toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

RE: Another strong-arm move by Micro$oft
by Thomas.L.White＠chase.com 04 Oct '01

04 Oct '01

I guess its a good thing those SANs are so cheap. "Hall, John L" <HallJL(a)MapleLeaf.ca>@mathworks.com on 10/04/2001 10:54:38 AM Sent by: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com To: "'Clark Turner'" <cturner(a)phx1.bcbsaz.com>, toasters(a)mathworks.com, PMAGLINGER(a)scvl.com cc: Subject: RE: Another strong-arm move by Micro$oft It is confirmed from our Microsoft Rep. that they will not support SQL or Exchange on NAS. But it is supported on SAN. We are moving our SQL databases and exchange from NAS to a SAN. Leaving the F740 to do file services at a rather expensive cost. -----Original Message----- From: Clark Turner [mailto:cturner@phx1.bcbsaz.com] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 10:29 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com; PMAGLINGER(a)scvl.com Subject: Re: Another strong-arm move by Micro$oft I would like to know as well. I do not think we can go ahead with the roll out of our SQL DB's an 840 If MS says they do not support it. Clark >>> "Maglinger, Paul" <PMAGLINGER(a)scvl.com> 10/4/2001 6:05:55 AM >>> Can't Microsoft leave well enough alone? What's Network Appliance's view on this? http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2816142,00.html <http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2816142,00.html>

1 0

RE: Another strong-arm move by Micro$oft
by Bunce, Ken 04 Oct '01

04 Oct '01

This is very interesting considering that my NetApp representatives in conjunction with their SQL experts maintain that SQL and Exchange is supported on NetApp NAS appliances. They brought to point earlier mentioned MS knowledge Base documents. Even the NetApp's SQL engineering interface, her name eludes me now, in Redmond, stated the support exists. My corporation just purchased a F840 based on this information. Let's hear from NetApp! Ken Bunce Manager of Networking & Computer Technology Juno Lighting, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Hall, John L To: 'Clark Turner'; toasters(a)mathworks.com; PMAGLINGER(a)scvl.com Sent: 10/4/01 9:54 AM Subject: RE: Another strong-arm move by Micro$oft It is confirmed from our Microsoft Rep. that they will not support SQL or Exchange on NAS. But it is supported on SAN. We are moving our SQL databases and exchange from NAS to a SAN. Leaving the F740 to do file services at a rather expensive cost. -----Original Message----- From: Clark Turner [mailto:cturner@phx1.bcbsaz.com] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 10:29 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com; PMAGLINGER(a)scvl.com Subject: Re: Another strong-arm move by Micro$oft I would like to know as well. I do not think we can go ahead with the roll out of our SQL DB's an 840 If MS says they do not support it. Clark >>> "Maglinger, Paul" <PMAGLINGER(a)scvl.com> 10/4/2001 6:05:55 AM >>> Can't Microsoft leave well enough alone? What's Network Appliance's view on this? http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2816142,00.html <http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2816142,00.html>

1 0

RE: Another strong-arm move by Micro$oft
by Hall, John L 04 Oct '01

04 Oct '01

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. -----Original Message----- From: Clark Turner [mailto:cturner@phx1.bcbsaz.com] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 10:29 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com; PMAGLINGER(a)scvl.com Subject: Re: Another strong-arm move by Micro$oft I would like to know as well. I do not think we can go ahead with the roll out of our SQL DB's an 840 If MS says they do not support it. Clark >>> "Maglinger, Paul" <PMAGLINGER(a)scvl.com> 10/4/2001 6:05:55 AM >>> Can't Microsoft leave well enough alone? What's Network Appliance's view on this? http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2816142,00.html <http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2816142,00.html>

1 0

Re: Another strong-arm move by Micro$oft
by Clark Turner 04 Oct '01

04 Oct '01

I would like to know as well. I do not think we can go ahead with the roll out of our SQL DB's an 840 If MS says they do not support it. Clark >>> "Maglinger, Paul" <PMAGLINGER(a)scvl.com> 10/4/2001 6:05:55 AM >>> Can't Microsoft leave well enough alone? What's Network Appliance's view on this? http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2816142,00.html <http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2816142,00.html>

