toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13514 discussions

Two disks vol0 for root volume
by Rob C. Tien 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

Hello, Does anyone out there has any thoughts on the pros and cons regrading whether or not is a good idea to create a separate two disks vol0 for the root volume on the Netapp Filer ? I understand that this question has been posted here before and If someone could send me those discussion threads that would be great !! Thanks in advance for your inputs !! Rob Tien Dominion Semiconductor

2 1

RE: Two disks vol0 for root volume
by Fox, Adam 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

Personally, I'm not a big fan of them unless you are in a SnapMirror environment or another environment where you may want to take volumes offline. Other than that, it's only about 50MB of space, so pick one volume and let it sit there. Just my opinion. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob C. Tien [mailto:rtien@Dominionsc.com] > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 2:29 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Two disks vol0 for root volume > > > Hello, > > Does anyone out there has any thoughts on the pros and cons regrading > whether or not is a good idea to create a separate two disks > vol0 for the > root volume on the Netapp Filer ? I understand that this > question has been > posted here before and If someone could send me those > discussion threads > that would be great !! > > Thanks in advance for your inputs !! > > Rob Tien > Dominion Semiconductor >

1 0

RE: Two disks vol0 for root volume
by lkaptan＠pro-link.net 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

It depends on the application you are planning to integrate with Filer. For instance multiple volumes for database environment enable you to use snaprestore efficiently. Putting the datafiles to another volume and seperating the root volume, provides flexibility. Is there anything else or anything wrong ? Original Message: ----------------- From: Rob C. Tien rtien(a)Dominionsc.com Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 14:29:22 -0400 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Two disks vol0 for root volume Hello, Does anyone out there has any thoughts on the pros and cons regrading whether or not is a good idea to create a separate two disks vol0 for the root volume on the Netapp Filer ? I understand that this question has been posted here before and If someone could send me those discussion threads that would be great !! Thanks in advance for your inputs !! Rob Tien Dominion Semiconductor -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .

1 0

RE: NetApp response on Microsoft Support for SQL Server and Exchange
by Clark Turner 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

