F 39% 99% 2081 2027 0 4108 1236 5428 1889 2338 0 0 3 98% 62% : 45% 98% 2832 2127 0 4959 1710 8653 3610 7 0 0 4 95% 0% - 38% 95% 3135 2515 0 5650 1521 5354 3440 7 0 0 4 95% 0% - 27% 96% 3267 2335 0 5602 1401 5129 1655 2 0 0 4 98% 4% F 17% 100% 3169 2361 0 5530 2754 4236 1113 3251 0 0 4 96% 100% : 49% 98% 3392 3023 0 6415 1733 3280 2462 977 0 0 4 98% 22% : 26% 97% 3419 2152 0 5571 1588 4163 2908 7 0 0 4 93% 0% - 26% Until next time... The Mathworks, Inc. 508-647-7000 x7792 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick, MA 01760-2098 508-647-7001 FAX tmerrill(a)mathworks.com http://www.mathworks.com ---

1 0

RE: F880c
by Joe Luchtenberg 14 Nov '01

14 Nov '01

I presume you meant "arguments." ;-) (Also, did you mean F740c or just a stand-alone F740?) Given the dramatic price difference, it simply depends on the scope of your requirements. - do you require a single platform that scales to 18TB? - what about performance? - (I assume you meant F740c, but just in case you are comparing clustered and non-clustered platforms...) what about cluster failover high availability? The lotta-little-filers-versus-a-coupla-big-ones issue can be reasonably argued on both sides focussing on many issues. - manageability/ease of administration - cost - performance - availability - complexity - etc. With either platform you get the full range of capabilities associated with Data ONTAP -- WAFL, SnapShots, available support for multi-protocol environments with SecureShare single-instance data sharing, available value-added features including SnapRestore, SnapMirror, SnapManager for Exchange, Global Data Fabric management capability with Content Director/Content Reporter, etc. <End of NetApp commercial> FWIW, the F740 is an alpha-based platform. The F880c is built on an Intel SMB architecture. The F8xx series is the latest generation from NetApp, and it is reasonable to expect that they will be available and supported long after the F740 model has been retired. HTH. Joe Joe Luchtenberg Dataline, Inc. 757-858-0600 757-285-1223 (mobile) 757-858-0606 (fax) joe.luchtenberg(a)data-line.com www.data-line.com -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 5:05 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: F880c Any augments for going with F880c verses F740 filer. Jennifer

1 0

Permissions wiped out on NTFS qtree
by Allen, Pat 13 Nov '01

13 Nov '01

Hi everyone, I need to get some help from you folks to help diagnose a problem that I'm working on with Net App. Here's my configuration: two filers running in a cluster under 6.1R1. We are running NFS and CIFS on the filers. All of the servers in the NT domain are running NT 4.0 - we don't have any Win2K servers. Here's the problem: We have seen situations where the entire NT ACL on a qtree is deleted. I've been able to reproduce this using two Windows 2000 computers. (They both happen to be running SP2.) Here are the steps to reproduce it. I apologize for the number of steps but I want to make sure that I got all the details down. 1) Create a new NTFS qtree. I called mine PatsTest. 2) Share the qtree with standard share permissions (Everyone=Full Control) 3) Create a new global group in the domain. (Again I call mine PatsTest.) 4) Add one user to the global group; this user has no special domain privileges. On the first Windows 2000 workstation: 5) Log into one of the Win2K workstations as a domain admin. 6) Add a bunch of folders and files to the qtree. 7) Open network neighborhood and then open the filer. Open the property panel for the NTFS qtree. 8) Click on the security tab and set the permissions as follows: Remove the Everyone group Add Domain Admins with Full Control Add the group from step #3 with Full Control Make sure that you go to the Advanced tab and select "Reset permissions on all child objects..." 9) Verify that the NTFS Owner is set to the Administrators (Filer\Administrators). On the second Windows 2000 workstation: 10) Log into the second workstation as the non-administrator user from step #4. 11) Open Network Neighborhood and then open the filer. 12) Open the property panel for the NTFS qtree and click on the security tab. 13) Verify that the NTFS permissions are set as listed in steps #8 and #9. 14) Go to the Advanced tab and select the "Reset permissions on all child objects..." (You don't need to actually change anything but doing that doesn't change the outcome.) 15) After changing the permissions, an error box will appear stating "Unable to save permission changes on xxxx on yyyyy. Access is denied." where xxxx is the name of the qtree and yyyyy is the name of the filer. 16) You must click Cancel at this dialogue box. Close the property panel for the qtree. 17) Open the property panel for the qtree again and notice that there is no security tab! Back on the first Windows 2000 workstation: 18) Open the property panel for the qtree and click the security tab. 19) There are no permissions listed! 20) You must go to the Advanced tab and reset the owner before adding the groups again. What I've determined: * This ONLY happens if you try to change the NTFS permissions at the qtree level. If you try to change the NTFS permissions at the folder or file level then everything works OK. * This problem occurs when a user who has sufficient permissions BUT IS NOT THE OWNER tries to reset the permissions. If I added a step 13.5 to the scenario above where the user on the second workstation took ownership of the qtree before changing permissions, then everything works OK. OK... Has anybody seen anything like this???? Thanks for your help! --- Pat Allen (pat(a)mbari.org) Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) 7700 Sandholdt Rd, Moss Landing, CA 95039 (voice) 831-775-1724; (fax) 831-775-1620