1 0

Re: Ack! I can't take it anymore!
by Thomas.L.White＠chase.com 04 Oct '01

04 Oct '01

I have not seen one in the flesh is there a goo photo representation on the web somewhere ?? thanks tw Dave Hitz <hitz(a)netapp.com>@mathworks.com on 10/04/2001 12:05:29 AM Sent by: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com To: jwitham(a)takedapharm.com cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Ack! I can't take it anymore! On Oct 03, jwitham(a)takedapharm.com wrote: > Hate the faceplate. It's that damn Burnt Cyan color Crayola that always > survived my grade school years unscathed. It's also "bubbly". It looks > _so_ out of place next to my 760s. Newsflash!: We are going to change that exciting "Burt Orange" color to the same "champagne" color as the F840. The F840 has been shipping for ages now, and nobody has complained loudly about the color. Of course, we have had a few people who said, "I wish it was something more 'flashy'." Now I personally love bright, highly-saturated colors, and I love the F840 face plate. But the problem is that, whatever direction of 'flashy' color you try to go, someone will have a bad association with it. Like for you, it sounds like you had a traumatic experience with a grade school teacher and a crayola. I am so sorry to have triggered this awful flashback for you. Hopefully the "champagne" will have more positive associations for people. :-) Dave

1 0

RE: Another strong-arm move by Micro$oft
by Joe Luchtenberg 04 Oct '01

04 Oct '01

Article alludes to possible SQL based file system implementation for Exchange. It quotes MS Knowledge Base Article Q115043 ( http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q115/0/43.asp <http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q115/0/43.asp> ), which states that NAS is not supported for SQL Server. However, that KB Article is marked as being last reviewed on March 4, 2000. A more recent article (Q304261; http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q304/2/61.ASP <http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q304/2/61.ASP> ; reviewed August 24, 2001) states that Microsoft provides limited support for non-clustered SQL Server on Network Appliance F700 and F800 filers. While not explicitly clear, this does appear to leave the door open for support of future Exchange architectures with SQL-based file systems on NetApp filers. This article inplies no changes to the current (uneasy) status quo between Microsoft and NetApp with regards to Exchange. 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: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:PMAGLINGER@scvl.com] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 9:06 AM To: 'NetApps list server' Subject: Another strong-arm move by Micro$oft Can't Microsoft leave well enough alone? What's Network Appliance's view on this? http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2816142,00.html <http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2816142,00.html>

1 0

Another strong-arm move by Micro$oft
by Maglinger, Paul 04 Oct '01

04 Oct '01

Can't Microsoft leave well enough alone? What's Network Appliance's view on this? http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2816142,00.html <http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2816142,00.html>