>>> jack verdirame <jackv(a)netravision.com> 10/6/2001 4:16:12 PM >>> Hello, What you need to consider is why you bought the filer or for what reason the filer is being considered in the first place. There was probably some Value provided by Netapp. The only reason is for SQL and Oracle databases. I personally do not see the value as the 840 is $160k. Competition is less. But, we are not going purely for price. In the beginning we mentioned SQL and was told no problem. Now there is question. Netapp Engineer's will be here this week for onsite testing. It should be fun. As for defined support: It is interesting based on docs, MS support is in question in these environments, especially when other DB vendors support there product in a MS environment with Filers. You should start to question what MS is really supporting - their File System. A typical MS exchange outage in a Supported MS environment is several+ hours and could be days. Remember this is a MS product corruption and happens in a MS supported environment. Then what do you tell you upper management. In a Netapp environment that can be reduced to minutes+. I find it interesting that SQL can run error free for years on direct attached storage. The minute we put the data on the 840 we get corruption and blank records. That's unacceptable and has NOTHING to do with SQL or MS. It has everything to do with Netapp and there product. That's why they are going to come on site to try to fix the problem and to prove performance. So far the 840 is about 50% slower than local disks. The SQL issue is simple... We get Proof of support in writing or we will NOT purchase netapp's for our Network. We are an MS shop and we work with MS and rely on them for support. If someone on this forum does not like MS then so be it. I still have to guarantee uptime. This is not a problem now and I will not let it become a problem. If you really understand what Filers bring to your infrastructure and environment you should not be questioning Network Appliance but Microsoft. It is about time MS really started to understand what reliability, uptime, security and scalability are, not to mention a bunch of other verbs. I disagree and this is just an MS flame post. If you want to Flame MS that's fine, go ahead and make a fool of yourself. Saying that the SQL issue is MS's fault when SQL works perfectly on direct attached storage is just asinine. On a different subject - what about the gaping holes in MS OS and app security? What does management think of that? Oh yeah - download another SP and reboot. Management does not think of that as I take care of issues like that before they are a problem. I laugh at posts like this that slam Microsoft. It reminds of the movie Plains trains and automobiles. John candy(Del Griffith) turns to Steve martin(Neil page) and says "Gee, It must be nice to be perfect and Odor free". Have a good day, Have a good day and a good week. CT. Jack On Fri, 05 Oct 2001, Clark Turner wrote: > > Ken, > I know how you feel. I am in the same boat with the Netapp 840. We where about to migrate 150 DB's from SQL and oracle. > I hope my email did not scare you to much. I know people are running SQL with success. Others are not. I wanted to explain what I learned so Netapp could understand why I am worried. It was not meant to freak out others. > I would test and test and test and test to be Damn sure you do not have the problems we did. > > C > > >>> "Bunce, Ken" <KBunce(a)JunoLtg.com> 10/5/2001 8:55:02 AM >>> > Reading e-mails like one from Clark is really making me nervous, I just > convinced my corporation to migrate our SQL 7.0 database to a F840 based on > assurances from Sandy and our local representatives from NetApp of MS > support for SQL in a NAS environment. > > I, too, have gotten my email from NetApp regarding signing a NDA. Quit > worrying about protecting your tails and give us an honest answer. > > Ken Bunce > -----Original Message----- > From: Clark Turner > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com; sandra.lake(a)netapp.com > Sent: 10/5/01 10:25 AM > Subject: Re: NetApp response on Microsoft Support for SQL Server and > Exchange > > > Thanks for the information Sandy. I just read the QB article 5 times. > Towards the end of the article is states: > > Limited support is extended to only the SQL server application and DOES > NOT extend to any issues that may occur as a result of the use of non > windows Logo qualified products: > > EMC Clariion server > Network Appliance Filers (specifically the Netapp F760 and F800) > > > Nowhere in the article does it say that NAS is supported on The Netapp > products. There is a line stating "limited" support for NAS devices. > "Limited" is not a good enough reason for me to put my Job on the line > running SQL on this 840. > > Here is another quote: > > "Microsoft generally recommends that you store Database files either on > local disk subsystems or on storage area networks (SAN)." > > That's the one that grabs my attention. Add the lines about data > corruption and I am scared. > > Then add in a posts that passed through this list: > > "It is confirmed from our Microsoft Rep. that they will not support SQL > or > Exchange on NAS. But it is supported on SAN. We are moving our SQL > databases and exchange from NAS to a SAN. Leaving the F740 to do file > services at a > rather expensive cost." > > and > > "We > have also noticed that some of the databases have gone suspect when > there > was a hiccup on the comm side. You know as well as I that's not > acceptable. > In some instances the databases that went suspect could not be recovered > and > had to be restored from a SQL backup." > > > After all of this I thought I would test our loaner 840 out. I took a > copy of a production database that was 5 gig in size and then inserted > 34 million records into it. First I ran this on local Raid 5 on a Compaq > DL580. It took about 10 hours. Then I offloaded a fresh copy of the > database to the 840 and ran the test again. To our amazement the netapp > database was missing records. It failed to write the records down to > disk. Just as the above quote states and just as the MS article warns. A > single missing record means that my database us useless. I was never > able to fix the problem in a week of solid testing. Then a Netapp > employee sent me email talking about me signing a non disclosure > statement before Netapp would discuss the issue really made me step back > and think. > > I think our data is to important to chance. I know some people are doing > this but the events in the last week have told me that its just not > safe.I need a solution that is GUARANTEED and officially supported by > Microsoft. > > CT > > >>> "Lake, Sandy" <sandra.lake(a)netapp.com> 10/4/2001 6:12:51 PM >>> > Network Appliance has more than 200 customers using filers with SQL > Server 6.5, 7.0, or 2000 with databases ranging up to 800 GB. Microsoft > has published knowledge base article Q304261 on the Microsoft Web site, > which states support of their SQL Server product when used with Network > Appliance F760 or F800 series products. The article can be found at: > > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q304/2/61.asp?id=Q30426 > 1 > > The Microsoft rep in the field may not be aware of this knowledge base > article. Customers will receive SQL Server support from Microsoft > Product Support Services when they log a call. > > Network Appliance hosts 1.1 million Exchange seats at more than 200 > large Exchange accounts. Network Appliance is the primary provider of > support for SnapManager and filers deployed in Exchange 5.5 or Exchange > 2000 environments. When the Exchange log file and store are located on > filers and the customer experiences any problems getting to their data, > a support call would be opened with Network Appliance. Microsoft has > published knowledge base article Q237767, which covers offline and > snapshot backups in Exchange environments. That article can be found at > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q237/7/67.asp?id=Q23776 > 7 > > Working with the customer, Network Appliance will determine if the root > cause of the call is with SnapManager, filers, Exchange 5.5 or Exchange > 2000. If the root cause is unrelated to NetApp products, IBM Global > Services (IBMGS), NetApp's certified support partner for Exchange, is > brought into the call to assist us. Network Appliance, IBMGS, and the > customer work together to close the call to the customer's satisfaction. > The customer's support agreement would be contracted through NetApp. > There is no additional charge to the customer for the Exchange expertise > provided by IBMGS. Network Appliance offers customers several service > agreement levels that can be tailored to meet their specific support > requirements. > > Network Appliance offers many solutions that protect and enhance a > customers investment in the Microsoft platform, however this is not the > appropriate forum for that discussion. If you need or would like more > details about information in this email, please contact your local sales > rep. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------ > > Sandy Lake > Director, Microsoft Alliances > Network Appliance > > <<InterScan_Disclaimer.txt>> > ---------------------------------------- Content-Type: text/plain; name="InterScan_Disclaimer.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: ----------------------------------------

