toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

Re: ONTAP with RedHat linux
by Jim Harm 05 Nov '01

05 Nov '01

Can anyone shed some light on this? I am getting CRC errors only on some of my linux clients. netapp support is trying to find the bug id or trouble call id. It has followed the connection from an F330 to an F760; both on quad ethernet cards(different model cards). It has survived from 5.3.4 to 6.1R1. The clients see hangs on large file reads and "TCP 111" errors even though we mount UDP NFS V3. Clients even report "server not responding". I'd appreciate any help, if someone has researched this problem area. I know it looks like a linux problem, but I have had little success finding reference to the recent nfs v3 problem. >Steve Losen <scl(a)sasha.acc.virginia.edu>@mathworks.com on 10/18/2001 >10:25:54 AM > > >I am running RedHat 7.1 and NFS mounting a netapp F820 running 6.0.1R3. >Things work pretty smoothly, but I have experienced the same >problem as another poster (sorry, lost the message) where NFS writes >occasionally delay and a "NFS server not responding" error >is logged. I have not tried the rsize=1023,wsize=1023 work around. > >I have experienced the same problem with NFS servers other than Netapp, >including a IBM RS6000 running AIX. > >Non Linux NFS clients are having no delay problems with the Netapp filers, >so I'm pretty sure it is on the Linux end. > >For awhile I thought the NIC on my Linux box had botched the speed/duplex >negotiation with the ethernet switch. Our network folks can tell >me what speed the switch port has negotiated, but I don't know how >to check my NIC from Linux. The network folks tell me they see no >errors on my switch port when I experience NFS delays. I don't >seem to have any other network problems, so I doubt this is the >problem. > >I have been able to duplicate the problem on a second Linux box. >However, on a third box, essentially identical to mine and also >running RH 7.1, I could not duplicate it. > >A couple of things to be aware of with RedHat Linux and NFS. > >Prior to RedHat 7.0, only NFS v2 was supported. Furthermore, Linux >only supported 16 bit uids and gids. We have a lot of files on our >Netapp filers with uids greater than 65535. > >RedHat 7.1 supports NFS v3 and 32 bit uids and gids. 32 bit >uids are critical in our environment. I administer our filers >and when I was running RH 6.2, I could not get accurate file >owner information with "ls" and I could not "chown" files to >uids over 65535, so I had to use another unix box for filer >administration. Now I can do it all from my Linux box. > >Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 434-924-0640 > >University of Virginia ITC Unix Support > -- }}}===============>> LLNL James E. Harm (Jim); jharm(a)llnl.gov System Administrator Compaq Clusters (925) 422-4018 Page: 423-7705x57152

1 0

FIRST TIME IN PAKISTAN(GET BENIFITS 10000 TO 15000 RUPEES) IN JEWELLERY CD
by MISS KHAN 03 Nov '01

03 Nov '01

Shakir Jeweller.Com The Trusted Name For Dynamic Design & Quality ( We Sale Jewellery Whole Sale & Retail ) " Benefits Upto 10000 To 15000 Rs In Jewellery Making ! " Shakir Jeweller.Com presents first time in Pakistan a CD version which contains approx 350 Jewellery designs valuable for Jewellers , Consumers & Wholesellers. (Copyright & Registered) Price Rs 199/= only (Free Home Delivery In All Over Pakistan) Benefits for consumer : · 12 Lucky draws in whole year · Cash Prizes & Gold Prizes · Plus 100 grams Jewellery making FREE* ( Means 10000/= To 15000/= Rs Saving In Jewellery Making ) " Upto 1 Year Validity " To Place Order Contact Shakir Jeweller.Com (First Web Jeweller In Pakistan) Suit 114, 1st Floor, Sarah Jewellers Center, Near Moosajee, Zaibunnisa Street, Saddar, Karachi Ph: 021-5655655 , 021-5211838 , 0320-4226689 Email: contact(a)shakirjeweller.com Website: http://www.shakirjeweller.com

1 0

RE: mcafee scanning a cifs share
by Walsh, Warren (MN65) 02 Nov '01

02 Nov '01

The latest version of NetShield, 4.5, with the latest scan engine, 4.1.50. I've not tried it using the VirusScan desktop version. I'll give that a try, and report back. -warren -----Original Message----- From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 5:42 PM To: Walsh, Warren (MN65) Cc: toasters Subject: Re: mcafee scanning a cifs share what version of macafee "Walsh, Warren (MN65)" wrote: > > I've had problems with the app crashing, with an error about the path > being too long. > > -warren > > -----Original Message----- > From: Leonard, Roger [mailto:Roger.Leonard@marconi.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:42 PM > To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: mcafee scanning a cifs share > > does anyone know of any problems or issues with using NT based mcafee > scanner to scan a filers cifs shares from a PC? anything like data > corruption or incorrect id'ing of virus infected files? just curious > if this is a valid way to scan a filer for viri. > > thanks > > Roger D. Leonard -- 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?" + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 1

Bus overruns
by Horst.Thaller＠infineon.com 02 Nov '01

02 Nov '01

Does anybody know, what the field "Bus overruns" in the output of the ifstat command means? I see a lot of Bus overrun errors on all filer interfaces (GbE). Our filer works with ONTAP 6.1.1R1 and a Cisco 6500 Switch. Horst Thaller Infineon Technologies Microelectronic Design Centers Austria GmbH Design Center Villach Siemensstrasse 2, A-9500 Villach Tel. ++43 4242 305-6212 Fax ++43 4242 305-6389 email: Horst.Thaller(a)infineon.com internet: www.infineon.com/ezmvi