1 0

NetApp 840 vs EMC Celerra
by Mark Bentley 04 Oct '01

04 Oct '01

For those of you who were interested in the benchmark results of the NetApp 840 and EMC Celerra read on. You'll see the NetApp 840 is the fastest for this type of benchmark, though, according to EMC, they have a new data-mover with dual processors and twice as much cache (1GB) coming out very soon. I wonder how that will compare to an 880. The following results were generated by an in-house benchmark program that attempts to measure real-world file/dir read and write speeds. The code is written in Java, and is multi-threaded, so it makes full use of the 4 processors in the E4500 I'm using for testing. The E4500 has 4GB of physical memory and is attached to both the NetApp 840 and EMC Celerra with GigE through a dedicated Cisco 6509. The NetApp 840 has 3GB of memory, and the Celerra has 512MB on the data-mover and 4GB on the Symmetrix. Both are using NFS3 over TCP. I'll also try to get the Iozone numbers posted soon. The two programs I'm using are called dirtest and readtest. dirtest writes a hierarchy of directories containing file of a specified size, and readtest reads the files in that hierarchy, each keeping track of the time it takes. Note: for the write test (dirtest is the actual program name) throughput is calculated using file space over elapsed time, even though the elapsed time includes the time to create the directories as well. Even so, since directory creation takes a relatively small amount of time compared to writing files, the throughput calculations are useful, especially with larger files. With smaller file sizes, however, much of the time taken is for directory creation, and this should be taken into consideration when trying to rationalize the results. Threads = 16, Levels = 3, Branches = 4, Files = 4 Directories to be written = 1344 Files to be written = 5376 ***** NetApp 840 ***** dirtest (writes hierarchy of directories containing files of specified length) File Length File Space Elapsed time Calculated (Bytes) (KBytes) (milliseconds) Throughput (KB/Sec) -------------- --------------- -------------- ---------- 2 10.5 4686 2 3 15.75 4669 3 4 21 4677 4 6 31.5 4707 6 8 42 4702 8 12 63 4691 13 16 84 4664 18 24 126 4723 26 32 168 4718 35 48 252 4813 52 64 336 4774 70 96 504 4864 103 128 672 4933 136 192 1008 4808 209 256 1344 4717 284 384 2016 5476 368 512 2688 4707 571 768 4032 4324 932 1024 5376 4350 1235 1536 8064 4583 1759 2048 10752 4742 2267 3072 16128 4937 3266 4096 21504 4977 4320 6144 32256 5108 6314 8192 43008 5343 8049 12288 64512 5922 10893 16384 86016 6232 13802 24576 129024 7238 17825 32768 172032 8814 19518 49152 258048 11369 22697 65536 344064 14061 24469 98304 516096 20652 24990 131072 688128 26487 25979 196608 1032192 38479 26824 262144 1376256 50039 27503 393216 2064384 74266 27797 524288 2752512 99089 27778 786432 4128768 146789 28127 1048576 5505024 195042 28224 1572864 8257536 291421 28335 readtest (reads what we just wrote with dirtest) File Length File Space Elapsed time Calculated (Bytes) (KBytes) (milliseconds) Throughput (KB/Sec) -------------- --------------- -------------- ---------- 2 10.5 3890 2 3 15.75 4383 3 4 21 4534 4 6 31.5 4673 6 8 42 4233 9 12 63 4527 13 16 84 4610 18 24 126 4784 26 32 168 4555 36 48 252 4405 57 64 336 4697 71 96 504 4847 103 128 672 4605 145 192 1008 4629 217 256 1344 4692 286 384 2016 4750 424 512 2688 4967 541 768 4032 5011 804 1024 5376 5203 1033 1536 8064 4961 1625 2048 10752 5100 2108 3072 16128 5193 3105 4096 21504 5221 4118 6144 32256 5455 5913 8192 43008 5582 7704 12288 64512 6254 10315 16384 86016 6822 12608 24576 129024 7434 17355 32768 172032 8044 21386 49152 258048 9970 25882 65536 344064 11594 29676 98304 516096 15185 33987 131072 688128 18721 36757 196608 1032192 26726 38621 262144 1376256 35415 38860 393216 2064384 52214 39536 524288 2752512 69109 39828 786432 4128768 102884 40130 1048576 5505024 136483 40334 1572864 8257536 204612 40357 ***** EMC Celerra ***** dirtest (writes directories and files) File Length File Space Elapsed time Calculated (Bytes) (KBytes) (milliseconds) Throughput (KB/Sec) -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- 2 10.5 4872 2 3 15.75 4924 3 4 21 5271 3 6 31.5 5152 6 8 42 5168 8 12 63 5501 11 16 84 5460 15 24 126 5714 22 32 168 5584 30 48 252 5405 46 64 336 5770 58 96 504 5831 86 128 672 5923 113 192 1008 6466 155 256 1344 6009 223 384 2016 5897 341 512 2688 6142 437 768 4032 6137 656 1024 5376 5888 913 1536 8064 6177 1305 2048 10752 6135 1752 3072 16128 6315 2553 4096 21504 6469 3324 6144 32256 7139 4518 8192 43008 6730 6390 12288 64512 7764 8309 16384 86016 8384 10259 24576 129024 10431 12369 32768 172032 11049 15569 49152 258048 14560 17723 65536 344064 17897 19224 98304 516096 23960 21539 131072 688128 29263 23515 196608 1032192 42773 24131 262144 1376256 54041 25466 393216 2064384 97181 21242 524288 2752512 129826 21201 786432 4128768 240172 17190 1048576 5505024 310822 17711 1572864 8257536 454180 18181 readtest (reads what we just wrote with dirtest) File Length File Space Elapsed time Calculated (Bytes) (KBytes) (milliseconds) Throughput (KB/Sec) -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- 2 10.5 4279 2 3 15.75 4247 3 4 21 4858 4 6 31.5 4899 6 8 42 5340 7 12 63 4724 13 16 84 5325 15 24 126 5410 23 32 168 5059 33 48 252 4888 51 64 336 5624 59 96 504 5265 95 128 672 5517 121 192 1008 5593 180 256 1344 5592 240 384 2016 5297 380 512 2688 5715 470 768 4032 6358 634 1024 5376 5333 1008 1536 8064 5348 1507 2048 10752 5526 1945 3072 16128 5592 2884 4096 21504 5617 3828 6144 32256 6289 5128 8192 43008 6055 7102 12288 64512 6368 10130 16384 86016 7624 11282 24576 129024 7738 16674 32768 172032 9099 18906 49152 258048 11597 22251 65536 344064 14100 24401 98304 516096 19976 25835 131072 688128 25949 26518 196608 1032192 41360 24956 262144 1376256 60134 22886 393216 2064384 111230 18559 524288 2752512 146978 18727 786432 4128768 230392 17920 1048576 5505024 307887 17880 1572864 8257536 457403 18053 -- Mark A Bentley Technology Development Group AT&T Wireless Services