2 1

RE: Ack! I can't take it anymore!
by Joe Luchtenberg 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

Following the thread from '99, I noticed a link to the following post in a concurrent thread (http://teaparty.mathworks.com/toasters/2305.html). Notice the poster, the date/time stamp of his post and the date/time stamp of the post to which he was responding. I don't think I have ever felt so assured that a company stood behind their product. (It probably wasn't very fun to be in the customer service or OnTAP patch development teams in Sunnyvale on March 3, 1999.) Joe > -----Original Message----- > From: kevin graham [mailto:kgraham@dotnetdotcom.org] > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 3:11 PM > To: Greg Collins > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Ack! I can't take it anymore! > > > > > Correct me if Im wrong but I seem to recall a certain > > conversation about a "Patent Leather" bezel with Brass Studs... > > Yep, several of us have had to hold off on new installations because > NetApp's just not producing the features we've been > requesting for some > time, holding back our purchases (well, ok, maybe lack of > cash in the .com > environment is a bigger factor, but *shrug*) For anyone > somewhat new to > the list, check out the thread starting at: > > http://teaparty.mathworks.com/toasters/2271.html > > (don't let the subject throw you off). Even with the Burnt Sienna face > plates, I doubt even the 3-letter trolls on the list would claim > superiority over NTAP in visual performance. > > ..kg.. >

2 1

Problem with Clearcase on NetAPP/EMC NAS with Solaris servers [Rational CaseID:V0919657]
by Steve Gremban 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

FYI: > > Tech Note 21806 > > PRODUCT: ClearCase > OS: Solaris > DEFECT #: N/A > PATCH #: > REFERENCES: > > CREATED: 1-OCT-2001 > REVISED: > > SYMPTOM:Problem when views or vobs are on NetAPP/EMC NAS with Solaris > servers. > > CAUSE: SUN has caused a defect in synchronous I/O via a series of > patches. > > ClearCase sites that use a certified Network Attached > Storage device to hold VOB or view databases served by > a ClearCase host running Solaris 6, 7, or 8 must not > apply Solaris patch number 105720-17 to the VOB or view > server host. This patch introduces a defect in Solaris, > documented in Sun case number 36381458 (close, EAGAIN), > which causes protocol failures that could put VOB or > view data at risk. > > Sun has acknowledged the defect and made the following fixes available: > > OS Version Fix > ----------------------------------------------- > Solaris 8 Solaris patch # 108727-06 (or later) > Solaris 7 binary fix > Solaris 6 binary fix > > RESOLUTION: > The Solaris bug which is actually getting fixed is 4349744. > There are others out there, but they're all basically duplicates of > this one. > > The bug is fixed in Solaris 8 with patch 108727-06, and the current > version of > this patch is 108727-08. > > Patches for Solaris 7 and Solaris 2.6 should be coming > shortly. If you, or your customers are running into this issue on either > 5.7 or 5.6, > I would strongly recommend opening a case with SUN and asking for the > binary > fix, or t-patch to provide relief until the 'real' patch is released. > > For more information, contact Rational Software Technical Support. > -- Steve Gremban MGTS,CCNA Texas Instruments, SC Design Systems Strategy and Development Team gremban(a)ti.com 214-480-7888