1 0

RE: mcafee scanning a cifs share
by Walsh, Warren (MN65) 02 Nov '01

02 Nov '01

I've had problems with the app crashing, with an error about the path being too long. -warren -----Original Message----- From: Leonard, Roger [mailto:Roger.Leonard@marconi.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:42 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: mcafee scanning a cifs share does anyone know of any problems or issues with using NT based mcafee scanner to scan a filers cifs shares from a PC? anything like data corruption or incorrect id'ing of virus infected files? just curious if this is a valid way to scan a filer for viri. thanks Roger D. Leonard

2 1

RE: mcafee scanning a cifs share
by Mike McBride 02 Nov '01

02 Nov '01

Mcafee has worked well for us - so far. We had to make sure "Domain Admins" had rights to the folders or we would get permission problems. ~mike -----Original Message----- From: Walsh, Warren (MN65) [mailto:warren.walsh@honeywell.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 2:47 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: mcafee scanning a cifs share I've had problems with the app crashing, with an error about the path being too long. -warren -----Original Message----- From: Leonard, Roger [mailto:Roger.Leonard@marconi.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:42 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: mcafee scanning a cifs share does anyone know of any problems or issues with using NT based mcafee scanner to scan a filers cifs shares from a PC? anything like data corruption or incorrect id'ing of virus infected files? just curious if this is a valid way to scan a filer for viri. thanks Roger D. Leonard

1 0

RE: mcafee scanning a cifs share
by Maglinger, Paul 01 Nov '01

01 Nov '01

We use McAfee products here and have run scans against our filer with no problems. -----Original Message----- From: Leonard, Roger [mailto:Roger.Leonard@marconi.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:42 To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: mcafee scanning a cifs share does anyone know of any problems or issues with using NT based mcafee scanner to scan a filers cifs shares from a PC? anything like data corruption or incorrect id'ing of virus infected files? just curious if this is a valid way to scan a filer for viri. thanks Roger D. Leonard

1 0

MacOS X and CIFS on filer
by Steve Losen 01 Nov '01

01 Nov '01

MacOS X comes with a CIFS client that works with our filers running 6.0.1R3. To use it just get into the "Finder" and go to the "Go" menu and use "Connect to Server". At the "Address:" text entry type smb://filer.host.name/share And you are prompted for your CIFS loginid and password. I've run into two annoyances. 1) MacOS does not appear to reconnect if a session goes idle. Looks like it's still connected, but nothing works. From a Unix window, df indicates that the share is not mounted. So you have to disconnect by dragging and dropping the icon representing the CIFS share into the wastebasket and connect again. 2) If you drag and drop a file into your CIFS share, you get an annoying dialog box that says: Sorry, the operation could not be completed because an unexpected error occurred (Error Code -50). And in /etc/messages on the filer you see this: Thu Nov 1 16:03:03 EST [home1: FastEnet-10/100/e0:CRITICAL]: CIFS t2 request 6 not implemented debuginfo( 1 39 7a D-128-13-59) ^^^^^^^^^^^ hostname of my mac The file copies just fine, so you can just ignore the error. But you can't drag and drop entire folders because of this. Anyone have any idea what's up? Other stuff works fine, such as Unix commands from a Unix window. Looks like a viable solution for Mac users who want to use a filer. Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 434-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

2 2

RE: mcafee scanning a cifs share
by Nail, Larry 01 Nov '01

01 Nov '01

No, can't say that I've seen that. Are you scanning "compressed" files like zip or tar's? -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mike.sphar@peregrine.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 3:11 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: mcafee scanning a cifs share You haven't run into any problems with the scan "hanging"? The few times I've run scans against very larges shares, every so often the scan would just stop and sit at one file forever, and not the same file each time, it just seemed sort of random. Made automated scans pretty useless for me. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - R&D Support Peregrine Systems, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Nail, Larry [mailto:lnail@ti.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:41 PM To: 'Leonard, Roger'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: mcafee scanning a cifs share We use Norton AntiVirus 5 to scan shares without any problems... Just turn the snapshots off ahead scan time. -----Original Message----- From: Leonard, Roger [mailto:Roger.Leonard@marconi.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:42 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: mcafee scanning a cifs share does anyone know of any problems or issues with using NT based mcafee scanner to scan a filers cifs shares from a PC? anything like data corruption or incorrect id'ing of virus infected files? just curious if this is a valid way to scan a filer for viri. thanks Roger D. Leonard

1 0

RE: mcafee scanning a cifs share
by Mike Sphar 01 Nov '01

01 Nov '01

You haven't run into any problems with the scan "hanging"? The few times I've run scans against very larges shares, every so often the scan would just stop and sit at one file forever, and not the same file each time, it just seemed sort of random. Made automated scans pretty useless for me. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - R&D Support Peregrine Systems, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Nail, Larry [mailto:lnail@ti.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:41 PM To: 'Leonard, Roger'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: mcafee scanning a cifs share We use Norton AntiVirus 5 to scan shares without any problems... Just turn the snapshots off ahead scan time. -----Original Message----- From: Leonard, Roger [mailto:Roger.Leonard@marconi.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:42 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: mcafee scanning a cifs share does anyone know of any problems or issues with using NT based mcafee scanner to scan a filers cifs shares from a PC? anything like data corruption or incorrect id'ing of virus infected files? just curious if this is a valid way to scan a filer for viri. thanks Roger D. Leonard

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