2 1

RE: Ack! I can't take it anymore!
by jwitham＠takedapharm.com 04 Oct '01

04 Oct '01

Believe it or not, I have been on both sides of the fence. When I worked in the POS industry, we used to have to pay the manufacturer extra to spray paint some terminals black to fit the deco of an upscale bath and bodycare boutique. Different customers want different appearances. Someone had mentioned skinnable filers... Would it really be that much more work? Maybe I'll find a stellar airbrush shop to give the 880 face a flamejob?! How about beer colors? It would go well with ONTAP and the codenames... Pilsner Amber Lager Stout You could consider clustered models "Talls" Plus, I'd love to try to convince management to "buy a sixpack of Lager's" Sorry. Still think Chrome should make a comeback. John Witham Senior Data Networking Engineer Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc. V://847.383.3304 F://847.383.3205 mailto://jwitham@takedapharm.com -----Original Message----- From: Dave Hitz [mailto:hitz@netapp.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 11:05 PM To: jwitham(a)takedapharm.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Ack! I can't take it anymore! On Oct 03, jwitham(a)takedapharm.com wrote: > Hate the faceplate. It's that damn Burnt Cyan color Crayola that always > survived my grade school years unscathed. It's also "bubbly". It looks > _so_ out of place next to my 760s. Newsflash!: We are going to change that exciting "Burt Orange" color to the same "champagne" color as the F840. The F840 has been shipping for ages now, and nobody has complained loudly about the color. Of course, we have had a few people who said, "I wish it was something more 'flashy'." Now I personally love bright, highly-saturated colors, and I love the F840 face plate. But the problem is that, whatever direction of 'flashy' color you try to go, someone will have a bad association with it. Like for you, it sounds like you had a traumatic experience with a grade school teacher and a crayola. I am so sorry to have triggered this awful flashback for you. Hopefully the "champagne" will have more positive associations for people. :-) Dave

2 1

RE: When will Netapp begin supporting SDLT drives?
by Collie, Michael 02 Oct '01

02 Oct '01

Support for HP LTO is targeted in Data ONTAP 6.2, which should be release in the February 02 timeframe. -----Original Message----- From: Tom Wike [mailto:t-wike@ti.com] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 1:26 PM To: Collie, Michael Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: When will Netapp begin supporting SDLT drives? While we are on the subject how about HP LTO drives? Thanks! Collie, Michael writes: > NetApp will have support for SDLT in Data ONTAP 6.1.2 which is targeted for release in the November timeframe. > > Michael. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Ball [mailto:MBall@datalink.com] > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 12:25 PM > To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: When will Netapp begin supporting SDLT drives? > > When is Netapp planning on supporting SDLT tape drives? > > > Mike > -- Tom Wike UNIX System Administration FDAO Productivity Infrastructure Texas Instruments, Inc. E-Mail: t-wike(a)ti.com Regular Mail: 7839 Churchill Way Phone: (972) 917-1252 M/S 3984 Fax: (972) 917-3891 Dallas, TX 75251 Cell PH:(214) 212-4497 E-Mail my Cell Phone: 2142124497(a)mobile.mycingular.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------

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