1 0

Tracking logins
by David C Baumgardner 08 Oct '01

08 Oct '01

My boss has ask me to track who accesses one share using cifs on our Netapp my admin host is a unix box and the qtrees are setup as unix. Is there any native way to do this or any programs that perform this function? Dave

2 1

RE: NetApp response on Microsoft Support for SQL Server and Exchange
by Clark Turner 06 Oct '01

06 Oct '01

Ken, I know how you feel. I am in the same boat with the Netapp 840. We where about to migrate 150 DB's from SQL and oracle. I hope my email did not scare you to much. I know people are running SQL with success. Others are not. I wanted to explain what I learned so Netapp could understand why I am worried. It was not meant to freak out others. I would test and test and test and test to be Damn sure you do not have the problems we did. C >>> "Bunce, Ken" <KBunce(a)JunoLtg.com> 10/5/2001 8:55:02 AM >>> Reading e-mails like one from Clark is really making me nervous, I just convinced my corporation to migrate our SQL 7.0 database to a F840 based on assurances from Sandy and our local representatives from NetApp of MS support for SQL in a NAS environment. I, too, have gotten my email from NetApp regarding signing a NDA. Quit worrying about protecting your tails and give us an honest answer. Ken Bunce -----Original Message----- From: Clark Turner To: toasters(a)mathworks.com; sandra.lake(a)netapp.com Sent: 10/5/01 10:25 AM Subject: Re: NetApp response on Microsoft Support for SQL Server and Exchange Thanks for the information Sandy. I just read the QB article 5 times. Towards the end of the article is states: Limited support is extended to only the SQL server application and DOES NOT extend to any issues that may occur as a result of the use of non windows Logo qualified products: EMC Clariion server Network Appliance Filers (specifically the Netapp F760 and F800) Nowhere in the article does it say that NAS is supported on The Netapp products. There is a line stating "limited" support for NAS devices. "Limited" is not a good enough reason for me to put my Job on the line running SQL on this 840. Here is another quote: "Microsoft generally recommends that you store Database files either on local disk subsystems or on storage area networks (SAN)." That's the one that grabs my attention. Add the lines about data corruption and I am scared. Then add in a posts that passed through this list: "It is confirmed from our Microsoft Rep. that they will not support SQL or Exchange on NAS. But it is supported on SAN. We are moving our SQL databases and exchange from NAS to a SAN. Leaving the F740 to do file services at a rather expensive cost." and "We have also noticed that some of the databases have gone suspect when there was a hiccup on the comm side. You know as well as I that's not acceptable. In some instances the databases that went suspect could not be recovered and had to be restored from a SQL backup." After all of this I thought I would test our loaner 840 out. I took a copy of a production database that was 5 gig in size and then inserted 34 million records into it. First I ran this on local Raid 5 on a Compaq DL580. It took about 10 hours. Then I offloaded a fresh copy of the database to the 840 and ran the test again. To our amazement the netapp database was missing records. It failed to write the records down to disk. Just as the above quote states and just as the MS article warns. A single missing record means that my database us useless. I was never able to fix the problem in a week of solid testing. Then a Netapp employee sent me email talking about me signing a non disclosure statement before Netapp would discuss the issue really made me step back and think. I think our data is to important to chance. I know some people are doing this but the events in the last week have told me that its just not safe.I need a solution that is GUARANTEED and officially supported by Microsoft. CT >>> "Lake, Sandy" <sandra.lake(a)netapp.com> 10/4/2001 6:12:51 PM >>> Network Appliance has more than 200 customers using filers with SQL Server 6.5, 7.0, or 2000 with databases ranging up to 800 GB. Microsoft has published knowledge base article Q304261 on the Microsoft Web site, which states support of their SQL Server product when used with Network Appliance F760 or F800 series products. The article can be found at: http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q304/2/61.asp?id=Q30426 1 The Microsoft rep in the field may not be aware of this knowledge base article. Customers will receive SQL Server support from Microsoft Product Support Services when they log a call. Network Appliance hosts 1.1 million Exchange seats at more than 200 large Exchange accounts. Network Appliance is the primary provider of support for SnapManager and filers deployed in Exchange 5.5 or Exchange 2000 environments. When the Exchange log file and store are located on filers and the customer experiences any problems getting to their data, a support call would be opened with Network Appliance. Microsoft has published knowledge base article Q237767, which covers offline and snapshot backups in Exchange environments. That article can be found at http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q237/7/67.asp?id=Q23776 7 Working with the customer, Network Appliance will determine if the root cause of the call is with SnapManager, filers, Exchange 5.5 or Exchange 2000. If the root cause is unrelated to NetApp products, IBM Global Services (IBMGS), NetApp's certified support partner for Exchange, is brought into the call to assist us. Network Appliance, IBMGS, and the customer work together to close the call to the customer's satisfaction. The customer's support agreement would be contracted through NetApp. There is no additional charge to the customer for the Exchange expertise provided by IBMGS. Network Appliance offers customers several service agreement levels that can be tailored to meet their specific support requirements. Network Appliance offers many solutions that protect and enhance a customers investment in the Microsoft platform, however this is not the appropriate forum for that discussion. If you need or would like more details about information in this email, please contact your local sales rep. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------ Sandy Lake Director, Microsoft Alliances Network Appliance <<InterScan_Disclaimer.txt>>

