toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

RE: vol copy from 5.3.6R2 to 6.0.1R1
by Fox, Adam 12 Oct '01

12 Oct '01

Let me be the first to say, I could be wrong here, but since 6.0 allows you to offline a volume without rebooting the filer should be able to revert it back without affecting any other volumes. I believe that's what the error message is telling you... > Filesystem version mismatch for destination volume vol1, reverting the > version and aborting transfer. A console message will be > displayed when > this revert is complete. Therefore, look for a revert complete message on the console (and probably /etc/messages) and it should work. SnapMirror would have the same issue for the initial transfer. Basically the filesystems have to match. But since 6.x can revert, it works. Obviously 5.x can't upgrade the filesystem to 6.x. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian L. Brush [mailto:brian@paradyne.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 2:55 PM > To: Fox, Adam > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: vol copy from 5.3.6R2 to 6.0.1R1 > > > "Fox, Adam" wrote: > > > > You can still do the transfer. It just has to revert > > the target (F760) to the 5.3 filesystems first. After > > that revert is complete, you can do the vol copy. > > My understanding is, in that case, I would have to revert ALL of the > 760's volumes before the migration from the 230. Although I'm > in a test > environment at this point--well, half of a test > environment--at the time > of the actual migration the 760 will have several hundred gigabytes' > worth of other volumes already online. > > Is there a way to perform the vol copy without affecting the target > filer's other volumes? > > I would try SnapMirror, but I don't have licenses for it on > both boxes. > > I'm really trying to avoid the old Unix box intermediary, both because > down-time is inversely proportional to speed and because my level of > uneasiness is proportional to the intricacy of the migration plan. > > --Brian L. Brush > Senior Systems Administrator > Paradyne Corporation >

4 3

List fun
by fubar＠pir.net 12 Oct '01

12 Oct '01

The following is from ryanb regarding the list fun today. I'm forwarding it due to the fact that the toasters list is currently blocking all mail from his domain until I'm sure that things have cleared up. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the mail queues at Mathworks, so I can't clean stuff out... Wheee. That was a total fuxup when moving some stuff around/redelivering locally. I forgot to strip CCs and multiple recipients when modifying the headers -- again, I totally apologize for the goof-up. I'm thinking that somewhere between 30-50 messages got out, but I'm not so sure. Sorry! (Please don't kill me!) K.

1 0

RE: ontap 6.x
by Mike Sphar 12 Oct '01

12 Oct '01

Sorry about this folks. I realized too late that the message I was responding to was dated back in March. I seem to be getting a lot of fairly old messages suddenly coming through. Is this happening to anyone else? -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Peregrine Systems, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 12:07 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: ontap 6.x Where is it stated that 5.3.6R2 is the "Recommended Release"? The NOW site lists "Data ONTAP 6.0.1R3" as the "General Availability Release" for me. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Peregrine Systems, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 2:30 PM To: listsarch-toasters(a)enteract.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: ontap 6.x nlehrer(a)ibb.gov (neil lehrer) writes > > is it time to adopt 6.x? Of couse, that's an impossible question to answer in vacuo. My feeling is that for those who usually run Early Access releases, 6.0 is increasingly looking like the place to be. We are planning to upgrade the F740 we use as the primary filestore for our (somewhat grandiloquently named) Central Unix Service from 5.3.7R1 to 6.0.1R3 at the end of next week, when the university term ends. I want the fast snapshots, but apart from that I want to be on the track where bugs are fixed fastest, and that's clearly 6.0 now. On the other hand, the two F740's used by our mail systems have much more stereotyped usage patterns. They are currently at 5.3.6R2 (which is, after all, still the "Recommended Release") and it seems unlikely they will be upgraded before the summer, at the earliest. If you aren't pushing the edge of the envelope, in one way or another, there's no enormously compelling reason to move yet. Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1(a)ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG, Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.