2 1

Re: Permissions wiped out on NTFS qtree
by Andrew Yee 13 Nov '01

13 Nov '01

Hi Allen, I've seen that happen in our NT 4 Domain between NT 4 Servers and Win 2000 Pro PCs. This is probably somewhat unrelated to your Win 2000-to-Win 2000 problem. When I use a Win 2000 machine (with Domain Admin rights) to modify NTFS permissions on an NT 4 Server, the permissions persist fine. However, when I use the NT 4 Server to verify the permissions, I get an error message saying that the permissions are incompatible due to a conflict between NT 5 permissions and NT 4 permissions. I usually end up retaking ownership of that directory via the NT 4 Server and having to re-create the now wiped-out NTFS permissions. I have not tried this on our Filer as of yet. >>> "Allen, Pat" <pat(a)mbari.org> Tuesday, November 13, 2001 9:13:46 AM >>> Hi everyone, I need to get some help from you folks to help diagnose a problem that I'm working on with Net App. Here's my configuration: two filers running in a cluster under 6.1R1. We are running NFS and CIFS on the filers. All of the servers in the NT domain are running NT 4.0 - we don't have any Win2K servers. Here's the problem: We have seen situations where the entire NT ACL on a qtree is deleted. I've been able to reproduce this using two Windows 2000 computers. (They both happen to be running SP2.) Here are the steps to reproduce it. I apologize for the number of steps but I want to make sure that I got all the details down. 1) Create a new NTFS qtree. I called mine PatsTest. 2) Share the qtree with standard share permissions (Everyone=Full Control) 3) Create a new global group in the domain. (Again I call mine PatsTest.) 4) Add one user to the global group; this user has no special domain privileges. On the first Windows 2000 workstation: 5) Log into one of the Win2K workstations as a domain admin. 6) Add a bunch of folders and files to the qtree. 7) Open network neighborhood and then open the filer. Open the property panel for the NTFS qtree. 8) Click on the security tab and set the permissions as follows: Remove the Everyone group Add Domain Admins with Full Control Add the group from step #3 with Full Control Make sure that you go to the Advanced tab and select "Reset permissions on all child objects..." 9) Verify that the NTFS Owner is set to the Administrators (Filer\Administrators). On the second Windows 2000 workstation: 10) Log into the second workstation as the non-administrator user from step #4. 11) Open Network Neighborhood and then open the filer. 12) Open the property panel for the NTFS qtree and click on the security tab. 13) Verify that the NTFS permissions are set as listed in steps #8 and #9. 14) Go to the Advanced tab and select the "Reset permissions on all child objects..." (You don't need to actually change anything but doing that doesn't change the outcome.) 15) After changing the permissions, an error box will appear stating "Unable to save permission changes on xxxx on yyyyy. Access is denied." where xxxx is the name of the qtree and yyyyy is the name of the filer. 16) You must click Cancel at this dialogue box. Close the property panel for the qtree. 17) Open the property panel for the qtree again and notice that there is no security tab! Back on the first Windows 2000 workstation: 18) Open the property panel for the qtree and click the security tab. 19) There are no permissions listed! 20) You must go to the Advanced tab and reset the owner before adding the groups again. What I've determined: * This ONLY happens if you try to change the NTFS permissions at the qtree level. If you try to change the NTFS permissions at the folder or file level then everything works OK. * This problem occurs when a user who has sufficient permissions BUT IS NOT THE OWNER tries to reset the permissions. If I added a step 13.5 to the scenario above where the user on the second workstation took ownership of the qtree before changing permissions, then everything works OK. OK... Has anybody seen anything like this???? Thanks for your help! --- Pat Allen (pat(a)mbari.org) Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) 7700 Sandholdt Rd, Moss Landing, CA 95039 (voice) 831-775-1724; (fax) 831-775-1620

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