2 1

RE: SQL2000 on F740 w/ Log Shipping?
by Todd Phillips 05 Oct '01

05 Oct '01

Hi Brian. What Cluster App are you running on the SQL Servers? Veritas, Legato, other? Have you checked the White Papers on NetApps Now site? Todd -----Original Message----- From: Wollermann, Brian To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Sent: 10/5/2001 2:28 PM Subject: SQL2000 on F740 w/ Log Shipping? I'm trying to do some testing with our F740 and SQL2000. With the DBs hosted on the filer the stupid checkbox is greyed out for log shipping. Has anyone been able to setup a standby server that accesses databases on the filer w/ SQL2000? Any pointers would be appreciated. We are trying to have two servers in a failover configuration with DBs loaded on the filer. Thanks.

1 0

RE: Faceplate colors: the secret memo
by Todd Phillips 05 Oct '01

05 Oct '01

Hey folks. I signed on here to get infromation on Filers. Please don't inundate me with joke email or things not seriously pertinent. I don't mean to be a stick in the mud but, we all get junk email all day and the last thing I need is another source of it. Please, lets keep this wounderful Toaster Board Posting on a professional level. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Chris Lamb To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Sent: 10/5/2001 12:53 PM Subject: Faceplate colors: the secret memo Wow, this shocking news just in: In light of the spirited Faceplate Debate (and previous archived threads) an anonymous source from deep within the company revealed that this is in fact a serious issue, causing considerable conflict between the aesthetic sensibilities of the industrial designers and the marketing department. After extensive psychological consultation and research into the impact of faceplate color on file server administrators, some very interesting color choices were vetoed. So here now, (with apologies to David Letterman) I present to you, the Top Ten Rejected NetApp Faceplate Color Schemes 10. Charcoal "where my NVRAM battery used to be" Grey 9. Harvest "every bad kitchen appliance from the 70's" Gold 8. Smoked "power supply" Salmon 7. Burnt "fan motor" Sienna 6. Dusty "choked floppy drive" Rose 5. Rhodamine "reformat" Red 4. Chocolate "YooHoo-in-the-air-intakes" Brown 3. Electric "static discharge" Blue 2. British Racing "for the fire extinguisher" Green And the number one Rejected NetApp Faceplate Color Scheme: 1. Deep "parity error" Purple I guess the good news is that "sea foam green with woodgrain panels" is still in the running! Yes! I want my next filer painted like a '74 Pinto! :-) -- Chris

3 2

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