4 3

Yikes... list regurgitation!
by Brian Tao 12 Oct '01

12 Oct '01

Oops... ryanb(a)enteract.com is spewing old messages back to the list? | ---------- Forwarded message ---------- | Received: from smtp2.mathworks.com (smtp.mathworks.com [144.212.95.12]) | by mail1.nbc.attcanada.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA26064 | for <taob(a)risc.org>; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:53:48 -0400 (EDT) | Received: from mail.mathworks.com (turing.mathworks.com [144.212.95.101]) | by smtp2.mathworks.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9CIMPO27245; | Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:22:25 -0400 (EDT) | Received: (from majordom@localhost) | by mail.mathworks.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f9CIBkP12812; | Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:11:46 -0400 (EDT) | Received: from smtp2.mathworks.com (smtp.mathworks.com [144.212.95.12]) | by mail.mathworks.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9CIBkw12807 | for <toasters(a)mathworks.com>; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:11:46 -0400 (EDT) | Received: from smtp.mathworks.com (scanner.mathworks.com [144.212.95.161]) | by smtp2.mathworks.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9CIBhO25225 | for <toasters(a)mathworks.com>; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:11:43 -0400 (EDT) | Received: from smtp-1.enteract.com (smtp-1.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) | by smtp.mathworks.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9CIBh225214 | for <toasters(a)mathworks.com>; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:11:43 -0400 (EDT) | Received: from marcus.enteract.com (marcus.enteract.com [207.229.143.25]) | by smtp-1.enteract.com (Postfix) with ESMTP | id 90C3B71FF; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:11:42 -0500 (CDT) | Received: (from ryanb@localhost) | by marcus.enteract.com (8.11.6/8.11.1) id f9CIBgs58636; | Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:11:42 -0500 (CDT) | (envelope-from ryanb) | Delivered-To: ryanb(a)enteract.com | Received: (qmail 35712 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2001 20:37:23 -0000 | Received: from smtp.mathworks.com (144.212.95.12) | by pop3-3.enteract.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2001 20:37:23 -0000 | Received: from mail.mathworks.com (turing.mathworks.com [144.212.95.101]) | by smtp.mathworks.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1DKaZc19094; | Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:36:36 -0500 (EST) | Received: (from majordom@localhost) | by mail.mathworks.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f1DKVuR03737; | Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:31:56 -0500 (EST) | Received: from smtp.mathworks.com (smtp.mathworks.com [144.212.95.12]) | by mail.mathworks.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1DKVtS03717 | for <toasters(a)mathworks.com>; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:31:55 -0500 (EST) | Received: from ibb22.IBB.GOV ([152.75.72.10]) | by smtp.mathworks.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1DKVtc18665 | for <toasters(a)mathworks.com>; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:31:55 -0500 (EST) | Received: from ibb.gov (ws4314-090 [152.75.137.245]) | by ibb22.IBB.GOV (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA02219; | Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:30:33 -0500 (EST) | Message-ID: <3A899968.4E55285A(a)ibb.gov> | Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:30:32 -0500 | From: neil lehrer <nlehrer(a)ibb.gov> | Organization: US IBB | X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) | X-Accept-Language: en | MIME-Version: 1.0 | To: listsarch-toasters(a)enteract.com | Cc: "'Traitel, Eyal'" <eyal(a)netapp.com>, | "'Chris Thompson'" <cet1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk>, | toasters <toasters(a)mathworks.com> | Subject: Re: File deletion problem | References: | <A143246963DAD311AD5000508B8BC9A1022535(a)svr-gbn-exc-01.gbr.mentorg.com> | Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii | Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit | Sender: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com | Precedence: bulk -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

1 0

RE: ontap 6.x
by Mohler, Anissa 12 Oct '01

12 Oct '01

Chris, Actually your information is slightly out of date. The current GA release is 6.0.1R3. Not 5.3.6R2. There are other 6.x releases available as well with different features added. Click here to see what our current available releases are for an F740: http://now.netapp.com/NOW/cgi-bin/software?product=Data+ONTAP&platform=F740 And here to see what the terms "General Availability" and "First Customer Ship" mean: http://now.netapp.com/NOW/download/defs/ontap.shtml When you go to the software download page you get to choose the platform you're using and then you can see the current releases available and some statistics on the number of systems/customers running each release and how long they've been running it. Enjoy! -----Original Message----- From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 2:30 PM To: listsarch-toasters(a)enteract.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: ontap 6.x nlehrer(a)ibb.gov (neil lehrer) writes > > is it time to adopt 6.x? Of couse, that's an impossible question to answer in vacuo. My feeling is that for those who usually run Early Access releases, 6.0 is increasingly looking like the place to be. We are planning to upgrade the F740 we use as the primary filestore for our (somewhat grandiloquently named) Central Unix Service from 5.3.7R1 to 6.0.1R3 at the end of next week, when the university term ends. I want the fast snapshots, but apart from that I want to be on the track where bugs are fixed fastest, and that's clearly 6.0 now. On the other hand, the two F740's used by our mail systems have much more stereotyped usage patterns. They are currently at 5.3.6R2 (which is, after all, still the "Recommended Release") and it seems unlikely they will be upgraded before the summer, at the earliest. If you aren't pushing the edge of the envelope, in one way or another, there's no enormously compelling reason to move yet. Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1(a)ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG, Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.

