toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13514 discussions

RE: Netbackup, ATL and Toasters
by Mike Ball 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

Paul, Here is my two cents worth ...with Veritas Netbackup /w NDMP option (as of version 3.4x) you can not share tape drives assigned to NDMP Servers (Netapp) even with the Shared Storage Option. Note: I am sure I will get some feedback from Netapp engineering on this as not being supported since you are setting up zoning but here goes....I would setup a separate zone on the Fibre switch which includes only the Netapp HBA and the ports on the Fibre to SCSI router with the tape drives the Netapp will use (Note: I would make sure only the drives which the Netapp needs to use are on the Fibre to SCSI router ports included in the zone). I would then zone each Media Servers HBA and the Fibre to SCSI routers ports which include all the other drives into a separate zone. This will save you the headache of trying to find out which luns (NDMP tape drives) not to use when you configure the Media Servers lun mappings. Hope this helps, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Carruthers, Paul A [mailto:Paul_Carruthers@AIMFUNDS.COM] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 4:05 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Netbackup, ATL and Toasters OK, this may have been drilled before, so forgive me. We have an existing ATL P6000 backing up our Unix and NT boxes via a SAN switch and NetBackup 3.4 that we now want to hook the filers into... I believe that the tape drives and the filers need to be in the same zone, if this is the case can the tape drives be used by other devices when not in use by the fiers?? Cheers -- Paul.

1 0

Netbackup, ATL and Toasters
by Carruthers, Paul A 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

OK, this may have been drilled before, so forgive me. We have an existing ATL P6000 backing up our Unix and NT boxes via a SAN switch and NetBackup 3.4 that we now want to hook the filers into... I believe that the tape drives and the filers need to be in the same zone, if this is the case can the tape drives be used by other devices when not in use by the fiers?? Cheers -- Paul.

1 0

RE: Yet another rsh question
by Thompson, Tim 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

One reason for restricting the rsh-ability of some commands is a concern about potential problems due to simultaneous invocations (via multiple rsh sessions). In a few cases the command code hasn't been designed to lock everything that needs locking, and in other cases we haven't reviewed the code enough to convince ourselves that problems doesn't exist, so until these issues are resolved, we restrict rsh-ability as a simple way of limiting their use and advising people of the danger. ...Tim Thompson...Network Appliance, Inc...

1 0

RE: Yet another rsh question
by Fox, Adam 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

Well, hostname may seem innocuous until you use it to change your hostname. And ifconfig may seem innocuous when you only use the -a flag, but what if you take down your primary interface, you know, the one you just rsh'ed in on? I can't and don't speak for the engineers, but I think the logic behind this is that by making you put the advanced mode in front of the command on an rsh, you're make a deliberate decision and hopefully avoiding a costly error. Again, speaking only for me here, as an appliance, we walk the line between lots of cool features and safety and stability. To use the old rope analogy, we don't just sell rope. Rope can be very useful. So we sell pre-configured rope that while it can be formed to do neat things, it is special rope that (hopefully) won't form a neuse. Advanced mode is one of those compromises. Most people don't use it and hopefully have no reason to use it. But for our more experienced rope-handlers, we try to provide a way to help those who say "I know I can handle my rope being more flexible and I understand that if I'm not careful, I might make a neuse or accidentally lasso myself". :) Anyway, enough rope talk. I just thought I'd try to explain it a bit. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Julius Talbot [mailto:jstalbot@mail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 10:04 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Yet another rsh question > > > this I really don't get. Why are some commands available as > "admin" privilege when you telnet in, and only available as > "advanced" via rsh? > > ie such innocent commands such as "hostname" and "ifconfig -a". > > JsT > -- > > _______________________________________________ > FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com > http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup > > Talk More, Pay Less with Net2Phone Direct(R), up to 1500 > minutes free! > http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?143 >

2 1

Yet another rsh question
by Julius Talbot 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

this I really don't get. Why are some commands available as "admin" privilege when you telnet in, and only available as "advanced" via rsh? ie such innocent commands such as "hostname" and "ifconfig -a". JsT -- _______________________________________________ FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Talk More, Pay Less with Net2Phone Direct(R), up to 1500 minutes free! http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?143

1 0

RE: migrating data from volume to volume
by Clawson, Simon 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

NDMP Copy seems to work really well for this type of job. Just remeber to put /vol/volx/ before your target path. I forgot and created a huge file in my root volume! Simon > -----Original Message----- > From: White, Lance [mailto:Lance.White@netapp.com] > Sent: Tuesday August 2001 14:32 > To: 'Lance Murayama'; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: migrating data from volume to volume > > > NDMPcopy or 'vol copy' would do this. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lance Murayama [mailto:opi@cognigine.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 6:22 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: migrating data from volume to volume > > > I am about to migrate 100GBytes of data from vol0 to a new > vol1 that I just added > to my F740. In the past I have always used tar | tar or dump > | restore. I have not done > this in quite some time. Are there better/faster ways to do > this? Any suggestions or > tips would be greatly appreciated. > > Also the 100GB that is being moved is a single qtree. I don't > know if that makes a > difference but I thought I would mention it. Thanx... >

1 0

RE: Backup Software
by Jay Newton 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

My organization is using CommVault's Galaxy. It narrowed down to that or SyncSort. If you are and NT shop with Exchange, CommVault is the way to go from a price/feature perspective. We have thus far been very pleased with our choice. We get very impressive throughput in NDMP both with direct attached devices and across the network. http://www.commvault.com -----Original Message----- From: Barry Lustig [mailto:barry@lustig.com] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 5:52 PM To: Toasters Subject: Backup Software Is there a general consensus on backup software for the files? The choices for backing up via NDMP seems to be growing and I'm curious what others are using. I've started looking at syncsort's product, bakbone's netvault, veritas, and time navigator. Each of the packages so far seems to have a pretty good mix of good and bad points. barry

1 0

Uniquely identifying a cluster, and cluster behavior
by Julius Talbot 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

How does one uniquely identify a cluster? I am trying to write some utilities that will tell me filesystem usage and the like, and would like to uniquely identify filers and clusters. I could use the system ids, but wouldn't it be impossible to determine the system id of a failed partner? Ideally, I want a single text string that identifies the pair as a whole. Anyone have an idea? -- _______________________________________________ FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Talk More, Pay Less with Net2Phone Direct(R), up to 1500 minutes free! http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?143

2 1

RE: migrating data from volume to volume
by White, Lance 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

NDMPcopy or 'vol copy' would do this. -----Original Message----- From: Lance Murayama [mailto:opi@cognigine.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 6:22 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: migrating data from volume to volume I am about to migrate 100GBytes of data from vol0 to a new vol1 that I just added to my F740. In the past I have always used tar | tar or dump | restore. I have not done this in quite some time. Are there better/faster ways to do this? Any suggestions or tips would be greatly appreciated. Also the 100GB that is being moved is a single qtree. I don't know if that makes a difference but I thought I would mention it. Thanx...

1 0

migrating data from volume to volume
by Lance Murayama 28 Aug '01

28 Aug '01

I am about to migrate 100GBytes of data from vol0 to a new vol1 that I just added to my F740. In the past I have always used tar | tar or dump | restore. I have not done this in quite some time. Are there better/faster ways to do this? Any suggestions or tips would be greatly appreciated. Also the 100GB that is being moved is a single qtree. I don't know if that makes a difference but I thought I would mention it. Thanx...

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