2 1

RE: vol copy from 5.3.6R2 to 6.0.1R1
by Fox, Adam 12 Oct '01

12 Oct '01

> > "Fox, Adam" wrote: > > > > You can still do the transfer. It just has to revert > > the target (F760) to the 5.3 filesystems first. After > > that revert is complete, you can do the vol copy. > > My understanding is, in that case, I would have to revert ALL of the > 760's volumes before the migration from the 230. Although I'm > in a test > environment at this point--well, half of a test > environment--at the time > of the actual migration the 760 will have several hundred gigabytes' > worth of other volumes already online. > > Is there a way to perform the vol copy without affecting the target > filer's other volumes? I wasn't under the impression it has to revert ALL of the volumes, only the one you were copying. The volume upgrades are done independant of each other, so I wouldn't expect the downgrade to have to be done everywhere. Haven't tried in the lab, but I'd be REALLY surprised if it wasn't just the affected volume. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com

1 0

questions on quotas and drive mapping
by neil lehrer 12 Oct '01

12 Oct '01

hi, using ontap 6.01r3d3, nfs, cifs, nt4 domain and nis. 1. our qtrees are now unix style. my quotas file looks like: /vol/vol0/users tree - - /vol/vol0/shared tree - - * user@/vol/vol0/users - - * user@/vol/vol0/shared - - * group@/vol/vol0/shared - - my question is when we convert from unix to ntfs qtree what will be affected? will quotas still work, will we still have to maintain dual entries in nt and nis? any other gotchas? 2. if i do this(file1 is the dns name for the filer, users is a share): C:\WINNT>net use * \\file1\users Drive J: is now connected to \\file1\users. it works fine i do this: C:\WINNT>net use * \\file1\c$ password /user:domain\nlehrer and get System error 53 has occurred. i am substituting in the pw and domain name. will the net use command work when mapping the hidden admin share? thanks. -- regards

1 0

RE: ontap 6.x
by Fox, Adam 12 Oct '01

12 Oct '01

Just checked on toasters and for an F740, the "Recommened Release" or "General Availability Release" as it is not called has been 6.0.1R3 for quite a while. The "First Customer Shipped" (previously called "Early Access") releases are 6.0.3, 6.1R1, and 6.1.1R2. Just FYI -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 5:30 PM > To: listsarch-toasters(a)enteract.com > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: ontap 6.x > > > nlehrer(a)ibb.gov (neil lehrer) writes > > > > is it time to adopt 6.x? > > Of couse, that's an impossible question to answer in vacuo. > > My feeling is that for those who usually run Early Access releases, > 6.0 is increasingly looking like the place to be. We are planning to > upgrade the F740 we use as the primary filestore for our (somewhat > grandiloquently named) Central Unix Service from 5.3.7R1 to 6.0.1R3 > at the end of next week, when the university term ends. I want the > fast snapshots, but apart from that I want to be on the track where > bugs are fixed fastest, and that's clearly 6.0 now. > > On the other hand, the two F740's used by our mail systems have much > more stereotyped usage patterns. They are currently at 5.3.6R2 (which > is, after all, still the "Recommended Release") and it seems unlikely > they will be upgraded before the summer, at the earliest. If > you aren't > pushing the edge of the envelope, in one way or another, there's no > enormously compelling reason to move yet. > > Chris Thompson University of Cambridge > Computing Service, > Email: cet1(a)ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG, > Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom. >

1 0

RE: ontap 6.x
by Mike Sphar 12 Oct '01

12 Oct '01

Where is it stated that 5.3.6R2 is the "Recommended Release"? The NOW site lists "Data ONTAP 6.0.1R3" as the "General Availability Release" for me. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Peregrine Systems, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 2:30 PM To: listsarch-toasters(a)enteract.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: ontap 6.x nlehrer(a)ibb.gov (neil lehrer) writes > > is it time to adopt 6.x? Of couse, that's an impossible question to answer in vacuo. My feeling is that for those who usually run Early Access releases, 6.0 is increasingly looking like the place to be. We are planning to upgrade the F740 we use as the primary filestore for our (somewhat grandiloquently named) Central Unix Service from 5.3.7R1 to 6.0.1R3 at the end of next week, when the university term ends. I want the fast snapshots, but apart from that I want to be on the track where bugs are fixed fastest, and that's clearly 6.0 now. On the other hand, the two F740's used by our mail systems have much more stereotyped usage patterns. They are currently at 5.3.6R2 (which is, after all, still the "Recommended Release") and it seems unlikely they will be upgraded before the summer, at the earliest. If you aren't pushing the edge of the envelope, in one way or another, there's no enormously compelling reason to move yet. Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1(a)ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG, Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.

1 0

bah - apologies for old msgs getting popped back to the list
by ryan beasley 12 Oct '01

12 Oct '01

I goofed while piping an existing archive through a local mail2news gw and it appears that some of my header modifications didn't take effect. More specifically, it looks like I forgot to take care of the Cc: fields. :P I'm totally sorry for passing old stuff back to the list. - ryan

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